church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in divers places may make one church If many churches which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery may so make one they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory and so make one But the 24. churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery and so make one For so farre as two meete in a thâ—rd they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If city churches onely and not the churches of Villages and counâ—ry Townes had bishopâ— Presbyters and Deaâ—ons placed in them then were those city churchâ—s Diocesan churches But city churâ—hes onely had thâ—se Ergo city churches were Diocesan distinguâ—shed from Paâ—â—shiâ—nall churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripâ—ure Tâ—tus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secâ—ndly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Stoâ—y Thâ—y who are gâ—ven to lâ—bour the convertion of the Regions raâ—her then tenâ— those alreâ—â—y 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 Apostlâ—s institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages from the first division that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery 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 have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish then to have a Maior and Aldermen such as we have in London â—n every Towne 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselves with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city Ergo there was then a Dâ—ocesan church having government of others Presbyters could not ordaine sede vacante though thâ—y did at first as in the church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches allowing onely such churches to bee 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 assemble Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a church as may to holy puâ—poses ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitâ—ly 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 diffâ—rence â—s â—quall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nâ—tionâ—ll or Diocesan churches Let a reason be given why it should never speake in the singular number had they beene a singulâ—r church Secâ—ndly let us come to exâ—mples the churches the Apostles plâ—â—â—ed were suâ—h 〈◊〉 niâ—hâ— and did congregate Fiâ—sâ— that of Hâ—â—rusalem though there were in it toward 500. â—â—nogogues yet the christâ—â—n church was but one and such as did congreâ—ate â—nâ—o 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 ordinary meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericâ—ll meeting Againe if they might meete 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 forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude but that Pella like to the Zâ—har of Lot a little Towne could receive them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church Acts 14.27 they are said to have gathered the Church together Object That is the Ministers or representative Church Ans. 1. For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Acts 11. Peter gâ—ve account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees 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 vers 26. 1 Cor. 11.17 vers 23. in uno eodem loco That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth could not be 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 flocke that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Bâ—shop 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 wholly meet with those who have 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 flocke 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 â—ister 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 numberlesse to meete together often
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 ordained that the Civitaâ— and Vâ—bs 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 Ciâ—y 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 City by City and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that Câ—â—y Suburbs and Countâ—y should make but one Churâ—h I answer by the like distinction They who use City by City people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may be said to have ordained that city suburbs and territories should make but one Church But thâ—s the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the City 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 we should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is said 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 â—ut of the multitude and locall limites 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 hee who thus usâ—th them promiscuously doth imply that one church was as yet constituted not that there was to be but one through the circuâ—t of city suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easiâ—y answered to the proofe 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 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 the objection from the Nationall church of the Jewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one church because they were all one Kingdome one possesâ—ion For thus there was one Oecumenicall church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unity of a Church whether the kingdome be one or no. If Israel when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worship of that Church they had still been one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have beene in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though maâ—y Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worships 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 thinke this cannot bee the cause why there were one Church under the governement of one high Priest for then should Aaron have beene as well as Mâ—lehisedeck a type of Christs Kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacy and governement as well as Princely Thâ—y were under Aaron in the former regard in whâ—ch hâ— was a shâ—dow of Christ. To the second instance of Hierusalem we deny the proposition It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over othâ—rs If it should have beene a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have beene head to all the world Secondly wee deny the Assumption Thâ—t the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Judea as it had beene 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 Dâ—vinity beene knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have beene made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meete 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 meete I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meete ordinarily as is above said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them Irenaeuâ— affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam cam 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 five thousand have concealed so notable accessions where by they sâ—y they grew up to I know not how many thousands there is no likelihood Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned Iohn 2â— or whether by reason of the Passeover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in tranâ—tu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Neverthelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they be tollerated as in one Congregâ—tion The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and be dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to be because it was Ecclesiae surcularis many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time Yea had there beene five thousand setled members we read of some ordinary Auditories spâ—ken to by ordinary Pastors as great as Chrysâ—stome on Matth. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme thâ—y 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
