The Government of the Churches of Christ, Book 4 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
That the Institution for Worship and Government, falleth not upon the Saints in a Nation, Qua Nation or Kingdom, as the Seat of it.
THough the Pattern of the Jewish Church be urged to prove such a National Church, yet it will not serve the turn.
1. For it was not therefore a Church, because a Nation, but because there were no more Nations that God had chosen, nor would choose till Christ came; and therefore if any other turned Proselite, they were to turn Jews, and to be as Natives.
2. The Instance of the Jewish Church, will rather serve for the proof of an universal Church, than for any evidence, that there should be as many Churches, as there be Nations. When the Jews did turn Christians, they were the same Nation; yet the Apostles do no where Write to them, as a National Church: They Write not to the Church of Judea, but the Churches.
3. That the Church of the Jews, was a Type of the Churches in Nations, as Nations, let that be shewn. We can shew that the whole Nation, and Temple-worship, was a Type of Congregations, and that Royal Nation (as that whole Nation was then called) and the Holy Priesthood, is a Type of the Saints in all Nations.
4. God at first Set up a Church-Government, suitable to that of a Kingdom, and suited unto the Government of the World; that policy is therefore called the Elements of this World, unto which the Church in the New Testament, is not to be conformed, Rom. 12.
5. And then when there was a National Church, there was a Worship for the whole Nation, as a Nation to come unto; and so a Government in the place that God should choose for all to appeal unto; but there are no such orders now.
6. If the Institution do fall upon them, it must fall upon them either as they are a Church in a Kingdom, or as a Kingdom. But not as a Church in a Kingdom, for Qua Church, there is a greater Church out of that Kingdom, namely the Universal.
7. This opinion, tho' it seems indeed calculated to comply with Magistracy, for it divideth the independency of Government, according to the Division of the Supream power of Magistrates, and so would seem to fence them from any external power, from any other Kingdoms or Churches: Yet it makes the Church-power in that Kingdom, Independent upon that Magistrate, and that united into a greater Body, would be too hard for them, whereas the dispersing it, into particular Congregations, makes it easily wieldable.
Neither doth the Institution fall upon a conformity, either to the extent, or to the Government of Cities, as those who are for Episcopacy have intended, and some Presbyterial Divines also; and both upon the same grounds, although with this difference, that the Bishops would have the Government of Churches, to be conformed to that of the Cities, taking in the Villages about them, and so to make a Diocess and a Diocesan Church; but those for the Presbytery, contract it to the extent of a City within it self, and so make a classical Church; the opinions of either, differing in this respect only, viz. the point of extent of larger and lesser Jurisdiction, the one confined within the City Walls, the other extending without.
1. Because if it were so, then the conformity either must fall upon the Government of Cities, or the bounds of the place; that look what extent either the Government, or bounds of the Local Circuit of Cities have, the same extent should your classical Presbyteries have conformable thereunto; and in asserting either unavoidable Absurdities, would follow.
1. To make the Government conformable to the Government of Cities, as their extent should fall out, is to make a warly Government, the pattern of Ecclesiastical, is wholy to conform Spiritual Government, to the Government of the World; and then the same degrees of Officers of Superiority, and Inferiority, that is in Cities, should be in Ecclesiastical Government.
2. The conformity must rather fall upon the bounds of the Governments of Cities, than upon the circuit or material consideration; because that, which makes it a City, is the Government of it, whether the bounds of it be within the Walls, or other Towns about it, whether it extend to a larger circuit, or to a less.
3. It must either fall upon a City, as having many Congregations in it; and if so, it might as well have faln upon Villages in the Country, capable by Association to be many Churches as well, and the one would be as uncertain as the other; because there may be many Congregations in the one, as well as in the other. Or else 2. It must fall upon the Form of the Government of Cities. Or else 3. Upon Cities of such and such a circuit; and some Cities greater, and some lesser, that would be uncertain also; because some Cities are greater, and some lesser.
