The Tabernacle of God with Men, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
WE returne now to his Epiſtle to Evagrius, and come to the inſtance of the Church at Alexandria, further confirming the equality of Presbyters and Biſhops, when he had ſaid (as formerly we quoted) in prevention of an objection; but that afterwards one was choſen, who ſhould be ſet before the reſt, it was done for the remedy of ſchiſme, leaſt every one drawing the Church of Chriſt to himſelfe ſhould break it in pieces; he addes, for at Alexandria alſo, from Mark the Evangeliſt, untill the time of Heraclas and Dionyſius Biſhops, the Presbyters alwayes named one, the Biſhop, who was choſen out of themſelves, and placed in an higher degree, as if an Army ſhould make a Generall, or the Deacons ſhould from among themſelves chuſe one whom they knew induſtrious, and call him Arch-Deacon; For what doth a Biſhop, Ordination excepted, that a Presbyter may not do?
The ſumme of theſe words is, as at Epheſus and Philippi, in the Apoſtles time the Biſhops and Presbyters were one and the ſame, ſo after their time, till about two hundred and ſixty years, more or leſſe after Chriſt, they remained equall in office at Alexandria, (what change ſoever was made ſooner in ſome other Churches, occaſioned by ſchiſmes amongſt them,) only for more orderly Proceeding, one of the Presbyters was choſen by the reſt, to be in degree above the reſt, but not in office or diſtinct Power, as having no peculiar Ordination, and this man they called the Biſhop; that this is the true meaning of the words, it appears upon diſtinct conſideration of them, (here we muſt remember that his Prevention of the Objection follows immediately his Scripture teſtimonie; and the inſtance of Alexandria immediately follows that Prevention.)
1. The Conjunction alſo, or and, joyns this example of Alexandria, to the former of Epheſus and Philippi, (For at Alexandria alſo.)
2. He makes a difference betwixt Heraclas and Dionyſius, Biſhops, and thoſe before them, from Mark the Evangeliſt, whom they called Biſhops.
3. He ſhews what the difference was, that whereas Heraclas and Dionyſius were by peculiar Ordination made Biſhops, as in office and Power above Presbyters, (as the like cuſtome had obtained earlier in other Churches, as appears in Cyprians Epiſtles,) they that were before, were only choſen by the Presbyters, placed in an higher degree, and called Biſhops, but had no peculiar Ordination, (and therefore no peculiar office.) That they had no peculiar Ordination, is manifeſt. 1. By the Perſons by whom they were ſet in an higher degree, they were only the other Presbyters. But 1. Presbyters alone ſay the advocates of Epiſcopacy, may not ordaine a Presbyter, much leſſe a Biſhop. 2. If they might ordaine a Biſhop, much more might they ordaine a Presbyter, and then what place for the office of a Biſhop in the Church above the Presbyter? Ordination being one maine peculiar challenged to the Biſhop. Had it then been peculiar Ordination that had advanced theſe above the reſt, and ſo inveſted them with a peculiar office, it muſt have been Biſhops, not Presbyters, by whoſe hands they were lifted up. 2. By the explication ſubjoyned in two compariſons. 1. As if an Army ſhould make a Generall. Here the Army chuſing the Generall, anſwers to the Presbyters chuſing the Biſhop ſo called; As Jerome ſpeaks, He that is Generall only upon thoſe termes, hath no peculiar Commiſſion, it belongs to the Prince or State to give that; neither had he that was Biſhop any peculiar Ordination, according to the mind of this compariſon, which the next compariſon holds forth more clearly; ſuppoſe the Deacons ſhould agree among themſelves to chuſe out one whom they would call Arch-Deacon, here neither is, nor could be any peculiar Office or Ordination conferred upon this Arch-Deacon. Hence Jerome concludes, having no diſtinct Ordination, they had no diſtinct Power or Office; and that is the true meaning of thoſe words; for what doth a Biſhop, Ordination excepted, that a Presbyter may not do? This is uſually otherwiſe interpreted. viz. that a Presbyter may do all that a Biſhop may do, only the act of Ordination excepted, he may not ordain. And 1. they that are for the divine right of Epiſcopacy will have the exception to be by divine inſtitution; but this is clearely to interpret this clauſe contrary to Ieroms whole diſcourſe, both the Scope and Arguments of it. 2, Pleading the equality of Biſhops and Presbyters, or their identity rather, inſtanced in Impoſition of hands by the Presbytery. 