The Remains of John Corbet, Section 10
§ 10. Concerning the Angels of the Seven Churches in ASIA.
IT is much inſiſted on, that theſe Angels were biſhops of a ſuperior Order to that of presbyters. Whereupon let it be conſidered, 1. That the title of Stars and Angels, are not proper, but figurative and myſtical names, made uſe of in a myſtical book; and that the ſaid names are common to all miniſters, Gregory the Great, l. 34. Mor. on Jo… c. 4. ſaith, that theſe Angels are the preachers of the Churches. 2. That the name Angel may be taken collectively, not individually. Auſtins Homily on the Apoc. on theſe words, I will remove thy Candleſtick, ſaith, that John calls the Church the Angel. As the Civil ſtate of the Pagano-Chriſtian Empire is called the Beaſt, and the Eccleſiaſtical ſtate, the Whore; ſo Angel may ſignifie the whole Presbytery, but put in the ſingular number, to hold proportion to the ſeven ſtars, which ſignifie the ſame thing, and the ſeven Candleſticks. In theſe Epiſtles to the Churches, there are indications, that not a ſingle perſon, but a company is repreſented under this name, Rev. 2.10, 16, 24, 25. 3. Beza ſaith, that this Angel was only praeſes. Indeed he to whom the title of biſhop was appropriated by the ancient Fathers, was the Preſident of the presbytery. Ambroſe on 1 Tim. c. 3. ſaith, He is the biſhop who is firſt among the preſbyters. This priority or preſidency is in Hiſtory obſerved to have begun firſt at Alexandria, the people whereof above other men were given to ſchiſm and ſedition, as Socrates ſaith of them, l: 7. c. 13. If this preſidency began at Alexandria upon the death of Mark, it muſt needs be long before the death of John the Apoſtle. Howbeit, Clement in his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, takes no notice of ſuch a priority or preſidency of one above the reſt in that Church. And Jerome having mentioned John as the laſt of the Apoſtles, ſaith that afterwards one was ſet over the reſt. Now whereas Jerome called the imparity of biſhops and presbyters, an Apoſtolical tradition, it is to be noted that with him an Apoſtolical tradition, and Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome, are the ſame.
But the main thing ſtill remains unproved, for ought that is to be gathered from this title of Angel, or from any thing contained in theſe Epiſtles to the Aſian Churches, namely, that theſe Angels (whatſoever they might be) were biſhops of a ſuperior order than that of presbyters, or that they had a ſuperiority of juriſdiction over the presbyters, or that they were biſhops ſet over divers ſetled Churches, or fixed Congregations, with their Paſtors, or that they had the ſole power of juriſdiction and ordination. The main point in controverſie is not, Whether biſhops, but whether ſuch as the preſent Dioceſan biſhops, have continued from the Apoſtles times to this Age.
The ancient biſhop was the Officer of a particular Church, not a general Officer of many Churches He was not a biſhop of biſhops; that is, he did not aſſume a power of ruling biſhops who have their proper ſtated Churches. Cypr. in Conc. Carth. ſaith, None of us calls himſelf, or makes himſelf to be a biſhop of biſhops, or by tyrannical terror drives his Colleagues to a neceſſity of obeying. The ancient biſhop did not govern alone, but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church; He did not, and might not ordain without the Counſel of his Clergy. Ignatius in his Epiſtle to the Trall. ſaith, What is the presbytery, but the ſacred Aſſembly of the Councellors and Confeſſors of the biſhops? Cyprian in his epiſtle to Cornelius, wiſheth him to read his Letters to the flouriſhing Clergy at Rome, that did preſide with him. Id. l. 3. Ep. 14. Eraſm. Edit. From the beginning of my Epiſcopacy I reſolved to do nothing without your counſel, and without the conſent of my people. 4. Conc. Carthag. 23. The ſentence of a biſhop ſhall be void without the preſence of his Clericks. Concil. Ca…thag c. 22. Let not a biſhop ordain Clericks without a Council of his Clericks.
The Preſent Eccleſiaſtical Government, compared with the Ancient EPISCOPACY.
