Vindication of the Dissertations Concerning Episcopacy, Chapter 1 · Section 16 – Section 17
Section XVI.
Of modelling Churches according to the Government of the Roman ſtate. Of exemplars of Metropolitans among the Jewes. Teſtimonies of the Apoſtles inſtituting Metropolitans.
THeir ſecond anſwer is, we doe not believe that ever it can be proved that the Apoſtles did modell the Government of the Church, according to the Government of the Roman ſtate. This was the after policy of Chriſtian Emperours and Biſhops, but no part of Apoſtolicall policy; And therefore it doth not follow, that becauſe there were divers Cities under the juriſdiction of thoſe 7. Cities, that therefore there ſhould be divers Churches ſubordinate to the 7. Aſian Churches.
2. That the Apoſtles, which deſigned to plant a Church in the Heathen World, ſhould doe it in that manner as would be moſt advantagious to their end, will not I hope be accounted ſtrange. This generally was by betaking themſelves to the Cities, rather than the villages, and firſt to the greater Cities, unto which was the moſt frequent reſort, that by that meanes the faith might be moſt compendiouſly and ſucceſſefully propagated. If a greater City reſiſted their preaching, or fewer Saints were gathered there, I do not then pretend to prove, or to believe that that was conſtituted a Metropolitan Church with ſuperiority over others of greater antiquity, or larger growth in the faith whatſoever the dignity of it were in the ſecular account; But when a whole Nation is converted, and the greateſt and moſt populous Cities firſt, and from thence the ſound gone out into all the Region, and leſſer Cities in it, that then the Apoſtles, which certainly conſtituted Biſhops in every believing City (and therefore what is reported to have been done foreign in every Church, Acts 14. 23. is appointed to be done foreign in every City, Tit. 1. 5) ſhould ſet up the principall Sees in thoſe moſt Chriſtian Cities, which had formerly the priority in the Romane ſtate, as it is the wiſeſt method, and fitteſt for the wiſest planters to take, ſo we have all reaſon to believe it was done particularly in the Lydian or Proconſular Aſia, in which there being many more Chriſtian Cities, than thoſe ſeven, to whom Chriſt's Epiſtle is addreſt, thoſe are in all reaſon to be accounted the chiefe of that Region, and thoſe which are not named, leſſe princi…all than they: which concurring with what we finde recorded in Pliny and Ptolomy of the account of them in the imperiall noticiae, if it demonſtrate not, is yet matter of exceeding great probability, and may perſwade with any reaſonable man, as long as there is nothing in any degree ſuch, which is offered to be confronted againſt it.
3. If that which ſcandalizeth the Aſſemblers (for we are left to Divine what it is) be the unfitneſſe that the Apoſtles ſhould modell the Church according to the Roman ſtate. I ſhall firſt demand how it is poſſible to imagine a plantation of a Church in any, whether Jewiſh or Heathen ſtate, without doing ſomewhat equivalent to this? For ſuppoſe Joſeph of Arimathea to have (as*De excid. & Conqu. Brit. Gildas ſaith) converted the Britannick church in Tiberius's time, is it to be imagined that he ſhould meddle with the civill power of this Nation, as it ſtood in reſpect of it's ſeparation from other Nations, toto diviſa Orbe, or with the diviſions or diſtributions of this Nation within it ſelfe, into Cities, and Provinces, &c. or goe about to innovate any thing in that matter? Is it not certaine that it was no part of the Chriſtian faith to be ſuch a judge or divider; but on the other ſide that all ſhould remaine as it did (in that reſpect) before the coming of Chriſtianity? And therefore ſuppoſing 1. That this Nation were governed by a King of its own; is it not certain that this nationall Church ſhould follow the boundaries of the Nation, and ſo be modeld according to the government of the (formerly Heathen) Britannick ſtate? And ſuppoſing againe (what hath already been proved by the teſtimony of Clemens, and by comparing Act. 14. 23. with Tit. 1. 5.) that a Biſhop were conſtituted in every Church, in each City, will there be any reaſon of doubting but that thoſe Cities being ſubordinate one to another, according to the cuſtomes of the Nation, the Churches in thoſe Cities, and the Biſhops in thoſe Churches ſhall be ſo alſo? This I hope will not be deemed an impious compliance with heatheniſme, or conformity with the World, nay, though the Emperour of Rome (by his conqueſts here) were the author of theſe diſtributions.
4. But then ſecondly, it is already cleared in the Diſſertations, that this Eccleſiaſtick diviſion of Cities into Mothers and Daughters, Metropoles and inferiour Cities, was by the Apoſtle copied out from the Jewes, as when God commands by Moſes, that Judges and Officers ſhould be ordained in every City, Deut. 16. 18. and that in matters of weight and doubt they ſhould reſort to Jeruſalem; to the Judge and Sanhedrim there, according to which it appeares that Jeruſalem was the Metropolis of thoſe other Cities, and ſo is evident, Act. 9. by the ſtory of Saul carrying Letters of Commiſſion from the Sanhedrim there to the conſiſtories in Damaſcus, and by many other evidences. So likewiſe Numb. 3. when three Families of the Levits, the ſonnes of Aaron, were ſeparated for the ſervice of the Tabernacle, and an head or Prince or Preſident of every of theſe, called foreign v. 24. 30. 35. Eleazar Aaron's Sonne is conſtituted over all theſe, and ſtyled foreign the head of the heads of the Levites, This is clearly a patterne of the Metropolitanes in the Christian Church, which may therefore owne it's derivation from thence, and not from the Heathen models of Government, which yet it was not reaſonably to diſturbe, being found ſo concordant to, and commodious for it.