3. This interpretation overthrows his diſcourſe in this very inſtance of the Church of Alexandria, whence it is inferred, as we have ſeen by the naturall explication of this diſcourſe. But 2. they that are againſt Epiſcopacy, underſtand Ierome to ſpeak of the Practice of the Church in his time; as if he ſhould ſay there was no difference formerly; now there is only this, and that not by divine inſtitution, but by the cuſtome of the Church. A Biſhop ordains, which a Presbyter may not do. This interpretation may ſtand with his former diſcourſe and with the truth; and this paſſing, there is nothing for Epiſcopacy by divine right; therefore to grant this, looſeth nothing of the cauſe in hand, but the truly naturall interpretation following upon the former diſcourſe, which hath concluded what is here inferred, ſeems to be that formerly given, Ordinarion excepted, ſignifying without Ordination conferred, Ordination here paſſively not actively taken. Summe up the diſcourſe in this inſtance of Alexandria, Every diſtinct Church officer hath a diſtinct Ordination; but theſe Biſhops, ſo called in the Church of Alexandria, till Heraclas and Dionyſius, had no diſtinct Ordination from that of Presbyters: therefore they were no diſtinct Church-officers from them.
Hence we have light diſcovering the truth againſt the three Pretences from antiquity, pleading the divine right of Epiſcopacy.
1. It is alledged, that ſuch and ſuch Apoſtles and Evangeliſts were ordained Biſhops of ſuch and ſuch Churches; among the reſt, Mark the Evangeliſt Biſhop of Alexandria; that they ordained their Succeſſors, and ſo Epiſcopacy hath run downe in a conſtant courſe from the Apoſtles times.
Anſw. 1. This ſtory overthrows it ſelfe, as is obſerved by the learned. 1. What place is there for ordaining Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, Biſhops over ſuch and ſuch Churches, who as Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, had already in every Church, what power ſoever a Biſhop can claime in any Church to which he is ordained? 2. Ordination is from the leſſe to the greater; if an Apoſtle or Evangeliſt firſt, be afterwards ordained a Biſhop, then is the office of an Apoſtle or Evangeliſt inferiour to that of a Biſhop.
Anſw. 2. That there was no ſuch Succeſſion of Biſhops, ordaining Biſhops diſtinct from and above Presbyters, is manifeſt in this inſtance of the Church of Alexandria, where till Heraclas and Dionyſius, a Biſhop was no other but one of the Presbyters, by the choice and conſent of the reſt, ſet in an higher degree.
2. Another pretence from antiquity, is the Catalogues of Biſhops, ſucceeding each other in ſuch and ſuch Churches.
Anſw. How doth it appeare that theſe Biſhops had peculiar Ordination and above Presbyters? there is as formall a Catalogue given in of the Biſhops of Alexandria, as of any other Church ſucceeding Mark the Evangeliſt in this order; 1. Anianus. 2. Abilius. 3. Cerdo. 4. Primus. 5. Juſtus. 6. Eumenes. 7. Marcus. 8. Celadion. 9. Agrippas or Agrippinus. 10. Julianus. 11. Demetrius. 12. Heraclas. 13. Dionyſius. Whereas yet we have it cleare from Ierome, that Heraclas was the firſt who had diſtinct Ordination and Office above a Presbyter.
3. Pretence from antiquity, ſuch teſtimonies as are given to the honour and power of Biſhops by the Ancients; and here above all Ignatius helps at every turne.
Anſw. 1. Foraſmuch as five of his Epiſtles are granted by diverſe advocates of Epiſcopacy to be ſuch as do evidently betray no little forgery, who ſhall aſſure us, that thoſe ſeven by them avouched in all things genuine, are ſo indeed? what more unlikely, then that they ſhould eſcape tampering by the ſame hands?