2. The Foundation of this Assertion cannot be a conformity to the Government of the Cities amongst the Jews; for 1. The Villages, among the Jews, had a Government in them, as well as the Cities. 2. Suppose that the Government of the Gentiles, in their Cities, was not conformed to the Government of the Jews in their Cities (which may well be supposed) for the Government of the Gentiles, was oftentimes to have whole Empires under the Government of a City; so Rome had, and then all the World under Rome, whilst it was a City Government, must have been one classical Church. or however, among the Gentiles, the Cities were the Head of a whole Province, and of all the Villages under it, and it is so in many Cities at this Day; and that would make for a Diocesan Government, and not Presbyterial.
If thus the bounds cannot be fixed, we are still to seek even in Cities, what should be the bounds, and are as uncertain, as in Villages. So as the conclusion is, the bounds according to this measure are uncertain.
3. God doth not shape a Spiritual Government, unto the political? and the bounds thereof. Political Government, goes by the bounds of the Soil; so doth not the Spiritual. All that do live within such a place, or within such a Country, because they are of that Soil, fall under the same political Government; but there is no reason, that they should fall under the same Spiritual.
4. If the Frame of the Church were to be conformed to the City Government; then as the City did take in the Suburbian Towns, the Daughters round about, so the Church should not be confined only to the compass of the City, but extend to a whole Province: As the Bishops argue for a Diocesan Church.
5. Christ's Government is suitable to all Ages, times and places; but now in all Ages and places, there is not the City Government; and there could not be the same Rule for the Government of Churches in Villages, and therefore it did not suit all places.
6. Jesus Christ's way is rather conformed to the Synagogue way; for so the Churches are called, and it is therefore conformed to the Government of the Synagogues, although in Cities.
7. If this were the Ordinance of God, to conform Church Government to the Government of Cities, then all, in London, should make one Church, because it is but one City; and Alexandria and Grand Cairo, if it were converted, would be so too, nay Rome it self (whereof the present Rome, is but the tenth part of what it was, as Cyprius shews) must have been but one Church, if they had been all converted; and there should have been but one classical Presbytery, to have Governed all the Churches there. Yea, in some places there are two Cities built together, that have the priviledges of Cities, as Constantinople and Galata, London and Westminster, the two Pragues; yea, Jerusalem had the City of David within it, and so there must have been two classical Presbyteries in Jerusalem, from the first; For those of the City of David, might have challenged the priviledge of it, the Church had been conformed to a City Government; and perhaps that was the reason, why we read of two companies of the three and twenty Elders, that did sit in Jerusalem; because each City had an Eldership of Twenty three, and so there being two Cities in that one, that of David, and the other of Jerusalem it self; there might be two Elderships, for those two Cities, besides there great Synedrim.
8. When Cities are decay'd and do lessen, and are brought low, it may be to as smal a number of Inhabitants, as Villages; yet they often retain their Priviledges as Cities, as many decayed Incorporations do. Now then if there were but one Congregation left in such a lessen'd City, it would claim by vertue of this City, priviledge to be intire within it self.
Object. But the Apostle hath said, in Tit. 1. Ordain Elders in every City, and that is parallel with that in Acts 14. They Ordain Elders in every Church, holding forth the pattern of a City, and the Government thereof for the bounds of it, to be set for that of a Church.
Answ. 1. That place in Acts 14. in every Church hath Relation, as well to Churches in Villages, as in Cities; and so to Churches in those first times of the Gospel, that consisted of no more than might meet in one place; and therefore as well it may be interpreted, that there was but as many as would make but one Church in every City, as suiting the Phrase of his Direction, in Relation to what number of Christians were supposed to be in each City of Crete, when first Titus came thither in the beginning of the Gospel; and this number may well be supposed, to be no more than could make up one Congregation, and it was well if so too, no more than could make up.
Answ. 2. Ordinary Elders in every Church implies farther, that if there were more Churches to be in a City, that then he should ordain the Elders, foreign, to every Church apart.
