ordained that the Civitas and Vrbs people taken in regard of the whole multitude of the one and locall bounds of the other should make but one Church they did institute a Diocesan church But those who so instituted a Church in Citie suburbs Countrey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church Againe to the assumption But those who use Citie by Citie and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that Citie suburbs and Countrey should make but one Church I answer by the like distinction They who use Citie by Citie people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may bee sayd to have ordained that citie suburbs and teritories should make but one Church But thus the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the Citie had a reason of an ample continent the Church of a thing contained These phrases are the one proper the other metonymicall and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other Hee placed Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest wee should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is sayd in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted out of the multitude and locall limits wherewith cities were bounded Secondly there is an adaequate acception of these phrases per accidens not because the citie and church was to make but one church but because the Christians by occasion of their number not being then too great were framed into one church or because by occasion there was yet but 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 bee but one through the circuit of citie suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easily answered to the proofe of the proposition For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted could not bee a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in citie suburbs and territories were actually converted was no more then 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 locall bounds To the second Argument and First to the objection from the Nationall church of the Iewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one Church because they were all one kingdome one possession For thus there was one Occumenicall Church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unitie of a Church whether the kingdom be one or no. If Israell when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worshipp of that Church they had still beene one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have been in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though many Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worship which were in that one Church to which they all belonged The high Priest was their proper Priest hee made intercession for them blessed them they were not to offer any where but there If any think this cannot bee the cause why they were one Church under the government of one high Priest for then should Aaron have been as well as Melchisedeck a type of Christs kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacie and government as well as Princely They were under Aaron in the former regard in which hee was a shadow of Christ To the second instance of Hierusalem wee deny the proposition It might bee intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over others If it should have been a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have been head to all the world Secondly Wee deny the Assumption That the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Iudea as it had been before under the High Priest That constitution was typicall and may better plead for an universall Christian Church then for a Nationall Secondly there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way Thirdly had this Divinitie been knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have been made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meet ordinarily could not bee a parishionall Church This was so Ergo c. To the proposition I answer That which was by inhabitants who had fixum domicilium so numbersome that it could not meet I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meet ordinarily as is aboue said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them as Irenaeus affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam eam convenisse Luke affirmeth the same As for that of millions of beleevers it is certaine they were not fixed members of this Church For would Luke who reckoneth the growth of them to 5000. have concealed so notable accessions whereby they say they grew up to I know not how many thousands there is no likelihood Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned Iohn 2. or whether by occasion of the Passover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in transitu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Nevertelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they bee tollerated as in one Congregation The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and bee dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to bee because it was Ecclesia surcularis many of whose branches were to bee transplanted in their time Yea had there been five thousand setled members we read of some ordinarie Auditories spoken to by ordinarie Pastors as great as Chrysostome on Math. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme they might be five thousand that then heard his voyce Touching the third instance As to the first reason The proposition is denyed for naming the rest of Achaia with them doth no more signifie the subiection of all Achaians then in the 1. Corinth 1.2 naming all Saints in every place doth signifie their subiection The second reason hath the sequell of the proposition denied for the contrary is rather true He who without any note of difference calleth the Church of
corrective power inflicteth on their fellow servants in other degrees Thus Pastors signifie Gods will to governing Presbyters and Deacons what he would have them to doe in their places Thus the Apostles might informe all orders under them Concl. 7. This power ministeriall tending to execute the pleasure of Christs corrective power was committed to some in extraordinary degrees personally and singularly and might be so in some cases exercised by them I mean singularitie without concurrence of any others This without doubt was in the Apostles and Euangelists and it was needfull it should bee so first because it might be behovefull there to excommunicate where as yet Churches were not risen to their perfect frame secondly because there might be some persons not setled as fixed dwellers in any Church whom yet to be cast forth was very behovefull Againe some Evangelists might incurre censure as Demas in such sort as no ordinary Churches power could reach to them Concl. 8. That ordinarily this power is not given to any one singularly by himselfe to exercise the same but with the companie of others constituting a representative Church which is the poynt next to bee shewed Yea where Churches were constituted the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power without the ministeriall concurrence of the Churches as in the storie of the Corinthians is manifest THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a vnited multitude of Presbyters THough this question is so coincident with the former that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed yet for some new considerations which may bee super-added wee will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. That which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of iurisdiction was comitted to the Church Mat. 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to some one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to bee exercised by the whole Church or to any Church in the Church Ergo to one who is in effect as the church having all the authority of it Secondly if one person may be representativly a Church when jurisdiction is promised then one person may be representatiuly a church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of iurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia sayth that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the Bishop that they cannot bee severed Finally as the kingdome of England may bee put for the King in whom is all the power of the kingdome So the Church for the chiefe governour in whom is the power of it The second Argument That which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted that was not promised to them as their immediat right But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted Ergo Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters For then the Apostles would not have withheld it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his iudgement was faine to excommunicate And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate and signifie them as not having power within themselves to censure them And so Paul alone excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander The third Argument That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches and their successours that was not committed to Presbyteries but singular persons But in power of ordination and iurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of iurisdiction that Christ did ordain But the order of one chiefe governour is fitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fift Argument If all authoritie and power of exercise be in the Church originally then the Pastors derive their power from the Church But this is not true Ergo it was not committed to the Church That authoritie which the Church never had she cannot convey But the Pastorall authoritie of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken Ergo it cannot be derived from her Againe Pastours should discharge their office in the name of the Church did they receive their power from the Church The sixth Argument If the power of iurisdiction and execution bee committed from Christ to the Church then hath the Church supreame power Then may a particular Church depose her Bishop the sheepe censure the shepheard children their fathers which is absurd On the other side it is argued Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many and to be exercised by many that never was committed by Christ to one and the execution of any one But Math. