Five Disputations of Church Government, Argument 11
Argum. 11. THat sort of Church Government may most safely be now practised which was used in the Scripture times, and thats less safe which was not then used. But the Government of many Elders and particular Churches by one Bishop (fixed, and taking that as his proper Diocess, such as the English Bishops were) was not used in Scripture times. Therefore it is not so safe to use it or restore it now.
The Major is proved hence: 1. In that the Primitive Church which was in Scripture times, was of unquestionable Divine Institution, and so most pure. And it is certainly lawful to practice that Church-Government which alone was practised by all the Church in the Scripture times of the New Testament. 2. Because we have no certain Law or Direction but Scripture for the frame of Government as jure Divino. Scripture is Gods sufficient and perfect Law. If therefore there be no mention of the Practice of any such Episcopacy in Scripture, no nor any precept for the practice of it afterwards, then cannot we receive it as of Divine Institution. The Objections shall be answered when we have proved the Minor.
And for the Minor I shall at this time argue from the Concessions of the most Learned and Reverend man that at this time hath deeply engaged himself in defence of Episcopacy, who doth grant us all these things following. 1. That in Scripture times they were the same persons, and of the same office that were called Bishops and Presbyters. 2. That all the Presbyters mentioned in Scripture times, or then instituted (as far as we can know) had a Power of Ordination. 3. And also a Power of Ruling the Church, Excommunicating and Absolving. 4. That there was not then in being any Presbyter (such as the Bishops would have in these times) who was under the Bishop of a particular Church or Diocess. His words are these [And although this title of foreign, Elders, have been also extended to a second Order in the Church, and is now 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 that second order were then instituted, though soon after, before the writing of Ignatius Epistles there were such instituted in all Churches.] 5. It is yielded also by him that it is the office of these Presbyters or Bishops to Teach frequently and diligently, to reduce Hereticks, to reprove, rebuke, Censure and absolve, to visit all the sick and pray with them, &c. And therefore it must needs follow that their Diocess must be no larger then that they may faithfully perform all this to the Members of it: And if there be but one Bishop to do it, I am most certain then by experience that his Diocess must be no bigger then this Parish, nor perhaps half so big. 6. And it must needs follow, that in Scripture times a Particular Church▪ consisted not of seve…al Churches associated,Dr. H. Dissert. 4. p. 208. [§. 9. Prius non usqu…qua que verum esse quod p…o concesso sumitur (in una civitate non fuisse plur…s Episcopos) Quamvis enim in … Ecclesiá aut C…tu plures simul Episcopi nunquam fuerint, nihil tamen obstare quin in eádem civitate d…o aliquando distermina… Coe…us fuerint, duobus Apostolis ad fidem adducti, di versi… …orsa… dialectis & aliquando ritibus disjuncti, quibus duo itidem Episcopi scorsim, & divisis foreign praesidere…t. Et p. 211. §. 21. [Ex his ratio constat, quare sine Presbyterorum mentione interveniente, Episcopis Diaconi immediate adjiciantur, quia scilicet in singulis Macedoni…e civitatibus, quamvis Episcopus esset, no…dum Presbyteri constituti sunt, Diaconis tantum foreign ubi que Episcopis adjunctis. Mark well the stating of the question by Dr. H. Dissert. Epist. §. 30, 31. The controversie is not Quibus d…mum …ominibus cogniti fuerint▪ Ecclesiarum Rectores, sed an ad unum in singulari Ecclesia, an ad plures, potestas ista devenerit. Nos ad unum singularem Praefect…m, quem ex famosiore Ecclesiae usu Episcopum vulgò dicimus, potestatem istam in singulari Coetu ex Christi & Apostolorum institutione nunquam non pertinuisse affirmamus.] You see here that it is but [in singulari Ecclesia] & [in si…gulari Coetu] that he affirmeth an Episcopacy of Christs and the Apostles institution. And such Bishops most Churches in England have already. nor of several Congregations ordinarily meeting in several places for Christian communion in the solemn Worship of God, but only of the Christians of one such Congregation with a single Pastor (though in that we dissent, and suppose there we…e more Pastors then one usually, or often.) That this must be granted with the rest is apparent. 