2. Thoſe ſeven moſt ſtood upon, are by very learned men (amongſt others Salmaſius,) judged in the very teſtimonies very ſpurious, and that not from blaſſe, but upon good grounds. 1. The arrogance of ſome of them; take that for one, in his Epiſtle to the Trallians, What is the Biſhop, but he that is ſtrongly poſſeſt of all Principality and Authority, beyond all, as much as is poſſible for men to be poſſeſt? being made an imitatour, according to Power of Chriſt who is God. He that can find here an Apoſtolicall ſpirit breathing, ſurely hath little acquaintance with the Apoſtles writings, ſaith Salmaſius; and indeed how unlike to that of the Apoſtle is it? 1 Cor. 3.5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollo, but miniſters by whom you beleeved? &c. This was Pauls way to take up ſchiſme; how contrary to this Ignatius here for the Prevention of it? 2 Of the falſeneſſe of ſome, that in the ſame Epiſtle; Reverence the Biſhop as Chriſt, as the bleſſed Apoſtles commanded you. Where is this command? That, in his Epiſtle to the Smyrnians, Let that be accounted a firme Euchariſt, which is by the Biſhop adminiſtred, or by him to whom he ſhall have committed it; it is not lawfull without the Biſhop either to baptize or to offer, &c. Hath not the Holy Ghoſt committed preaching, and baptiſme, and adminiſtration of the Supper, joyntly to every Presbyter? this ſounds ill in every care, except of Papiſt or Prelate; the Church of Alexandria had no true baptiſme for about two hundred and ſixty years, if this be true doctrine; as for the Reformed Churches, they are in the ſame caſe. 3. The idolatrous ſtrayne of ſome; take that in the ſame Epiſtle, In the Church is nothing greater then the Biſhop, conſecrate to God for the ſalvation of the whole world. 4. The impertinencie of ſome, take that in his Epiſtle to the Philadelphians; Let the Princes obey the Emperour, the Souldiers the Princes, the Deacons the Presbyters, thoſe High-Prieſts, the Presbyters and the Deacons, and the reſt of the Clergy; and who are they I wonder, and what part of the Clergy is the Deacon? with all the People, and the Souldiers, and the Princes, and the Emperour, let them obey the Biſhop. Setting aſide other flawes, what impertinencie is here to enjoyne the Princes and the Emperour to obey the Biſhop, when there were not at this time, nor many years after any Emperour or Princes Chriſtian? Theſe are ſome few gleanings more of the like ſtamp there to be found; that not without reaſon it is by the learned conjectured, that about the beginning or middle of the ſecond Century, was this forged Author ſurreptitiouſly brought into the Church, about which time this kinde of Epiſcopacy ſoaring above Presbytery began.
3. How little our prelates and their party regard his writings, (only they plead them to ſerve their own turne) is manifeſt, that we hear ſo little from them of ſubjection to the Presbyters and Deacons, which Ignatius urgeth ſo much in his Epiſtle to the Trallians, It is neceſſary that ye do nothing without the Biſhop, but that ye be in ſubjection likewiſe to the Presbytery, as to the Apoſtles of Jeſus Chriſt. And ye ought by all means to pleaſe the Deacons, being — of the myſteries of Jeſus Chriſt.— The Presbyters are the great Councell of God, and the Chain of the Apoſtles of Jeſus Chriſt. In his Epiſtle to thoſe in Tarſus, Let the Presbyter be ſubject to the Biſhop; the Deacons to the Presbyters; the People to the Presbyters and the Deacons; they that keep this good order, my ſoul for theirs. Much more to the ſame purpoſe up and down in him; where Salmaſius conjectures this ſpurious Author was about the midſt, or towards the beginning of the ſecond century, whilſt the Presbytery yet retaind much of its authority.
Now what do our Prelates and their party here? For Presbyters, they allow them no rule by way of jurisdiction; for Deacons, they have firſt changed their office, and then ordered it ſo as it is never long ſtanding, being only a degree to Presbytery.
And indeed here this Ignatius ſeemes to aſcribe that office and power to Deacons which the ſcripture takes no notice of, which hath appointed them to the ſervice of tables, not to preach and rule in the Church (as Jerome argues;) and this furthers diſcovers that this is no true Ignatius.
4. Conclude from Jerome, that before ſchiſme fell out in the Churches, and that long after the Apoſtles times, the Church was governed only by Presbyters; that the Biſhop above the Presbyters was brought into ſome Churches ſooner, into others later; according as ſchiſme gave the occaſion; that it was about 260 years, ere this change was made in the Church of Alexandria; that whereſoever it was made, it ſtands not upon divine authority, but upon Church Cuſtome, and this by Scripture ſtrongly proved; therefore theſe teſtimonies of Ignatius, or whatſoever the like, ſo farre as they plead for Epiſcopacy above Presbytery, cannot ſtand either with the truth of the Scripture, or the practice of the firſt and pureſt Churches.