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of iurisdiction to be in many and that exercitativè so as by them being many is it to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plain in the place Where first marke that Christ doth presuppose the authoritie of every particular Church taken indistinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Therefore no universall or provinciall or Diocesan Church gathered in a Councell Secondly it is not any particular Church that he doth send all Christians to for then all Christians in the world should come to one perticular Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Churh where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntiation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinarie particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governors of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom wee may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morelius and such Democritall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtuallie as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one
then the Church receiving and executing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the Church typified by Peter is properly and really a Church not figuratiuely and improperly for then Peter should haue bene a figure or type of a type or figuratiue Church The figure therfore and type being of the Church which is properly taken and the Church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Math. 18.17 the Church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratiuely and improperly a Church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that Church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall Church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the Church Math. 18. Ergo that Church Math. 18. is not a virtuall Church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastor and people by mutuall loue which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocentius 3. that the Bishop was counted the Church or this dreame of a virtuall Church once imagined The Clerkes of the Church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carrie the name of the Church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up aboue generall Councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall Churches As for a Kingdom I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratiuely but the Church typified by Peter must needs be a Church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a Church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power wherby the whole Kingdom is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Corinth who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I haue decreed or judged leaving nothing to the Church but out of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist 2. he saith For this cause I haue written to you that I may prooue whether you will in all things be obedient What Arguments are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated he leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing he leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to giue sentence The truth is the Apostle might haue judged him to be excommunicate and an Euangelist if present might haue judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles haue and the same man should be excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as she cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example she is provoked Yea where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him he should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had been just and the peoples favour had been unjust Ionathan had been under condemnation but execution had been prevented by the peoples headstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans As though one may not exercise power or government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superiour Touching the place in the Thessalonians those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greek Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to be avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Paules excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but as he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his hands 2. Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbyterie ioyned 1. Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath been sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a universitie having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authoritie of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his own order this is the fitttest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeares expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this depravation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessitie of one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by ioynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestine is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one insspiring him with his spirit and not be present with many who are in his name and with his warrant assembled As for those comparisons they hold not in all they hold in that
in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Friers in his booke called The Defence of Curates For when those Friers incroached upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinarius Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Deâ— ad illud ministerium explendum electa Which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the fore said Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church then that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authoritie with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgement furnished with chancellours officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devises Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainely that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein wee are like to the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christ an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist in deed they can give a shifting ansvver that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordeyners by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papist but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by vvhole authority our English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceiue the truth and certaintie of those records which I wisse they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flie to the Kings authoritie the King himselfe will forsake them and denie that hee taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Arch-bishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselues and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacie upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Arch-bishop Cannot receiue the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of sixe pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if he will hold his place against his conscience put back those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bitshop and his Officers they must hurrie up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hand not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to be railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those Canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselues for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who haue no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symonie as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchie which in the root of it is heere overthrowen by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and third Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set down for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis insparabilis Presbytero inquantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus a sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostoiâ— cuius etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alii Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum Haec nomina Presbyter Episcopus in primitiva Ecelesia fuerunt synomina quamvis a diversis proprietatibus eidem imposita fuerint Presbyter ab aetate nomen impositum est quasi senior Episcopus vero a dignitate ceu cura super alios quasi superintendens Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to recite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrones of our Hierarchie Ierome sayth ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimonie D.