1. The Reverend Author saith as Bishop Downam before cited [That when the Gospel was first preached by the Apostles and but few Converted, they ordained in every City and region, no more but a Bishop and one or more Deacons to attend him, there being at the present so smal store out of which to take more, and so small need of ordaining more, that this Bishop is constituted more for the sake of those which should after believe, then of those which did already.] 2. And its proved thus: If there were in Scripture times any more ordinary Worshiping Assemblies on the Lords dayes then one under one Bishop, then either they did Preach, Pray, Praise God, and administer the Lords Supper in those Assemblies, or they did not: If not, then 1. They were no such Worshipping Assemblies as we speak of. 2. And they should sin against Christ who required it. 3. And differ from his Churches which ordinarily used it. But if they did thus, then either they had some Pastor (Presbyter or Bishop) to perform these holy actions between God and the people, or not: If not, then they suppose that Lay-men might do all this Ministerial work, in Word, Sacraments, Prayer, and Praise in the name of the Assembly, &c. And if so, what then is proper to the Ministry? then farewell Bishops and Presbyters too. If not, the… …her the Bishop must be in two Assemblies at once performing the Holy Worship of God in their communion (but thats impossible:) or else he must have some assisting Presbyters to do it; But thats denyed: Therefore it must needs follow that the Church order, constitution and practised Government which was in Scripture times, was this; that a single Worshipping Congregation was that particular Church which had a Presbyter or Bishop (one or more) which watched over and ruled that only Congregation as his Diocess or proper charge, having no Government of any other Church (Congregation) or Elders. De facto this is plainly yielded.
Well: this much being yielded, and we having come so far to an agreement, about the actual Church Constitution and Government of the Scripture times, we desire to know some sufficient reason, why we in these times may not take up with tha… Government and Church order which was practised in the Scripture times? And the Reason that is brought against it is this; Because it was the Apostles intention that this single Bishop who in Scripture times had but one Congregation, and Governed no Presbyters, should after Scripture times, have many settled Congregations, and their Presbyters under them, and should have the power of ordaining them, &c. To this I answer, 1. The Intentions of mens hearts are secret till they are some way revealed. No man of this age doth know the Apostles hearts but by some sign: what then is the revelation that Proveth this Intention? Either it must be some Word or Deed. For the first I cannot yet find any colour of proof which they bring from any word of the Apostles, where either they give power to this Presbyter or Bishop to Rule over many Presbyters and Congregations for the future: Nor yet where they do so much as foretell that so it shall be. As for those of Paul to Timothy and Titus ▪ that the… rebuke not an Elder, and receive not accusation against them but under two or three Witnesses, the Reverend Author affirmeth that those E…ders were not Presbyters under such Bishops as we now speak of, but those Bishops themselves, whom Timothy and Titus might rebuke. And for meer facts without Scripture words, the…e is none that can prove this pretended Intention of the Apostles. First, there is no fact of the Apostles themselves or the Churches or Pastors in Scripture time to prove it. For Subordinate Presbyters are confessed not to be then …nstituted, and so not existent: and other fact of theirs there can be none. And no fact after them can prove it. Yet this is the great Argument that most insist on, that the practice of the Church after Scripture times, doth prove that Intention of the …p…stles which Scripture doth not (for ought is yet proved by them that I can find) at all express. But we deny that, and require p…oo… of it. It is not bare saying so that will serve. Is it not possible for the succeeding Bishops to err and mistake the Apostles Intentions? If not, then are they Infallible as well as the Apostles, which is not true. They might sin in going from the Institution: And their sin will not prove that the Apostles intended it should be so de jure, because their followers did so de facto.