We returne to Jerome his Epiſtle to Evagrius; That which next follows concernes not the matter in hand, but is againſt the ſuperiority of the Biſhop of Rome, and againſt a perverſe cuſtome in Rome, that a Presbyter was ordained upon the teſtimony of a Deacon; that which concernes the preſent queſtion followes in theſe words, Preſbyter and Biſhop, one is the name of age, the other of dignity; whence to Titus and Timothy the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Ordination of the Biſhop and Deacon concerning the Presbyters he is altogether ſilent, becauſe in the Biſhop the Presbyter alſo is contained; He that is ordained from the leſſe to the greater he is advanced; Therefore either let the Deacon be ordained from the Presbyter, (that is, let him that is firſt a Presbyter be afterwards ordained a Deacon) that the Presbyter may be proved leſſe then the Deacon into whom he encreaſeth from a little one; or if the Presbyter be ordained from the Deacon, let him know that he is leſſe in gaines, greater in miniſtery. And that we may know that the Apoſtolicall traditions were taken out of the Old Teſtament, what Aaron and his ſonnes, and the Levites were in the Temple, that let the Biſhops, and Presbyters, and Deacons challenge in the Church.
Here we have two things confirming the equality of Biſhops and Presbyters; in the third place an objection is to be anſwered, ſeeming to favour their inequality.
The firſt thing confirming their equality, That Presbyter and Biſhop are different names of one and the ſame perſon, in one and the ſame office, as having one and the ſame ordination; and where it is ſaid the Presbyter is contained in the Biſhop, the meaning is not as the leſſe in the greater, but as one with him; thus he expreſt himſelfe in the beginning of this Epiſtle; this he hath ſtrongly pleaded all the way; thus againe in his Commentary upon 1 Titus, as was formerly quoted in theſe words. Some man may think that this is not the ſentence of the Scripture, but mine owne, that a Biſhop and Presbyter are one, and that one is the name of age, the other of office; let him read the words of the Apoſtle, Phil. 1.1. &c.
The ſecond confirmation of their equality, that Ordination is from the leſſe to the greater; and therefore if the Deacon be greater then the Presbyter, he muſt from a Presbyter as a little one, grow by Ordination into a Deacon as a great one; this rule deſtroyes the foundation of Hierarchy; that the Apoſtles were towards the end of their dayes, (and ſo the Evangeliſts) ordained Biſhops of certaine Cities, every one having his proper See; then from an Apoſtle or Evangeliſt as the leſſe, did he by Ordination, increaſe into a Biſhop as the greater; but this is too abſurd that a Biſhop ſhould be greater then an Evangeliſt, nay then an Apoſtle.
The Objection to be removed follows in the laſt words; And that we may know that the Apoſtolicall traditions, &c. where he cals the ſuperiority of Biſhops over Presbyters, then obtaining in the Church, an Apoſtolicall tradition.
Anſw. 1. There was great difference betwixt the Epiſcopacy that then was, and the Prelacy as we have had it; as nothing was done without the Biſhop, ſo nor without the reſt of the Miniſters and People.
2. His ſcope was to prove, and clearly he hath proved, that according to the Scriptures in the writings of the Apoſtles, there is no inequality at all betwixt Biſhop and Presbyter, but they are one and the ſame.
3. The riſe of their inequality he makes the cuſtome of the Church, contra-diſtinguiſhed to the truth of the Lords order.
4. Therefore that he cals it an Apoſtolicall tradition, it can amount only to this; that what the Church did here, when by ſchiſmes occaſioned thereto, he conceives not contrary to Apoſtolicall Precept, in generall, (though particularly the equality or identity rather of the Biſhop and Presbyter be abundantly held forth in their writings,) but rather that the Churches Practice here fell under ſome generall rule, as let all things be done to edifying, or the like.
