An Apology for the Discipline of the Ancient Church, Part 2 · Section 4
SECT. IV. The words of the Letter.
Mr. Matthews.THE firſt riſe of the rottening of the Church, was its falling from the pure poor Presbyterial Church, (which in reſpect of its primitive conſtitution was compoſed & made up of living ſtones, namely, lively Members, and laborious Miniſters, being faſtly and firmly knit unto the Lord Jeſus as their only head by faith: and one to the other by a fraternal Covenant of fervent love, according to the pattern which was propoſed preſcribed in both Teſtaments, Iſ. 44.5. Jer. 50.5. Ezek. 20.37. Zach. 11.7, 10, 14. 2 Cor. 8.5. Epheſ. 2.13, 19, 22. Col. 2.2, 19. 1 Pet. 2.5.) into an impure, unpoliſhed parochial Church: At that time when ceaſing to elect or ordain a Teacher, a Paſtour, a Ruler, a Deacon or Diaconeſſe, or Widow in conformity to the heavenly Canon, Rom. 12.7. 15.4. 16.1. compared with 1 Tim. 3.1. and Titus 1.5, 6. it was well content to admit and accept of a Parſon, a Vicar, a Warden, an Over-ſeer of the poor, and a Mid-wife. By which wiſdome of the fleſh, being no better then enmity againſt God, within a ſhort time after the dayes of the Apoſtles, Chriſts ſpiritual houſe as well growing and living Temple, was turned and transformed into a carnal and dead Town or Apoſtatizing Pariſh. The very beginning and breeding of which Parochial Church is ſeen to have been in the time of Polycarp and Irenaeus, one of them being an Elder of the Church at Smyrna, and a diſciple of John the Evangeliſt, and the other a Paſtour at Lyons, and a diſciple of that Polycarp, as any man may eaſily perceive, that will peruſe what is to be obſerved in Euſebius his Eccleſiaſtical hiſtory. lib. 4. c. 14. 15. lib. 5. cap. 23. 24.
The Reply.
That my anſwer may be the clearer to what you here propoſe, I ſhall caſt your words into this method. For firſt I will conſider of,
1. The conſtitution and deſcription you give us here of your Presbyterial Church, and the proofs you bring for it, out of both Teſtaments.
2. Whether the rottening of this Church, was the falling of it, from a poor pure Presbyterial Church, into an impure unpoliſh'd Parochial Church?
3. Whether your aſſertion be true, that when it ceaſed to elect or ordain either a Teacher, a Paſtour, a Ruler, a Deacon, Deaconeſſe or Widow in conformity to the Canon, Rom. 12.15, 16. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1.5. but admitted of a Parſon, Vicar, &c. that then it was corrupted, and became an Apoſtatizing Pariſh.
4. Whether the beginning and breeding of this Apoſtacy and corruption began in Polycarps and Iraeneus dayes.
Theſe four points being examined, the weakneſſe of your aſperſion will very evidently appear. And firſt to the firſt.
1. You ſay, That the Presbyterial Church in reſpect of its Primitive conſtitution, was compoſed and made up of living ſtones, namely, lively members, &c.
NOw here I muſt put you in minde of an old Proverb, Cantherius in porta. For you ſtumble in your firſt ſetting out, and go about to impoſe upon me by a fallacy, which if you will not grant, I ſhall clearly deny your deſcription; for you diſcourſe à dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter.
I am confident you will not deny but your Presbytyrial Church is a part of Chriſts Militant Church, viſible with us on earth. And that is compared to a Net, in which be good and bad fiſh; to a field, in which are wheat and tares; to a Barn-floor, in which is Corn and Chaffe; to a houſe, in which are veſſels of honour and diſhonour. Your viſible Presbyterial Church for ought I know then muſt be like all other Churches; have in it profeſſours, as well as true beleevers; hypocrites, as well as ſincere worſhippers: which if you ſhould deny, I would ask you whether the Church Acts 2. or any that the Apoſtles planted, were Presbyterial Churches or not. If they were not, there was never any; if they were, then there may be hypocrites and profane perſons in them. For in thoſe we read of Ananias, Sapphyra, Simon Magus, Hymineus, Alexander, Demas, Diotrophes, the Nicolaitans, and thoſe that ſaid they were Apoſtles, and were not. How then was the Primitive Church compoſed and made up of none but living ſtones?