Answ. 3. That it is so, appears; because as hath been shewn foreign City is meant, small Towns as well as Cities.
Answ. 4. The Reason why his Direction runs to Ordain Elders in every City, was because though they did Preach the Gospel in Villages, yet principally in Cities at the first; because they were to leaven the Countries. And the Apostles, when they did Write to Churches in a Province, did use to Write to the Church of the Head City, as more eminent, not because that was either a Mother Church, as the Bishops say, or a classical Church of more Churches, as the Presbyterians say; but because it was more eminent, and from it the Epistle might be spread to others, as Paul's Epistle, to the Colossians, was ordered to be sent to Laodicea, which was in all likelihood, a less City than Colosse. And thus when they Write to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, Acts 15. they Write especially to Antioch. So when he would Write to all the Churches about Corinth, he nameth especially the Church of Corinth, together with them; and wrappeth up all the rest thus, and all that call upon the Name of the Lord.
Object. It was the Ordination of the Apostles in the Primitive Times, that all, in a City, should be one Church; both because the Distinction of Churches, and also their Names are taken from the City, as the Church of Ephesus, &c. And therefore whether in one consideration or more, whether for the present, or for the time to come, the Saints, in such and such a City, were to be one Church; and a Congregational Church they could not be, therefore a distinction of a classical Church was intended by a Church in Cities. And the Elders had charge given them, to take care of that whole City, to convert them. And to this pattern of a City Government, were the Villages also to be conformed, several Villages making an Association into one Church, as those Cities did.
Answ. 1. To the first part of the objection I answer, that they are called one Church in a City, and so distinguished; because there was but one Church for the present, as in Acts 3. 1. foreign, the Church existing at Antioch, that is, which at present was there. It doth not follow, that all the Churches, that should afterwards be there, should be but one Church. So as Bains saith, there is an Adequate acception of these Phrases, per accidens, not because the City and Church, was to make but one Church; but because the Christians by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were formed into one Church, not because there was to be but one. Now he, who thus useth them promiscuously, doth imply, that one Church was as yet constituted, not that there was to be but one, through the circuit of a City, Suburbs, and Country. Thus likewise it is easily answered, to the purpose of the Proposition; for thus the Multitude of Citizens converted, and unconverted, could not be a Church of one Congregation; yet the number of those, who in City, Suburbs, or Territories, were actually converted, was no more than might be ordered into one Church; and the Apostles framing these into one, on the present occasion, did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same local bounds. But if there had been more, there would have been other ways to have distinguished them: As when there were many Synagogues in a City, they were distinguished (for all the Synagogues could not have been called, by the Name of that one City; so nor the Congregations) and perhaps that was the reason, why that a School, which was a kind of a Synagogue, was for Distinction's sake, called the School of Tyrannus, as being the Ruler of it.
Answ. 2. If that were a Reason, then also the Name of a Village or smaller Town, as that of Cenchrea, would make as strong an Argument, that in every small Town, if there be a Church there, that it should be one intire Church (having the Government wholy in it self) as well as that many Congregations in a City, should become one Church for Government.
Answ. 3. The name of a Church, in a City, is not taken simply from the City, but from the People; as in the Revelation, the Church of the Smyrnians, and of the Laodiceans, &c. Suppose they had removed (as in those times, thorough Persecution they often did) to some other City; they would have been the Church of the Smyrnians, as well as the Church at Arnhem was called the English Church. So as the Name doth not refer simply to a City, and the bounds thereof. And when there was a Church of Strangers, of Aquila and Priscilla, &c. in Rome, it is called the Church in their House; and so also when they were removed to Ephesus, it bore the same Name, to Distinguish it from the Church of the Ephesians. It is one exception against us, that when we say the bounds of a Church should be so many as can meet in one place, we hereby do fetch the constitution of a Church, from what is meerly external and accidental to it; and the exception were true, if we fetch it from any one set or standing place, or House of meeting; but we fetch it from that which is essential to a Church, which is oneness of communion, in ordinances together, meeting with one accord, as in the Acts, their meetings are characterized, which because it cannot be done, unless they do meet in some place or other, hence we so express it, not as that thing the Ordination is set upon, but as the necessary consequent or adjunct; but this exception made against us, falls fully and directly upon them, that would make a City the extent, either of the Local bounds, or the Government thereof a pattern or measure of a classical Church, and the Institution of it.