Downam avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be overlong to declare all the use which may bee made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prolixitie in the Preface If the Authour had lived to haue accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would haue left all so cleare that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observations are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITVTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsiue conclusions and answer the objections made against that part we take to be the truth Those who affirme the frame of Diocesan Churches vouch their Arguments partly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finally from the congruitie it hath with reason that so they should be continued The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders Citie by Citie They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a Citie with the Suburbs and region about it should make but one Church they ordeined a Diocesan Church But the Apostles who use these phrases as aequipollent To ordaine Presbyters in every Citie and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a Citie with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Diocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a Citie with the suburbes villages and countries about it could not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleere for these phrases are used as ad aequate and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed Cities subburbs and regions into one Church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitiue times and from Paternes in our owne times yea euen from such Churches is we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the Church of the Iewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which many particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common wealth and had all but one profession that may many Christian Churches now be upon the like grounds But they then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdom and had all but one profession were all one nationall Church Ergo upon like grounds many Churches with us in a Nation or Citie may be one Nationall or Diocesan Church Secondly the Church of Ierusalem in the New-testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head Church to all Christians in Iudea that was a Diocesan Church But this they did by the Church of Ierusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionally was no parishionall but Diocesan Church But that Church was such First by growing to 3000 then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to haue millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the Church of Ierusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocesan Church Thirdly the Church of Corinth is objected to haue bene a Metropolitan Church He who writing to the Church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that Church But this doth Paul 1. Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with preheminence before the rest of Achaia doth imply that the Church of Corinth was the Metropolitan Church to which all Achaia was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother Citie of all Macedonia the Church in that Citie must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan Church But Philipi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the Churches of Asia which are thus proved at least to haue bene Diocesan 1 Those seven Churches which conteyned all other Churches in Asia strictly taken whether in Citie or Countrey those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocesan Churches But those seven did conteine all other in Asia Ergo. 2 He who writing to all Churches in Asia writeth by name but to these seven he doth imply that all the rest were conteyned in these But Christ writing to the seven writeth to all Churches in Asia not to name that two of these were Metropolitan Cities viz. Philadelphia Pergamus seates Diocesan at least 3 He who maketh the singular Church he writeth to to be a multitude of Churches not one onely as the bodie is not one member onely he doth make that one Church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan Church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every Church which he had spoken to in singular doth speak of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath cares heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo Thus leaving Sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancient Churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should be a Parishionall Congregation 200 years after Christ For if the multitude of Christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proproportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further confirmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed Churches these proue a Diocesan Church That respect which many congregations distinct may haue now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unitie of the place is but extrinsicke to the unitie of the congregation But many distinct congregations gathered in one Citie Church may make we say one Church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in diverse places may make one Church It many Churches which may subject themselves to the govornment of one Presbyterie may so make one they may subject
themselues to a Bishop and Cathedrall Consistorie and so make one But the 24 Churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselues to the government of one Presbyterie and so make one For so farre as two meete in a third they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If Citie Churches onely and not the Churches of Villages and Countrie Townes had Bishops Presbyters and Deacons placed in them then were those Citie Churches Diocesan Churches But Citie Churches onely had these Ergo Citie Churches were Diocesan distinguished from Parishionall Churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripture Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secondly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Storie They who are given to labour the conversion of the Regions rather then tend those already converted they were not given to a Parishionall Church But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so Ergo. They who were set in a Church before Parishes were could not be given to a Parishionall Church But such were the Presbyters of the Apostles institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practise of all ages from the first division that no Church but the mother Church had a Presbyterie and a Bishop but Presbyters onely Nay it was ever by Councels condemned and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden that in Townes or Villages any but a Presbyter should be planted 3 This is also proved by reason for it was no more possible to haue Bishops Presbyters in everie Parish then to haue a Maior and Aldermen such as we haue in London in every Town 2 If everie Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselues with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the Citie Ergo there was then a Diocesan Church