IT is commonly objected againſt the Nonconformiſts, That they are enemies to Epiſcopacy, and that they renounce the Ancient Government received in all the Churches. The truth of this Objection may eaſily be believed by thoſe that hear of Epiſcopal Government, and conſider only the name thereof, which hath continued the ſame till now, but not the thing ſignified by that name, which is ſo changed, that it is of another nature and kind from what was in the firſt Ages. There be Nonconformiſts, who think they are more for the Ancient Epiſcopacy, than the Aſſertors of the preſent Hierarchy are; and who believe they are able to make it evident, may they be permitted. Something to this purpoſe is here in a ſhort Scheme tendered to conſideration, and proof is ready to be made of each particular here aſſerted, touching the ſtate and practice of the Ancient Church.
1. IN the firſt ages, a Political Church conſtituted as well for Government and Diſcipline, as for Divine Worſhip, was one particular Society of Chriſtians, having its proper and immediate biſhop or biſhops, paſtor or paſtors. In theſe times the loweſt political Church, is a Dioceſs uſually conſiſting of many hundred pariſhes, having, according to the Hierarchical principle, no biſhop but the Dioceſan. Yet theſe pariſhes being ſtated eccleſiaſtical Societies, having their proper paſtors, are really ſo many particular Churches.
2. In the firſt Ages, the biſhops were biſhops of one ſtated Eccleſiaſtical Society, or particular Church. But in the preſent age, biſhops that are of the loweſt rank, according to the Hierarchical principle, are biſhops of many hundred churches, which kind of biſhop the ancient churches did not know, and which differs as much from the ancient biſhop, as the General of an Army from the Captain of a ſingle Company.
3. The biſhop of the firſt Ages was a biſhop over his own Church; but he was not a biſhop of biſhops; that is, he was not a Ruler of the Paſtors of other Churchs. But the preſent biſhop, even of the loweſt rank, according to the Hierarchical principle, is a biſhop of biſhops, namely, of the presbyters of his Dioceſs, who are the proper and immediate Paſtors of their ſeveral Churches, and really biſhops according to the true import of that name and office, as it is in Scripture.
4. The Presbyters of the Church of England, if they be not biſhops, are not of the ſame order with the presbyters mentioned in Scripture; for all presbyters therein mentioned, were biſhops truly and properly ſo called. Now if they be not of the ſame order with the Scripture presbyters, they are not of divine, but meerly humane inſtitution: but if it be acknowledged that they are of the ſame order, (as indeed they are) why are they denied to be biſhops of their reſpective Charges? And why are they bereaved of the Epiſcopal or paſtoral Authority therein?
5. The biſhops of the firſt Ages had no greater number of ſouls under their Epiſcopacy, than of which they could take the perſonal overſight. But the preſent biſhops have commonly more ſouls under their Epiſcopacy, than a hundred biſhops can perſonally watch over. The ordinary work of the ancient biſhop, was to preach, give thanks, adminiſter the Euchariſt, pronounce the bleſſing, and exerciſe diſcipline to the people under his charge. But the biſhops of the preſent age, neither do nor can perform theſe miniſtries to the people that are under their charge.
6. The ancient biſhop did exerciſe his Epiſcopa…y perſonally, and not by Delegates or Subſtitutes. But the preſent biſhop doth for the moſt part exerciſe it not perſonally, but either by his Delegates, who have no Epiſcopal authority of themſelves, but what they derive from him alone; or by Subſtitutes, whom he accounts no biſhops.
7. The ancient biſhops did not govern alone, but in conjunction with the presbyters of his Church, he being the firſt presbyter, and ſtiled the Brother and Colleague of the presbyters. But the preſent biſhop hath in himſelf alone the power of juriſdiction both over the Clergy and Laity.
8. The ancient biſhop did not, and might not ordain Miniſters without the counſel of his Clergy. But the preſent biſhop hath the ſole power of ordination. Tho ſome presbyters whom he ſhall think fit, join with him in laying on of hands, yet he alone hath the whole power of the act without their conſent or counſel.