If many Churches had been in one City, they might have been Distinguished by the Names of some of the Rulers, or as now they are by the Streets, or places of their constant meetings; for as if the Holy Ghost doth Write to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, as if the King doth Write to the City of London, he should intitle his Letter, to the Mayor and Aldermen, as Writing to the whole Corporation in their Names; so also might several Churches in Cities, have been as well Distinguished by the Names of their Rulers, and of their Elders and Pastors, as Tyrannus his School was. And there are other Reasons, why in that case the Names should be taken from the place; for cohabitation and dwelling together in a place, we acknowledge is a ground, why the Saints, so far as possibly they can, should meet in one Church-Fellowship, and not make several Fellowships. And we much rather think, that still the Denomination of one Church, in a City, did hold forth this Rule, that in all Cities, the Saints dwelling together; and so elsewhere, should make as big Churches as they could; to shew their Unity, and to make the Worship more Solemn, and to have more of the assistance of the Holy Ghost; and therefore they should not make many Congregations, where there might be one only.
Answ. 4. To the Second part of the Objection, concerning the conversion which the Elders are to take care of, I answer 1. To Preach is one thing, to censure is another. And besides at that rate of arguing, all those, that a Man begets to Christ, hath therefore Authority over, to Rule them, to be their Minister. 2. The Elders, at Ephesus, indeed had a charge as Elders, by way of Government over the whole Flock, the Church that God Redeemed by his Blood; that is, of those that were conververted; and although that they were to endeavour to convert others (for how should the Gospel otherwise be propagated) yet if more had been converted, then there must have been Churches multiplyed; but still in the uniform frame, that this first Church was, having the same priviledges; and so to have New Elders placed over them, as over a New Flock. And besides, they are not called Elders of Ephesus, but Elders of the Church at Ephesus. The care of Elders set in a City to convert, was to be extended as well to the Neighbour Villages, as to the Cities, especially then when they had gained as yet but few in a City: And then by this Reason, those in the Villages were obliged to be Associated with them, as well as those in a City, although all the City should also be converted, especially if those in the Villages were the first converts; and this is one of the Episcopal grounds for a Diocesan Church; they in effect tell the same story, for the rearing up of Episcopal Government.
Answ. 5. To third part of the Objection, we Reply, that the way of constitution of Churches under the Gospel, being uniform according to Christ's institution, both in Villages and Cities, it is therefore squared, as well to the condition of the one, as the other: And therefore a Church, in a Village, may as well be made the pattern for the constituting of Churches in a City, as a Church in a City, for forming one in a Village. But Christ hath framed his institution so, as will serve both; and the certain Rules for both are the due bounds of a Church set (whereof there are many sure and certain characters in the word, from the Nature and thing it self) that so many as dwell together, that can conveniently meet in one place, should become one Church.
We grant (as Bains in the like case, pag. 12. Conclus. 2. concerning a Diocesan Church) that God might have made this pattern of City Government, an Ordinance of Church Government, as he did once take a Family Government under the Old Law, and made that a Church; and extended the bounds still by a Family, as they grew either greater or lesser: But as then, if a Man's Family had spread into many Families, though he was the Priest of all these Families in publick Worship; because he was the Eldest of the Family, whilst he lived; yet that would not have been a binding Law to several other Families living together, that had not sprung one from another; that they should have come under the same Law of Association, that the others did. And therefore, though this were granted concerning Cities, it would not follow, that the Villages must be conformed thereunto.