no members in that Presbytery yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocrasie another to the Bishops Monarchicall government For while his Presbyters are but as Counsellours to a King though he consulteth with them he alone governeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion But what are all the foure and twenty Churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches Now to answer the reasons The first of them hath no part true the proposition is denyed For these Churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall that is so conjoyned that they might and did meet in one Congregation The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes and the numbersome Clergy of some Cathedrall Churches but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser and Congregations ampler and fuller and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth nor made so little as might not have Presbyters and Deacons What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot be had in every Towne yet such a Towne as Cambridge may have a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge affâ—ords and the meanest market Towne may have though not in degâ—ee yet in kinde like Governours So is it in Presbyters and other Officers the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens not that a Bishop is ever to have a lâ—ke numbeâ—some Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbeâ—some that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance and so wealthy that it can well maintaine them And beside because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiasticall which the fathers had in their Presbyteries for the nursing of plants which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no whit intended To come to the assumption But city Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that Saint Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to bee more numbersome the assumption is false that Citie Churches onely had them For the Scripture saith they planted them Church by Church that is through every Church Then every Church had her Governours within her selfe wee must use as ample interpretations as may be Contrarily the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest wee cannot without evidence receive it in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est Eclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference Parishionall Dâ—ocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now their interpretation beggeth everything without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but there waâ—es divisim conjuctâ—m and divisim and conjunctim divisim one Presbyter in one another in another conjunctim diverse Presbyters in every Church neither of these will serve their turne the latter onely being true for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot be governed it is sure it did give of both kinds to every Church they pâ—anted Now they seeing some Churches in our times to have many and some one conster it both waies Collective many Presbyters Singularly one here and one there and because many Presbyters cannot be thuâ— placed in our frame of Churches imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches But they will not seeme to speake without reason the Scripture say they placed City by City Presbyters and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie Suburbes and Countrey which Parishionall ones doe not But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a Citie without occupying limits of Citie Suburbes and Countrey and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church may they not bee said to be placed in Cities Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds the case were other but the citie is not literally thus to be understood but metonymically for the Church in the Citie Neither was the Church in the city all within such bounds for the Saints of a place and Church of a place are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall history it is true that in processe of time the Bishop onely had a company of Presbyters Before Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters Churches should so have afterward beene divided that all should have beene alike for kinde though in circumstantiall excellency some were before other What a grosse thing is it to imagine that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posterity to imitate A sitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserve some cases in civil jurisdiction over them which the state of later Churches did expresse THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe or by his Apostles any ordinary Pastor as our Bishops having both precedency of order and majority of power above others WEE will follow the same method First setting downe the arguments for it with answers to them Secondly the arguments agâ—inst it Thirdly lay downe conclusions The arguments for it are First taken from Scripture secondly from practise of the Churches thirdly from reason evincing the necessity of it The fiâ—st Argument Those whom the holy Ghost instituted they are of Christs ordaining But the holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops Acts 20. Ergo Bâ—shops are of Christs ordaining Answer We deny the assumption viz. That those Presbyters of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches Yea Doct. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have had no Bishop who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome as he thinketh And others defending the Hierarchie who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops doe judge that these words belong not to the Presbyters of Ephesus but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them to wit of Timothy Sosipater Tychicus who say they were three Bishops indeed but
wher he might have liberty as his weakenesse of body would suffer and spent the rest of his time in reading meditating praying and writing saving that upon occasion hee did instruct or comfort those which came to him in private wherin he had a heavenly gift He was indeed all his life after beside the weakenes of his body pressed with want no having as he often complained to his friends a place to rest his head in which me thought was an upbraidâ—ng of the age and place where he lived with base regardlesnes of piety learning yet he never so much as consulted with himselfe of denying his sinceritie by pleasing the Bishops of whom and their courses he was wont to say They are a generation of the earth earthly and savour not the waies of God Which saying of his they and some Doctors of Cambridge have since made good in that they could not indure that the place from whence they thrust him should be supplied by othâ—r honest men though they were coÌ„formable but with absolute authority at length forbad it alledging that Puritanes were made by that lecture wheras the truth is that one lecture hath done more good to the Church of God in England then all the doctors of Cambridge though I doe not deny but some of them have wrought a good work By this one instance of which kind I would there were not a 100 in our land it may easily appeare to the understanding Reader that here is as much agreement betwixt our Bishâ—ps in their managing of Religion except some 2 or 3 which went out of their elements when they ventered on those places those powerful Preachers who have bin the chief means of revealing Gods arme unto salvation as there is betwixt the light which commeth down from hâ—aven that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit But wee need not seeke for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchie from this opposition look but at the fruits of it wher it hath alâ— fulnes of consent as Cathedrall Pallaces or Parishes of Bishops and Archbishops residence sucâ— as Lambeth is where all their canons are in force aâ—d have their full sway without contradiction nay come neerer unto them and take a view of their families even to them that wait in their chambers and see what godlinesse there is to be found Have there not more of God and his Kingdome appeared in some one Congregation of those Ministers which they have silenced for unconformity then in all the Bishops families that are now in England Was there ever any of them that could endure such a Parish as Lambeth is if they had such power of reforming it as the Archbishops haue To returne therfore unto our Authour whilst he lived a private life being thus strucken