Here then lies the fallacy, à dicto ſecundum quid. The Church in reſpect of the Elect, who to us are inviſible, that belong unto the myſtical body of Chriſt, is compoſed of living ſtones, namely, lively members, &c. and thus much thoſe texts you produce very ſtrongly prove. But the Church as it is Militant and viſible of which you muſt ſpeak, becauſe you ſpeak of a Presbyterial Church, comprehends all ſorts in it, who though they be true, real and univocal parts of the viſible body, yet they are but aequivocal parts of the myſtical, and to them your deſcription belongs not. To argue then from the part to the whole, is a fallacy. Some in the Presbyterial Church are living ſtones, therefore the whole Presbyterial Church is in its Primitive conſtitution compoſed of theſe, is fallacious.
We grant that it were earneſtly to be wiſh'd, and all lawful means would be diligently uſed both by Paſtour and people, to have all the members of a Church moſt holy and gracious. But to ſay a Church hath no right conſtitution where all the members are not ſuch, is a foule errour.
For never yet was their any Church of ſuch a conſtitution; not the Domeſtical under the fathers, not the Jewiſh or National under Moſes, not the Chriſtian under the Apoſtles themſelves, and therefore aſſume not that to your Presbyterial Church, which yet never was in any, nor never ſhall be. All Churches as viſible, conſiſt of heterogeneous parts, and ſo doth yours; which if it ſhould marre the conſtitution of a Church, it muſt needs marre yours as well as others. For I hope you will not ſay, that all yours are Saints more than by calling, and ſo are all Chriſtians, even thoſe at Corinth and all,1 Cor. 16.2. Cap. 1.12, 13. cap. 5.1. cap. 6.15. cap. 11.21. cap. 15.35. cap. 8.12, 13. among whom yet were ſchiſmatical and contentious perſons, envying and ſtrife, inceſt, and inceſt tolerated, going to Law with their brethren, Harlotry, coming to the Lords Table drunk, a denying of a fundamental point of ſaith, the reſurrection, little charity to the weak brother. Now then if Corinth were a Presbyterial Church, certainly in the Primitive conſtitution it was not compoſed of living ſtones onelyonly, &c.
To conclude, to the conſtitution of a Church there can be but two things required; the materiale, and the formale; the matter, are a people gathered and united, called by the Word to live in a divine policy under Chriſt their head. The forme that unites them to him, is as you ſay rightly, faith and charity. That they be truly and indeed united to him, requiſite it is that their faith be lively working by love. But that they be united to the body the viſible Church, which is the foreign, there is no more, nor can be no more expected, but that they make outwardly a profeſſion of faith, and fraternal love. For whether either be true, unfeigned and ſincere or no, we can never know, and ſhould we ſtay till thoſe were manifeſt unto us, it would be long enough before we ſhould conſtitute our's, or you your Church: pray take this better into your conſideration. Now I proceed to that wh ch you more aime at; viz.
2. That the riſe of the rottening of the Church, was its falling from a pure poor Presbyterial Church into an impure, unpoliſhed Parochial Church.
TO which I have this to ſay. Firſt, that if this poſition be true, then Ameſius was miſtaken,Ameſ. Med. l. 1. cap. 39. Sect. 22. who makes a Combinational Church all one with a Parochial. He tells us there of a Church inſtituted by God, and ſaith, that it was not National, Provincial, nor Dioceſan, but Parochialis, vel unius Congregationis, cujus membra inter ſe combinantur, & ordinarie couveniunt in eodem loco ad publicum Religionis exercitium. If you ſhall ſay, that this kind of Parochial Church differs from ours at this day, becauſe it is combined in Covenant, which ours is not: I grant it: but adde, that ſuch a Combination is not neceſſary. For I know no other Covenant requiſite, but that in Baptiſme to make a man a member of any Church, as I formerly proved unto you. Neither can you give any one inſtance of any ſuch Covenant before your time, was taken by any Parochial Church in Ameſius ſenſe.