If they say that it is not likely that all the Churches should so suddenly be ignorant of the Apostles Intention, I answer, 1. We must not build our faith and practice on Conjectures. Such a saying as this is no proof of Apostolical intentions, to warrant us to swerve from the sole practised Government in Scripture times. 2. There is no great likelihood that I can discern that this first practised Government was altered by those that knew the Apostles, and upon supposition that these which are pretended were their intents. 3. If it were so, yet is it not impossible, nor very improbable, that through humane frailty they might be drawn to conjecture that that was the Apostles intents which seemed right in thier eyes, and suited their present judgements and interests. 4. Sure we are that the Scripture is the perfect Law and Rule to the Church for the Establishing of all necessary Offices and Ordinances: and therefore if there be no such intentions or Institutions of the Apostles mentioned in the Scripture, we may not set up universally such Offices and Ordinances, on any such supposed intents.
De facto we seem agreed, that the Apostles settled One Pastor over one Congregation having no Presbyters under his Rule: and that there were no other in Scripture time: but shortly after when Christians were multiplied, and the most of the Cities where the Churches were planted, were converted to the faith, together with the Country round about, then there were many Congregations, and many Pastors, and the Pastor of the first Church in the City did take all the other Churches and Pastors to be under his Government, calling them Presbyters only, and himself eminently or only the Bishop. Now the Question between us is, Whether this was well done or not? & Whether these Pastors should not rather have gathered Churches as free as their own? & Whether the …hristians that were afterward converted should not have combined for holy Communion themselves in particular distinct …hurches and have had their own Pastors set over them, as the first Churches by the Apostles had? They that deny it, and Justifie their fact, have nothing that we can see for it, but an ungrounded surmise, that it was the Apostles meaning that the first Bishops should so do: But we have the Apostles express Institution, and the Churches practise during Scripture times, for the other way. We doubt not but Christians in the beginning were thin, and that the Apostles therefore preached most, and planted Churches in Cities because they were the most populous places, where was most matter to work upon, and most disciples were there; and that the Country round about did afford them here and there a family which joyned to the City Church: Much like as it is now among us with the Anabaptists and Separatists, who are famed to be so Numerous and potent through the Land, and yet I do not think that in all this County, there is so many in Number of either of these sects as the tenth part of the people of this one Parish; nor perhaps as the twentieth part. Now if all the Anabaptists in Worcestershire, or at least that lived so neer as to be capable of Church communion, should be of Mr. T's. Congregation at Bewdley, or of a Church that met in the chief City, Worcester; yet doth not this intimate that all the space of ground in this County is appointed or intended for the future as Mr. T's. Diocess; but if the successive Pastor should claim the whole County as his charge, if the whole were turned to that opinion, no doubt but they would much cross their founders mind. And (if the comparison may be tolerated) we see great reason to conceive that the Ancient Bishops did thus cross the Apostles minds. When there were no more Christians in a City and the adjoyning parts, then half some of our Parishes, the Apostles planted fixed Governours called Bishops or Elders over these particlar Churches, which had constant communion in the worship of God: And when the Cities and Countreyes were converted to the faith, the frailty of ambition co-working thereto, these Bishops did claim all that space of ground for their Diocess where the members of their Church had lived before; as if Churches were to be measured by the acres of Land, and not by the number of souls; whereas they should have done as the Bee-hives do, when they are ready to swarm, so that the old hive cannot contain them all, the swarm removes and seeks them another habitation, and makes them a New hive of their own. So when a Church grows big enough for two Churches, one part should remove to another meeting place, and they should become two Churches, and the later be of the same sort as the former, and as free, and not become subject to the former, as if men had right to be Rulers of others, because they were Converted before them, or because they dwell in a walled City, and others in the Villages. This Error therefore was no contrived or suddain thing, but crept on by degrees, as Countries were Converted and Churches enlarged; we are agreed therefore de facto, that it was otherwise in the Apostles daies, and that soon after, in some places, it came to that pass as the Prelates would have it (in some degree.) But whether the Apostles were willing of the change, is the Question between us; we deny it, and expect their better proof. And till they prove it, we must needs take it for our duty to imitate that Government which themselves confess was only practised in Scripture times; supposing this the safest way.