9. To labour in the word and doctrine, was anciently the moſt honourable part of the biſhops work, and it was conſtantly performed by him in his particular Church or Congregation. But now preaching is not reckoned to be the ordinary work of a biſhop, and many biſhops preach but rarely and extraordinarily.
10. The ancient biſhops were choſen by all the people, at leaſt not without their conſent, over whom they were to preſide. And when a biſhop was to be ordained, it was the ordinary courſe of the firſt ages, for all the next biſhops to aſſemble with the people for whom he was to be ordained, and every one was acquainted with his converſation. But the preſent biſhops entrance into his office, is by a far different way.
11. Anciently there was a biſhop with his Church in every City which had a competent number of Chriſtians. But in the later times many, yea moſt Cities have not their proper biſhops (I mean biſhops in the Hierarchical ſenſe) tho they be as large and populous as thoſe that have. It is to be noted, that the manner was not anciently as now, that a Church and its biſhop did cauſe that to be called a City, which otherwiſe would not be ſo called; but any Town-corporate or Burrough was foreign a City, according to the ancient uſe of the word.
12. Becauſe in the firſt ages the Chriſtians of a City, and its adjacent Villages, did ordinarily make up but one competent Congregation; There was commonly but one Church in a City, and that City-church took in all the Chriſtians of the adjacent Villages, who were but one ſtated Society, all the members whereof might have perſonal communion one with another. But the dividing of the biſhops Cure into ſuch parts as are now called Pariſhes, came not in till long after the Apoſtles times; and when that diviſion firſt took place, they were but as Chappels of Eaſe to the City-church. Here it is to be noted, That till Conſtantine's time it cannot be proved that there were above four or five Churches in all the world that conſiſted of more people than one of … pariſhes, nor of half ſo many as ſome of them.
13. In the beginning of Chriſtianity, Cities or Towns were judged the …itteſt places for the conſtituting of Churches, becauſe in them the materials of a Church, to wit, believers, were moſt numerous, and in them was the greateſt opportunity of making …ore Converts, with other advantages which the Villages did not afford. Yet when the number of Chriſtians encreaſed in a Region, Churches having their proper Biſhops, were conſtituted in Villages, or places that were not Cities; one proof whereof is in the Chorepiſcopi, who were biſhops diſtinct from ordinary presbyters. Thus it was in the firſt ages. But in the following times, when the worldly grandure of Epiſcopacy was riſing, dec…ed were made that biſhops might not be ordained in Villages or ſmall Cities, leſt the name and authority of a biſhop ſhould …e contemptible.
14. Tho it hath been decreed by Councils, That there be but one biſhop in a city, and the cuſtom hath generally prevailed; yet there in manifold proof, that in the firſt ages more biſhops than one were allowed at once in the ſame city, yea in the ſame church. Indeed the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorians now extant, being comparatively but of later ages, and having reſpect to the government of their own times, ſet down the ſucceſſion of the ancient biſhops by ſingle perſons; whereas ſeveral biſhops preſiding at the ſame time, the ſurviving and moſt noted Colleague was reckoned the Succeſſor.
15. The ancient biſhops exerciſed diſcipline in a ſpiritual manner by the ſword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and by arguments deduced from it, ſought to convince the judgment, and awe the conſcience, according to the true nature of Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline. But the preſent biſhops have their Courts, which are managed like Secular Courts, to compel men to an outward obſervance of their decrees, by the dread of temporal penalties annexed to excommunication.
16. The preſent biſhops ſay of their Church-government, that without ſecular force none would regard it. But the ancient biſhops thought it a reproach to Chriſts diſcipline to declare to the world, that it is a powerleſs thing of it ſelf, and inſufficient to obtain … unleſs the temporal ſword inforce it.
17. The Epiſcopal or Paſtoral authority is now commonly exerciſed by a Lay-chancellor; and tho an ordinary prieſt be preſent in the Court to ſpeak the words of excommunication, yet the Chancellor as Judg decrees it. And excommunications and abſolutions paſs in the biſhops name and authority, when he never had the hearing of the cauſe: but anciently it was not ſo. In this caſe I enquire, Whether Chriſt hath authoriſed any biſhop to delegate his Epiſcopal power to a Lay-man, yea, or to a Clergy-man, if that Clergy-man be not as Chriſts commiſſioned Officer, authorized to exert that power?