Secondly, I ſhall here again put you in minde of that I intimated at firſt, about this word Parochia, and give you farther light in it. For Parochia hath a double acception, eirher as it was at firſt,Selden. of tyths, cap. 6. Sect. 3. or as it is uſed in our dayes. At firſt the word Parochia denoted a whole Biſhoprick (which is but a greater Pariſh) and ſignified no other than a Dioceſſe. That in theſe there were Towns and Villages cannot be denyed; for the proof of this we need but run over the names of Cities, Towns, &c. of Judea mentioned in the Old and New Teſtament, and all plantations will teach us, that in proceſſe of time it comes to be thus; at firſt in greater Cities, then in theſe Religion was planted. Among theſe it cannot be well conceived, that the whole hamlet was at once converted, but it muſt be done by little and little, till at laſt the whole Townſhip received the faith. Together then they met for the ſervice of God, and as the Jewes in their ſeveral Towns had to that purpoſe their Synagogues; ſo Chriſtians began to think of convenient places, where they might meet to this purpoſe, (as you in New-England) they built them Churches, and ſo from meeting in private houſes, they met in theſe. Where yet they entered not into a Combination to be an abſolute and Independent Congregation, but did depend on the chief Church, where the Biſhop was reſident; and this is evident, by what I ſhall now ſay. The Paſtours of theſe Pariſhes were ſuch as the Biſhop appointed under him to have care of ſouls in them; and thoſe are they,Conc. Neoceſ. cap. 58. Conc. Antioch. cap. 87. & 89. whom the Old Greek Councils call foreign, or foreign, or foreign. And in the Churches where they kept their cure, the offerings of devout Chriſtians were received. All that was received in the Biſhoprick, was as a common treaſury to be thus diſpenſed; one part of it was allowed the maintenance of the Miniſtry; another, to the relief of the poor, ſick and ſtrangers; a third,Conc. Antioch. cap. 103, 104. to the reparation of Churches; the fourth part to the Biſhop. Thus it was many years before the Council of Nice, that the Biſhops Parochia extended far; and that the whole was under his juriſdiction, and conſequently, had not abſolute power within themſelves.
2. But when the word Pariſh in that ſenſe it is now uſed, began, it is not ſo eaſie to avouch; yet for it we have theſe Records:Damaſus in pontific. Euſeb. l. 2. c. 17. Epiphan. Haereſ. 69. Euſeb. l. 6. c. 43. Evariſtus who lived in Trajans time, and ſucceeded Clemens, divided Rome into ſeven Pariſhes, aſſigning to every one a Presbyter. And it may be eaſily collected out of Euſebius, that it was thus at Alexandria; and Epiphanius names many which bore theſe titles; Theonae Serapionis, Pierii, Perſiae, Diſeae, Mendidii, Amriani, Baucalis, &c. For indeed neceſſity required it, when the Chriſtians grew to be foreign, as Cornelius called the Chriſtians, and did impl…re omnia. Tertull. Apol. cap. 37. Then they were forced to divide Congregations, and aſſigne ſeveral Presbyters to their cures, yet in ſubordination to their Biſhops, as is evident in all Records of the Church.
This being ſo, how is it poſſible, that the rottening of the pure poor Presbyterial Church, ſhould be the riſe of the Parochial? when the Parochial in the firſt ſenſe was the firſt Church that ever was in the world as I have before manifeſted. In which ſenſe it is that Cyril calls Saint James, Cyril. Catechiſ. 16.primum hujus Parochiae, meaning Jeruſal. Epiſcopum: and in that ſignification it is very obvious to be read in the old Councils of both tongues, as Fileſacus hath obſerved; you then argue ex non conceſſis. For in the firſt ſenſe, the Parochial had the precedency, and was older than your new device. Your Combinational might corrupt and rotten it, but that could never corrupt and rotten that which was not. If you take it in the laſt, for Pariſhes as they after were reſtrained, and are conſtituted at this day, you muſt ſhew that your Church had the priority of them, which you are never able to do: elſe you cannot ſay that they corrupted it. And indeed your allegation that follows is ſo weak, that any man who reads and conſiders it, will ſuſpect that you have little to ſay for your cauſe.