having governement of others Presbyters could not ordeyne sede vacante though they did at first as in the Church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400 yeares a Parishionall Church with a Presbyterie in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan Churches allowing onely such Churches to be instituted of Christ which may meet in one Congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assembly Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a Church as may to holy purposes ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitely and signifieth no more Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum 2 The Scripture speaketh of the Churches in a Kingdome or Province alwaies in the plurall number without any note of difference as equall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nationall or Diocesan Churches Let a reason be given why it should never speak in the singular number had they bene a singular Church Secondly let us come to examples the Churches the Apostles planted were such as might and did congregate First that of Hierusalem though there were in it toward 500 Synagogues yet the Christian Church was but one and such as did congregate into one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000 to it Act. 2.46 5.12 6.1 15.25 21.22 25.22 For their ordinarie meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericall meeting Againe if they might meet Synodically why might they not meete then in daily course though the universall meeting of a Church is not so fitly called Synodicall And though they are said to be millions of beleevers yet that was by accident of a circumstance happily the Passeover We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations They had not a setled state there by which they did get the right of being set members Yea it is likely they were and continued but one congregation For 40 yeares after they were not so great a multitude but that Pâ—lla like to the Zohar of Lot a little Towne could receiue them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one church Act. 14.27 they are said to haue gathered the Church together Ob. That is the Ministers or representatiue Church Ans 1 For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Act. 11. Peter gave account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent the forth with prayer imposition of hands this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publicke service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of decrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly the church of Corinth was one congregation which did for the service of God or exercise of Discipline meet together 1. Cor. 5.4 1. Cor. 14.25 ver 26. 1. Cor. 11.17 ver 23. in uno eodem loco That whole church which was guiltie of a sinner uncast forth could not bee a Diocesan church neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming together ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly Fourthly the church of Ephesus was but one flocke First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Secondly it was but one flock that flock which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Pastour If Presbyters onely then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus There may be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholy meete with those who haue the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1. Pet. 5.2 calleth all those he writeth to one flocke but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flock is but one congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue that there should be Parish churches in Diocesan wise added but a greater number of sister churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Colosse There might be many churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches Examples Ecclesiasticall 1 Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians though numbersome to meete together often in one place Epist to the Ephesians and to the Philippians where the Bishop is let the people be gathered to him as where Christ is there is the whole host of heaven He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God which
termes and lay downe conclusions whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were constistuted First the word Church we understand here not figuratively taken Metonymically for the place Synced for Ministers administring ordinances but properly for a body politick standing of people to bee taught and governed and of teachers and governours Secondly it may be asked what is meant by a Diocesan church Ans Such a frame in which many Churches are vnited with one head church as partaking in holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe church for all the other within such or such a circuit These phrases of a Diocesse a Diocesan Bishop or Church are all since the time of Constantine yea the two last much later A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have been taken up in the Church from what time Bishops had Territories ample demaines and some degree of civill iurisdiction annexed to them For a Diocesse by the Lawyers is a circuit of provinces such as the Romans Praesidents had or active an administration of those Prouinces with jurisdiction L. unica c. nt omnes iudices And in the Canon law sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously dist 50. c. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory or Countrey circuit opposed to the Citie Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesame Ecclesiae cont tur c. 8. Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra-distinguished to Parishionall These had every one a Diocesse and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani these churches had a moyite of houses dwelling in neighbourhood that belonged to them but at length by a Synecdoche the whole Church was called a Diocesse though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called seeing the Diocesse is the meaner part by much in comparison of the Citie and should not give the denomination to the whole So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had been called Ecclesia civitatis matrix nutrix Cathedralis grew to be called Diocesan But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union and communion in some sacred things Now a Diocesan Church may be put objective that is for a Church in which are ministers and ministerie for the good of the whole Diocesse though they should never assemble as the worship in the Church of Ierusalem was for al Iudea profited though absent Or it may be put formally for a body politicke a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse with the ministers of the same having some reall union and communion in sacred things We deny any such Church A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally Materially as it is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other This God instituted not for it is accidentall to the Church may abesse and adesse a Church remaining one If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell as the Dutch doe one farre enough from the other while the same beleevers were united with the same governours the Church were not changed though the place were altered Secondly it is put formally for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate such Churches and such onely we say God erected Now for some conclusions what wee agree in then what severs us Conclus 1. Churches of Cities Provinces Kingdomes may bee called Diocesan Provinciall National Churches as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall yea haply not without warrant of Scripture As 1. Pet. 1.1 writing to all those dispersed Churches speaketh of them singularly as of one flock 1. Pet. 5.2 The reason is things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves but according to some respect of reason under which we may apprehend them Concl. 