And here was the difference, as is obſerved by the learned, betwixt Jerome and Aerius; they both agreed, that according to divine inſtitution, there was no inequality. Aerius would have this inviolably obſerved in the Church. Jerome thought the Church had liberty to make a difference, and that it was a great expedient againſt ſchiſme. Of the ſame mind with Ierome for equality by divine inſtitution, it is pleaded by ſome choicely learned amongſt our Writers of ſacred Controverſies, (Ames and Salmaſius) confeſt by a learned Authour among the Papiſts, (Medina,) that Ambroſe, Auſtin, Sedulius, Primaſius, Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact were.
This inſtruction then ſtands good, Biſhops in office above Presbyters, are no Church-Officers of divine inſtitution; according as it is pleaded by Jerome. I ſhall conclude this inſtruction, with one queſtion?
Queſt. May the Church in any caſe, ſet up as an expedient an office in the Church, which is not of divine inſtitution.
Anſw. No, in no wiſe. It was appointed that the man of fin ſhould aſcend into his chayre; thence the Church diſcerned not the iniquity of thoſe beautifull ſteps, by which he was to aſcend; what the Church took for an expedient to prevent ſchiſme, proved an expedient to promote tyranny. His time of falling hath been comming on, in this laſt age, is more and more haſtening; hence this truth making not a little for it, paſſeth clear and current in the Reformed Churches, that in the Church no office-Power is to be owned, but what is of divine inſtitution. An Argument or two to confirme it.
1. As among Jewes, no order of Prieſts or Levites, but what was expreſſely appointed of God, was to be received; ſo in the Goſpel-Churches, no other order of Miniſteries. All by Moſes there, as a faithfull ſervant; All by Chriſt here, as a faithfull Sonne.
2. Chriſt is the onelyonly Law-giver of his Church, the appointing of office is a maine exerciſe of the Law-givers power, as in the kingdomes of men, ſo in the Kingdome of the Mediator.
3. All proper and eſſentiall meanes of worſhip muſt be of divine inſtitution. 1. Becauſe worſhip by other meanes is will-worſhip, and will-worſhip is hatefull unto God; 2. Becauſe it is God alone who can ſanctifie and bleſſe the meanes of worſhip; man can put no inſtrumentall efficacy unto meanes, therefore cannot he ordaine them; But office, or miniſtery in the Church, is a proper and eſſentiall meanes of worſhip; therefore it muſt be of no other then divine inſtitution. As for that worne Octjection of Timothy and Titus. Anſw. They were Evangeliſts, who as the Apoſtles, are ſucceeded by Paſtors and Teachers; above whom there is no Biſhop.
Object. The Angel of the Church 2 and 3. of the Revelation is the Biſhop of each Church, a Paſtor of peerleſſe power in the Church.
Anſw. 1. Suppoſe by the Angel is meant a ſingular perſon, and he an eminent Paſtor, how doth it appear that he had diſtinct power of Ordination and juriſdiction above the reſt? Why might it not be in thoſe Churches as in the Church of Alexandria from Mark the Evangeliſt, till Heraclas and Dionyſius, one in degree and order, not in office and diſtinct power above the reſt, to whom the Epiſtle is inſcribed?
2. Angel in the ſingular number, doth not of neceſſity infer a ſingular perſon; it is uſed in Scripture collectively diverſe times, as Pſal 34.7. The Angel of the Lord pitcheth his tents, &c. that is the Angels of the Lord pitch their tents round about, &c. ſo the Revelation frequently; the ſeven Angels that ſounded the ſeven trumpets, and the ſeven Angels that powred out the ſeven vials, were not ſeven ſingular Perſons, but ſeven Companies or ſorts of men performing that ſervice.
3. The Angel of the Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. muſt be taken collectively, or the whole company of the miniſters of the Church, as is evident, Rev. 2.24. To you in the plurall number, foreign writing to the Angel, as diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of the Church.
Having ſeen the unwarrantableneſſe of the Dioceſan Biſhop, we ſhall not need to ſpeak of the true officers for rule in the Church; for Paſtors and Teachers, they are doubted by none, but the Epiſcopall Party; for ruling Elders to them adjoyned, as it hath been the doctrine and practice of the Reformed Churches generally; ſo of late there are diverſe diſcourſes, eaſie to be met with, fairly and clearly pleading their divine right; among the reſt, the way of the Church of Chriſt in New England, the Jus Divinum, &c. the ſumme of the ſurvey of diſcipline, by Maſter Hooker. I ſhall therefore paſſe to another inſtruction, about particular Congregations.