3. At that time this was, when ceaſing to elect and ordain either a Teacher, a Paſtour, a Ruler, a Deacon or Deaconeſſe, or Widow, in conformity to the heavenly Canon, Rom. 12.7. & 15.4. & 16.1. compared with 1 Tim. 3.1. Titus 1.5.6. it was well content with a Parſon, a Vicar, a Warden, an Over-ſeer of the Poor, and a Midwife.
THE time of this corruption you point out, and ſet it to be when it ceaſed to elect and ordain a Teacher, &c. Here again you commit the ſame errour, ſuppoſing I am bound to truſt and beleeve you on your bare word. Ceaſing to do any thing, preſuppoſeth that there was a time when one might or did do it: Now it behoveth you to ſhew the time when Pariſhes in general, (for particulars will make no rule, and few, very few are to be given;) did ever elect their Paſtour. I am ſure to ordain him, in antiquity you can produce not one example. 'Tis not poſſible, ſince the Records of the Church are open, and he that runnes may read them; that at firſt the Teacher and Paſtour ſent to any Church, was ſent and there placed by the Biſhop. The inſtances are ſo many, and the practice of the Church ſo univerſal, that it were loſt labour to produce them; yet here I ſhall ask you onelyonly one queſtion; if this were a corruption, I wonder why by your pure Presbyterial Church it is retained? why are men now elected, approved, ſent and ſetled to be Parſons and Vicars in Pariſh Churches? who you know are neither elected nor ordained by that Church over whom they are ſet. Remove this beam out of your own eye, before you ſee the mote in you brothers.
Well, but what was the errour? this, that the Pariſh contented it ſelf with a Parſon and Vicar, for a Paſtour, Teacher, and Ruler; as if the Parſon and Vicar might not be all theſe; might not feed, teach and rule his flock? what ſhould hinder him? for call him by what name you pleaſe, his office and duty is the ſame; and a Parſon and Vicar is bound as much to feed, teach and guide his flock, as is your Paſtour, Teacher and Ruler; and muſt anſwer the neglect of it as well as they; this is to ſeek a knot in a ruſh. Be pleaſed to tranſlate Parſon by a Latine word, and you ſhall alwayes finde it rendred by Paſtor or Rector Eccleſiae, and how then is the man or his name changed? and if the Latines may content themſelves to be under the Paſtor or Rector, I ſee no reaſon but the Engliſh may as well be content with their Parſon. He becauſe in caſe of neceſſary abſence, diſability of body, age, or other caſualties which may be, when the Pariſh was of a very large extent, aſſumed unto him a helper; who becauſe he was vices ejus ſupplere, was called Vicarius; this was the original of Vicars; and that you look not ſo ſtrangely at the name; in the old Law, the High Prieſt had his Sagan,Caſaubon. Exerc. 13. Num. 9. who in caſe of the High Prieſts pollution performed his office; ſuch was Zephaniah 2 Reg. 25.18. and nAnas unto Caiaphas; the Chorepiſcopi were of the ſame kind to the Biſhops of old. And the Protoſincelli to the Patriarchs of Conſtantinople. And in this there was no hurt that came in from Rome, when by appropriations of the revenues of the Church to Abbies, Monaſteries,Selden of tyths, cap. 12. Sect. 1. &c. perpetual Vicarages were erected. But this was ſo late, that no injury could be done to the Combinational Church by it, ſince that was corrupted and gone, when Pariſhes were erected many hundred years before, and then there were none of theſe Vicars in rerum natura; I ſee not then to what purpoſe this name is here inſerted, except to make up the tale; and the ſame may be ſaid of the Parſon alſo, for it is no ancient name. A Deacon we retain, though in another employment, and probably in the very office that Timothy puts;Vide ſis Aretii loc. Commun. loc. 66. de Diaconis. and indeed inſtead of thoſe that ſerved Tables, we have Wardens and Over-ſeers of the poor, which at firſt was but a meer ſecular, but charitable employment, as was a Deaconeſſe; and putting honeſt men into ſuch an employment, though under another name, is no corruption of any Churches conſtitution, for it marrs not the matter nor form of it. How your Mid-wife comes in, I muſt profeſſe I am to ſeek; for I never heard any man more look upon her as an officious and uſeful hand-maid of the Church, then upon the Mid-wives of Egypt. About theſe two laſt, the Deacon and Deaconeſſe,Aret. in Tim. 1.3. Aretius in his Commentary upon 1 Tim. 3. hath a very good obſervation, that theſe were very neceſſary in the firſt planting of the Church, and before there were Chriſtian Magiſtrates; but after that Kings became nurſing fathers and nurſing mothers to the people of God, they took a care that the poor Chriſtians ſhould be relieved in another way than by the Church-ſtock. There were foreign, and foreign erected in Hoſpitals, Almes-houſes, &c. they were provided for, then they made Lawes for a common-ſtock to be collected in every Pariſh for that purpoſe, and appointed by Statutes, Over-ſeers of the poor, and other Officers. We, ſaith he, therefore have not in our Churches ſuch Deacons and Deaconeſſes as they had; neither is it requiſite we ſhould have, becauſe the duty is ſo wiſely ordered by the political Magiſtrate. To this purpoſe, that grave and wiſe Expoſitour.