18. The ſentence of excommunication is denounced for any non obſerva…ce of the judgment of the Court, tho in caſes of doubtful right, and in the ſmalleſt matters. But no proof of ſuch practice can be produced from the firſt ages. And let the biſhops themſelves judg, howſoever contempt may be pretended in the caſe, Whether many who are uſually ſo ſentenced either upon doubtful or trivial matters, do indeed deſerve to be adjudged to ſuch a ſtate as that ſentence duly adminiſtred doth import?
19. The Pariſh Miniſter is bound to denounce in his Church the ſentence of Excommunication decreed by the Court, tho he have no cognizance of the cauſe, and tho he know the ſentence to be unj…ſt. But no ſuch practice was known in the ancient church.
20. Miniſters at their Ordination receive that Office which eſſentially includes an Authority and Obligation to teach their flocks; yet they may not preach without a licenſe from the biſhop in their own proper charges or cures, tho they perform other Offices of the Miniſtry. But anciently it was not ſo.
21. The preſent biſhops require of their Clergy an Oath of Canonical obedience; but let any proof be given that the ancient biſhops did ever impoſe ſuch an Oath, or that the presbyters ever took it.
22 The Pariſh miniſter hath not the liberty of examining whether the Infant brought to Baptiſm be a capable ſubject thereof; that is, Whether he be the child of a Chriſtian or Infidel; but he muſt baptize the child of every one that is preſented by Godfathers and Godmothers, who commonly have little or no intereſt in the Infant, nor care of its education, and who not ſeldome are but Boys and Girls.
23. Confirmation is to be adminiſtred only by the biſhop; and yet it is in an ordinary way impoſſible for him to examine all perſons to be confirmed by him within his Dioceſs. Conſequently it cannot be duly adminiſtred to multitudes of perſons that are to be preſented thereunto; and they that are confirmed, are few in compariſon of thoſe that are not. But the ancient biſhops being biſhops of one particular Church, were capable of taking the overſight of every particular perſon of their flocks, and did perſonally perform the ſame.
24. A great part of the adult members of Pariſh-churches, are ſuch as underſtand not what Chriſtianity is; but the ancient churches were careful that all their members might be competently knowing in the Religion which they profeſſed, as appears by their diſcipline towards the Catechumeni, and the long time before they admitted them to baptiſm.
25. The Pariſh miniſters have no remedy, but to give the Sacrament to ignorant and ſcandalous perſons that offer themſelves thereunto; they can but accuſe the openly wicked in the Chancellors Court, and but for one time deny the Sacrament to ſome kind of notorious ſinners; but then they are bound to proſecute them in the Court, and to procure a ſentence againſt them there, where not one notorious ſinner of a multitude is or can be brought to a due tryal, in regard of the way of proceeding in Eccleſiaſtical Courts, and the multitude of ſouls in every Dioceſs. The conſequent hereof is the general intruſion of the groſly ignorant and profane, who pollute the communion of the Church, and eat and drink damnation to themſelves.
26. All pariſhioners that are of age, are compelled to receive the Sacrament, how unfit or unwilling ſoever they be, by the terrors of penalties ſubſequent to excommunication; and thoſe that have been excommunicated for refuſing to receive, are abſolved from that ſentence, if being driven thereunto they will receive the Sacrament rather than lye in Gaol. And the Pariſh-miniſters are compelled to give the Sacrament to ſuch.
27. Many Orthodox, Learned, and Pious men, duly qualified for the Miniſtry, are caſt and kept out of it for not declaring an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in the Liturgy and Book of Ordination. Let any proof be given that ever any of the ancient Biſhops or Churches thought all the points contained in thoſe books ſo neceſſary to be aſſented and conſented to, or that any of them ſo ſeverely required the like conformity to opinions, forms and ceremonies of the like nature and reaſon.