2. That there may be a reall Diocesan Nationall or head Church wherewith others should be bound to cōmunicate more solemnly in word sacraments and in some more reserved cases concerning their government This was done in the Church of Iudea Our men are to shie that feare to come to this proposition de posse I am sure our adversaries will grant us that our parishionall frame might have been so constituted Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church but by Gods institution No Ministers can take this honour but they must as Aaron be called to it When nothing in nature can have further degree of perfection then the authour of nature putteth into it how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall depend on God Wee may reason from the Church of Iudea as a pari to prove That there cannot bee such a Church but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things which may make them one Church Thus there would not have been a Church Nationall of the Iewes but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship The men onely went up so the male onely were circumcised but the female representativelie went up in them Obiect It is enough if the communion be in government which all our opposites grant necessarie Answ This maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separibili then one Church governement being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaining a Church The first Churches of Bishops when now they were divided did keep all other who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called and the people also in some communion with the head Church for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither See decret dist 3. dist 38. 4 Conclus We agree in this that Churches were in their first planting either not actually Diocesan being one congregation without any other subordinate or if they had any yet were they imperfect wanting many parts or members of particular Churches which belonged to them That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Iewes as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church Parishionall for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church I answer not taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church it is but a part and member and hath not perfection no more then a parochiall Church hath compared with a Diocesan Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed To the first I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who
the Messiah and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen The state of this Church was such that it was to send out light to all other a common nurserie to the world Finally the time being now the beginning of planting that heavenly Kingdome seeing beginnings of things are difficult no wonder if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily It doth not therefore follow from this particular to the so great encreasing of these churches in tract of time Nay if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings it would not follow as thus Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them how numbersome were they many yeares after Because the growing of things hath a Period set after which even those things which a great while encreased doe decrease and goe downeward as it was in Ierusalem Not to mention that we deny the assumption But though the Argument is but Topicall and can but breed an opinion onely yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians And Cornelius that there was besides himselfe and 45 Presbyters a numbersome Clergie I answer That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall for who can beleeue that more then halfe the Citie and world after a sort were Christians But he speaketh this and truely in some regard because they were so potent through the world that if they would haue made head they might haue troubled happily their persecutors Or else hee might say they were halfe of them Christians not because there were so many members of the Church but because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause and were it as safe as otherwise would not stick to turne to them But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet having prayers exhortations and ministering all kindes of Censures If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time it will make little for Diocesan Churches Touching Cornelius we answer It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries Cornelius keeping the Cathedrall Church and being sole Bishop of them but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church For first the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie in which regard hee is said Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae Neither was his Church as ample as the Province which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently teacheth Secondly we say that these Parochiall churches were to the mother church as chappels of case are to these churches in metrocomüs they had communion with the mother church going to the same for Sacraments and hearing the Word and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them For some of them were not such as had liberty of Baptizing and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church Now to answer further it is beyond 200 yeares for which our defence is taken For there is reason why people which had bene held together for 200 years as a Congregation might now 50 years after be exceedingly encreased The Ecclesiasticall storie noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius Neither must we thinke that an Emperour as Philippus favouring the faith did not bring on multitudes to the like profession Secondly we say there is nothing in this of Cornelius which may not well stand that the Church of Rome though now much increased did not keep together as one Church For the whole people are said to haue prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop who had ordeyned Novatus and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Nouatus his pertinacie From hence that none of the numerous Clergie nor yet of the people very great and innumerable could turne him or recall him which argueth that the Church was not so aboundant but that all the members of it had union and communion for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another And I would faine know whether the seven Deacons seven Subdeacons 42 Acolouthes