But this you ſay ſhould be done in conformity to the heavenly Canon, and many texts you cite for it; but I can finde no Canon at all in any of them for what you aime at. Rom. 12.7. I read, he that hath foreign, let him wait upon it. But I have told you it is of gifts the Apoſtle there ſpeaks, not of functions,2 Cor. 4.1. & 6.3. Rom. 11.13. or if of functions, the words is foreign, and the doctrine of the Goſpel is adorned with this title, and the Miniſters in what degree ſoever, called paſſim Diaconi, Col. 1.7. & 4.17. & 1.23.25. 1 Cor. 3.5. 2 Cor. 3.6. The next citation, Rom. 15.4. paſſeth my reach, for I ſee not how it can be drawn to ſay any thing to this purpoſe, therefore I paſſe it by. You urge Rom. 16.1. and that indeed ſpeaks of Phaebe as foreign a ſervant of the Church of Cenchrea. Be it ſo, that una hirundo non facit ver, were it true in your ſenſe, yet one example will make no rule; again, a ſervant ſhe might be, and yet not ſuch as you intend; for if you will admit of Ignatius deſcription of thoſe ſervants, (and he was near the Apoſtles age, and could beſt deſcribe them,) I dare ſay you will not acknowledge your Deaconeſſes to be ſuch; his words are, foreign.Ignat. Ep. ad Antioch. But to yield to you all you can ask, Aretius gives you a reaſon why they may be ſpared. You adviſe that theſe places be compared with 1 Tim. 3.1. I ſuppoſe it ſhould be the 11. And then Expoſitours will tell you, that Saint Paul ſpeaks not all of Deaconeſſes, but of the wives of Deacons, and other Church men, enjoyning that they be grave Matrons, no Slaunderers, but ſober, faithful in all things. Your laſt place, Tit. 1.5, 6. makes clearly againſt you; for if Titus were left in Crete to ordain, then the Combinational Church was not to elect and ordain Paſtours, Teachers, &c. Here I can finde no Canon for that.
Logicians obſerve that thoſe arguments have little force in them, that mutatis mutandis may be returned, for they are but like Tennis balls that are banded from hand to hand, and ſerve onelyonly for ſport. Will you have but patience then, while I return your diſcourſe? The firſt riſe of rottening the Church, (being it's falling from a poor pure Apoſtolical Church, which in its primitive conſtitution was made up of living ſtones, &c.) was at that time when ceaſing to elect and ordain Biſhops, Presbyters, Evangeliſts, Teachers, Catechizers, in conformity to the heavenly Canon, 1 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. Titus 1.5, 6. Epheſ. 4.11. 2 Tim. 4.5. Gal. 6.6. it was well content to admit & accept of Approvers, Ruling Elders, Lecturers, Itinerants; by which wiſdome of the fleſh, being no better then enmity againſt God, in this laſt age of the world, long after the Apoſtles dayes, Chriſts ſpiritual houſe, and growing as well as ſpiritual Temple, was turned and transformed into a carnal and dead Congregation, an Apoſtatizing Combinational Church. No queſtion the argument thus returned will diſpleaſe, and yet there is as much ſtrength in this, as in the other. This may make us both wary, how we make uſe of ſuch Cothurni, reaſons that as buskins may be drawn on either leg. That which in the laſt place you alledge is