28. The preſent biſhops debar all Chriſtians from the Lords Supper who through unfeigned ſcruple of conſcience refuſe to kneel in the act of receiving the Sacramental bread and wine; and they debar from baptiſm the children of thoſe Parents who judg it unlawful for them to permit the ſigning of their children with the ſign of the Croſs. But the ancient biſhops did not ſo, nor doth the practiſe of Antiquity warrant the ſame.
29. The greateſt ſeverity of the preſent Church-diſcipline, is directed againſt Miniſters and people who obſerve not full conformity to the Rules, Forms, Rights, and Ceremonies preſcribed in the Liturgy and Canons. But the ancient biſhops exerciſed it againſt thoſe who ſubverted the Chriſtian faith by damnable Hereſies, or enormouſly tranſgreſſed the Rules of ſoberneſs, righteouſneſs, and godlineſs, preſcribed of God in his word.
30. The Oath impoſed upon the Church-wardens to make their Preſentments according to the Book of Articles framed by the biſhop, hath had this conſequence (which ought to be laid to heart) that commonly they would rather overlook their Oath, than become accuſers of their honeſt neighbours; not only thoſe who withdraw from, but thoſe who hold communion with the Pariſh churches.
31. The requiring of the reordination of thoſe miniſters, who have been ordained by presbyters, is contrary to the practiſe of the ancient Church; it contradicts the judgments of many Eminent biſhops, and other Divines of the Church of England, who have maintained the validity of Presbyterial ordination; it nullifies the miniſtry of all the Foreign Reformed Churches, and of moſt, if not of all the Lutheran churches; and it advances the Church of Rome above them; for the prieſts of the Church of Rome upon their converſion are received without reordination: whereas thoſe that come from the Foreign Reformed churches, muſt be reordained before they be admitted to the miniſtry in the church of England. And all this is done, when in Scripture the office of a biſhop and presbyter is one and the ſame, and the difference between them came in afterwards by Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome.
It is commonly ſaid, That Churches and Biſhops being now delivered from their ancient low and diſtreſſed ſtate under the tyranny and perſecution of the Heathen powers, and enjoying the patronage and bounty of Chriſtian Rulers, ſhould not be conſined to their ancient meanneſs, narrowneſs and weakneſs, but be enlarged in opulency, amplitude, and potency, anſwerable to the Civil State.
Anſ. It is freely granted, that the ſtate Eccleſiaſtical ſhould in reaſonable proportion partake of the proſperity of the Civil ſtate. But the queſtion ſtill remains.
1. Whether for the encreaſe of the wealth, power and ſplendor of biſhops, and other chief Clergy-men, or for any political conſiderations, the eſſential form of a biſhops church conſtituted by the Apoſtles, who were immediately commiſſioned from Chriſt, ſhould be changed from a ſingle Congregation or Society, of which the biſhop took the perſonal overſight, to a dioceſs conſiſting of many, yea commonly of many hundred ſtared congregations, having each of them their proper presbyter, and all of them but one biſhop, to whom it is impoſſible to take the perſonal overſight of the ſouls therein, and to perform towards them all the duties which were the ordinary work of the ancient biſhop.
2. Whether the office of a biſhop or elder of one ſingle church, inſtituted by the Holy Ghoſt, ſhould be changed into mother eſſentially different office, viz. of a biſhop of many, yea many hundred ſingle churches, each whereof have their proper paſtors or presbyters, who according to the Scripture are the ſame with biſhops?
3. Whether the office of presbyter or elder of divine inſtitution, who according to the Scripture is truly and properly a biſhop, ſhould be changed into an office eſſentially different, viz. of a presbyter who is no biſhop, but only the biſhops ſubject, ſubſtitute, or Curate? And whether the ſaid office ſhould be ſtatedly bereaved of the power of diſcipline, which is eſſential to it?
4. Whether the office of a biſhop, which is a truſt given by Chriſt to be perſonally diſcharged by him that receives it, ſhould be executed by delegation to a Lay-man, yea or to a Clergy-man who is held to be no biſhop?
5. Whether the ancient government of the Church by a biſhop in conjunction with his presbyters, ſhould be changed into a government by the biſhop alone, and by his Chancellor and Officials, whoſe authority is derived from him?