5. And that what was done in this kind, was done by the Apoſtles themſelves and Apoſtolicall perſons, the firſt founders of Churches, and not onelyonly by the after policy (as is ſuggeſted) of Chriſtian Emperours and Biſhops, might have appeared abundantly by theſe few teſtimonies, of they had been worthy to be taken notice of. Firſt, of the councell of Nice An. Domini 325. not many yeares after the converſion of Conſtantine, the firſt Chriſtian Emperour, Can. 6. which takes care for the preſerving the priviledges of the Metropolitanes (by name that the Biſhop of Alexandria ſhould have power over the Churches in Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, that in Antioch and the reſt of the Provinces foreign, the priveleges ſhould be preſerved to the Churches) begins with this rule foreign Let the antient cuſtomes continue in force, which certainly referres to that which was long before the Chriſtian Emperours, and (without any reaſon of doubting) to the firſt conſtitutions of thoſe Churches by St. Marke, and St. Peter, and then the Canon goes on to exact this by way of conformity with other places, with Rome it ſelfe, foreign, for this is the cuſtome of force with the Biſhop of Rome, and upon theſe grounds the Canon requires foreign univerſally, that if any man be made a Biſhop foreign, without the judgement of the Metropolitan, he ought not to be Biſhop—
6. So in the 9. Canon of the Councell of Antioch, in the yeare 341. which begins thus, that the Biſhop, which preſides in the Metropolis, ought to know the Biſhops in every Province, and to take care of the whole Province, foreign, becauſe all that have buſineſſe, reſort from all ſides to the Metropolis (which is the very thing we now contend, to be the reaſon of conforming the Eccleſiaſtick to the civill models) and then proceeds to forbid other Biſhops acting any thing of ſuch a nature without him, this is backt with theſe words, foreign, according to the antient Canon of our Fathers, which hath been in force, referring againe to the immemoriall cuſtome of all Churches ſince the firſt plantation, and not the after-policie of Chriſtian Emperours and Biſhops, as is here ſuggeſted.
7. Laſtly, in the laſt canon of the Great councell of Epheſus, in the yeare 431. (which is the defining a ſpeciall matter of Metropoliticall right) where the occaſion of the controverſie is rehearſed, how the Biſhop of Antioch invaded the priviledges of the Cypriots, contrary to the foreign the antient cuſtome, and the decree is made that the Biſhops of Cyprus ſhall retaine them inviolate, foreign, foreign, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers, and the antient cuſtome; The Canon extends it ſelfe to all other Dioceſes and Provinces, that no Biſhop ſhall meddle with another Province foreign, which was not upward and from the beginning under his, i. e. his praedeceſſors power, where it is moſt evident that the Metropolitical power, and primacy Eccleſiaſticall is derived from the beginning of the plantation of each Church, and conſequently that this was a part of Apoſtolicall policy, and not onelyonly an after policy of Chriſtian Emperours, &c.
8. And upon theſe grounds of probation, I ſhall be competently ſecured that this is proved, which they doe not believe ever can be, and have no other argument to prove their negative, but their not believing the affirmative.
Section XVII.
Of the objection againſt Metropoles from the ſeven Starres in ſeven Churches.
OF the ſame temper is their third anſwer, that they are fully aſſured that it can never be made out, that any of theſe Aſian Angels were Archbiſhops or Biſhops over other Biſhops, or Biſhops over divers ſettled Churches. The ſeven Starres are ſaid in Scripture to be fixed in their ſeven Candle-ſtickes or Churches, not one Starre over divers Candle-ſtickes or Churches.
2. What they are already fully aſſured of, that it can never be made out, I ſhall have little confidence to perſwade them was formerly done to their hands; Otherwiſe I ſhould hope that by what had long ſince been ſaid, and hath now been more largely deduced in Reply to their laſt anſwer, they might find cauſe to alter their judgements, and retract their ſo definitive ſentence of full aſſurance.
3. As for the onelyonly appearance of reaſon, which is here ſuperadded, viz. that the ſeven Stars are found fixed in ſeven, not one over divers Churches, this I conceive not to be of any force. For it being by us granted and preſumed that each of the ſeven Aſian Angels was Biſhop of his particular Church, one of Epheſus, another of Smyrna, &c. It is perfectly reconcileable herewith, that in caſe theſe ſeven were not the onelyonly Cities and Churches in Aſia (as it is certaine they were not, all Aſia, conſiſting of many more Cities, being before this converted to the Faith) all the other might have dependance on theſe ſeven.
4. For this we know, that two Biſhops in England, that were each of them, firſt in one City, for example in Canterbury or Yorke, had yet each of them a ſuperiority or Metropoliticall power over divers other Cities, and when any Record ſtyles one of them Biſhop of Canterbury, as the Scripture doth Angel of Epheſus, we ſhould ſure acknowledge it a very infirme inference from the words of that Record, to conclude that being Biſhop of Canterbury he could not be Metropolitan of London, Rocheſter, &c.
5. And this is the very parallel to the preſent inſtance, and if it were not invalid enough, by being a bare negative argument [they are not ſaid in Scripture to be one Starre over divers Churches] (all things that are, are not ſaid in Scripture, thoſe Angels have not therefore no names, becauſe they are not there recorded) this parallel inſtance, which ſuppoſes the contrary to their pretenſions, would be ſufficient to invalidate it.