4. The very beginning and breeding of which Parochial Church is ſeen to have been in the time of Polycarp and Irenaeus.
WHat's this I read? a Pariſh Church of that antiquity? Parſons, Vicars, Wardens, Over-ſeers of the poor then? What theſe while Saint John might be for ought we know yet alive? For Polycarp you confeſſe was his Diſciple, and in it you ſay true; for thus Irenaeus witneſſeth; Polycarpus non ſolum ab Apoſtolis edoctus, Iren. lib. 3. c. 3.& converſatus cum multis ex eis, qui Dominum noſtrum viderunt, ſed etiam ab Apoſtolis in Aſia, in eâ quae eſt Smyrnis Eccleſia conſtitutus Epiſcopus. This is greater antiquity for a Pariſh Church in that ſenſe you intend, then I or any body elſe could ever finde before. That which deceived you, as I am apt to beleeve, is the tranſlation by Hanmer, who renders the words of the Epiſtle of the Church of Smyrna, unto the Pariſhes throughout Pontus, Euſeb. l. 4. c. 15.not underſtanding that foreign, the Greek word is often taken, and moſt uſually in the eldeſt of the Greek Writers, for regiones ſuburbicariae the neighbouring habitations, before there was any diſtinction of Pariſhes; Epheſus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Laodicea, were foreign, as in reſpect of ſecular juriſdiction, ſo alſo in Eccleſiaſtical regiment; when then the Smyrneans directed their letter foreign, they meant no other then thoſe Churches which were under the Smyrnean juriſdiction.
But admit it were true in your ſenſe, what have you gained by it? nay rather what have you not loſt? for to ſay your Combinational Church ſhould fail in the Apoſtles or his Diſciples time, by the ſetting up of the Parochial, will give ſuch encouragement to the adverſe party, that they will not doubt to ſay, That was well done which was then done; eſpecially when they cannot finde for ſixteen hundred years any man that opened his mouth againſt it. And the ſelf-ſame anſwer will ſerve to your other inſtance of Irenaeus.
Of theſe two worthies you affirme, that one of them was an Elder of the Church of Smyrna, the other Paſtour of Lyons. And I pray, why could you not as well have called them by other names? I am ſure your Authour Euſebius doth. For of the laſt thus he ſaith,Euſeb. l. 5. c. 5. that when Pothinus of the age of ninety years had ended his life, — Irenaeus ſucceeded him in the Biſhoprick. He was a Biſhop then, but if you take Paſtour in that ſenſe, as it is almoſt taken in Church Records, we agree. But yet I muſt remember you that Lyons was a great City, and ſomewhat more than a Pariſh, as you mean.
As for Polycarp, your Authour tells you that he was Preſident of the Church of Smyrna, and ſo Irenaeus calls him Epiſcopus ab Apoſtolis conſtitutus, and under that title Ignatius writes to him;Ignat. Epiſt. ad Polycarp. and in all probability he is that Angel of the Church of Smyrna, to whom that Epiſtle was written, Rev. 2. He was then capable of a higher title then of an ordinary Elder; he had indeed in his Church many Elders, even a whole Presbytery; and therefore Ignatius gives this direction to thoſe of Smyrna, foreign foreign.Idem Epiſt. ad Smyrn. In this elegant gradation, you ſee he makes a diſtinction of Laicks, Deacons, Presbyters, and a Biſhop; and therefore Polycarp was more than a common Presbyter, to whom he perſwades all the Presbyters to be in ſubjection. And which is yet more, which makes clearly againſt your Combinational Churches, (for you grant there were Pariſhes at Smyrna) in the cloſe of his Epiſtle to Polycarp, he perſwades them to continue in the unity of God; and the Biſhop his words are theſe, foreign. In which unity had we remained, we had not lived to ſee the Church ſo rent, and overcome with ſo many Hereſies, as we behold and lament at this day. I come to your third degree of corruption.