whether those exorcistes Lectors Porters about 52 are so many as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twentie thousand Surely the time might well require them when many were to bee sent forth to doe some part of ministerie more privately Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters to vilifying of them as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons There were 60 in the church of Sophia for the help of the Liturgie True it is the Congregation could not but be exceeding great and might well be called in a manner innumerable though it were but of a twentie thousand people But because of that which is reported touching division by Euaristus Hyginus Dionisius and Marcellinus though there is no authenticke authour for it neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement Let it be yeelded that there were some Parochiall divisions they were not many and within the Citie and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church Concerning the objection from the Churches of Delgia or the low Countries we deny the proposition for we cannot reason thus If many Masters and distinct formes of Schollers in one free Schoole be but one Schoole then many Masters and company of Schollers severed in many Schooles are but one Schoole Secondly they haue communion in the communitie of their Teachers though not in the same individuall word tended by them But it is one thing when sheep feed together in one common Pasture though they bite not on the same individuall grasse Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe gates Not to urge that in the Sacraments and Discipline they may communicate as one Congregation Touching the objection from Geneua I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who subject themselues to a Presbyteri◠as not having power of governing themselues within themselues as being under it by subordination these may in effect as well be subject to a Consistorie But thus the twenty foure Churches of Genevae doe not They or haue power of governing themselues but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselues to a Bishop and Consistorie wherein they shall haue no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbyterie wherein themselues are members and Iudges with others Thirdly say they had no power nor vvere no members in that Presbyterie yet it is one thing to submit thēselues to the government of Aristocracie another to the Bishops Monarchicall government For vvhile his Presbyters are but as counsellours to a King though he consulteth vvith them he alone governeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by
be avoided but that the Pastor should haue it because though everie Praesul or Praelatus be not a Pastor yet everie Pastor is Praelatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinarie Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with everie Church if he who is resident alwaies among them as their spirituall Phisition should not haue power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majoritie of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a Ministerie of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Maister onely doth out of power take everie servant into his house so God in his God did those Aarons sonns with the Levites and Christ the 70 not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authoritie applie all power Ecclesiasticall to everie particular person his sole authoritie doth it though sometime as in ordinarie callings the ministerie of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when shee taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of governement as are in their Kingdom yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they haue a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it tam immediatione suppositi quam virtutis sometime the ministerie of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarilie directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Samuel to annoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immedatione virtutis not suppositi Ob. But yet Bishops haue the Churches the care of them wholly committed to them though therfore Ministers haue equall power to them yet they cannot without their leaue haue any place within their Churches and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an errour likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom hee doth not assigne a flock which hee may attend God calleth Ministers not to a facultie of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministeriall actions if any giue them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartularios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinarie Iudges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the university giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physick without any patients among whom hee may practise But Gods Ministerie is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order is nothing by the way but a relatiue respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should giue them a facultie of feeding and leaue them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to haue set the Presbyters over their flock A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth giue him a power of doing something to his familie and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessitie of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exigency of his people so require he doth not cal any to the function of Ministerie Again this is enough to ground the authoritie which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignetie to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors Bishops the moytie of sheep on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheep feed my sheep so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheep in a Diocesan flock to be his that he hath power to assigne the severall flocks under him he doth usurp an Antichristian authoritie Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a curate is whom a Parson giveth leaue to help within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dyeth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Maister what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now everie Minister is an Embassadour of Christ By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministerie if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministers mediatly only serue God in as much as they haue done this or that to which the Bishop did direct them Moreover should the Bishop bid him not preach at all preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and liue from his charge he should not sin in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministerie which he cannot giue It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are aboue others whom they command as they will such as are called servi ordinarii or praepositi some are under others to doe this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serue their Maister Christ neither having any that they can command nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them But it may be objected that God hath