with the Bishops Planet he had time to apply his able wit and judgement unto the discussing of many questions which if the Prelates had not forced such leasure upon him it may be he would have passed by with others And among the rest by Gods providence he was directed to these Ecclesiastical Controversies which concerne our Diocesan state in England wherin as in all other questions which he dealt in he hath shewed such distinct and piercing understanding together with evidence of truth as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light He might indeed have chosen other particular corruptions to have written on if it had bene his purpose either to have taught men what they daily see and feel or to have laboured about the branches and leave the root untouched But it was no delight unto him for to prove that which no man doubted of as that the common course and practise of our Prelates their courts their urging of sâ—bscriptions with human superstitious ceremonies are presumptuous insolencies against God and his Church or preposterously to beginne at the end of the streame for to cleanse the water He chose rather to search the fountain of all that foulnes wherwith our Churâ—he are soiled which he judged to be found in the constituâ—ions here in this Treatise examined And if these few questions be wel considered it will appear that a multitude of pernitious abuses doe depend on those positions which in them are confuted One fundamentall abuse in our Ecclesiasticall oppression in the disposing of charges our placing of Ministers over Congregations it is called usually bestowing of BeÌ„efices or Livings in an earthy phrase which â—avoureth of the base corruption commonly practised For Congregations ought not to be bestowed on Ministers but Ministers on Congregations the benefit or benefice of the Minister is not so much to be regarded as of the Congregation It is the calling and charge which every Minister should looke at not his living and benefice Now these Benefiâ—es are bestowed ordinarily by the PatroÌ„ whether Popish prophane or religious all is one the Bishop without any regard of the peoples call or consent so as no lawful mariage is made no servant placed against all Scripture Councels and antient examples Wherby it commeth ordinarily to passe that Lawyers must determine of Ministers callings after long sutes and great charges as if Congregations and Farms were held by one title and right And sometime it is found that the Minister is a continuall plague unto his people living in contention spiâ—e hatred with them as many law-suits do too too plainly witnes What is the reason Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches that ever were ordained by Christ or received any power and priviledges from him but as mans creatures and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him Another practice of like nature with the former is that the minister being called to one Congregation becommeth a Pluralist by taking another or more livings in spite of that Congregation to which he was first and is still personally tied And after this he may be a nonresident abiding or Preaching at none of his many livings Nay he may chop and change sell and buy like a marchant so he do it closely which is such an abomination as Rome and Trent condemneth and hell it selfe will scarse defend What is the ground Because forsooth Christ hath not appointed Parishes their officeâ—s offices and therfore no man is bound further in this kinde then mens Laws canons customes and injunctions do prescribe unto them For a grave Doctor of Cambridge answered one that questioned him for his grosse non-residencie viz. that Parishes were divided by a Pope insinuating as it seemeth that he accounted it a point of Poperie for to tie Ministers unto their particular charges A third grosse corruption is that the officers in Congregations Ministers Church-wardens c. are made servants to the Bishops Chancellours Archdeacons c. being as it were their promotors informers and executioners in all matters of jurisdiction and government for to bring in mony into their purses for performance also of which service to them the Church-wardens
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 cannot agree to a Diocesan church For these were particular congregations opposed as to that Nationall church so to all Provinciall and Dâ—ocesan Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria but as he was Bishop of the congregation in Syria as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England 2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth But a Dâ—ocâ—san church cannot 3 Tertullian Apol. cap 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet and did worship God in which prayers readings exhortations and all manner of censures were performed Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselves 4 Churches are said at first to have beene Parishes and Parishes within cities in Eusâ—b lib. 3 44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. cap. 6. lib. 4. cap. 25. and Sâ—int Iohn lib 3. cap. 23. â—aith to the Bishop redde juvenem quem tibi ego Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his dep setum or trust was but one congregation lib. 4. cap. 11. Hâ—g nus and Pius are said to have undertaken the Mâ—nistery of the church of Rome which church was such therefore as they might minister unto lib 7.7 Dionisius Alex. writeth to Xistus and the church which he governed A Diocesan church cannot receive letters Before Iulian and Demetrius his time there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish The church of Alexandria was within the citie lib. 7. cap. 2. Cornelius is said officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Rome ex Cyp. lib. 1. epist 3 Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui cum tamen de provincia pellare ron potuit Vide Ruffinum lib. 1. cap. 6. suburbicarariarum Ecclâ—sirum tantum curam gessâ—t Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagiaee of the Parish in Carthage Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cypriani lib. 1. epist. 4. 5 It is the rule of Scripture that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people Bishops were chosen long after by the people As of Rome and others by the people committed to them Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set and chose the Bishop in presence of the people Schismes were said to be from thence Quod Episcopâ— universa fraternitas non obtemperat Cypr. epist. 55. tota fraternitas i. unius congregationis tota multitudo ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis Sabino â—le universa fraternitatis suffragâ—o Episcopatus fuit delatus Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 47.58.68 Ecclesiae â—gitur circâ—iâ—us non suit maâ—or quà m ut Episcopuâ— totam plebem suam in negoâ—iis bujusmodi câ—â—vocare potuerit Soc. lib. 7. cap. 3. de Agâ—peto Convocavit omnem clerum populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem 6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages there is no likelihood of the other notation Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates or Suffragan Bishops to them 7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse 8 They were neighbours and might meet a dozen six three in the cause of a Bishop 9 They were united sometimes in Provinciall Councels in which many Bishops met twice yearly Ruffin lib. 1 cap. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica 660. fled to save themselves Austin saith there were innumerable orthodox Bishops in Africa and the Provinciall Councels doe confirme the same Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan 1 That church whose causes are wanting that church is wanting But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found Ergo. First the efficient cause God ordeyning For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan no place to be a place where the Assembly Diocesan should be held no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministery without warrant of his word Ergo. In the Nationall church of the Jewes Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour it was given them The place of the Nationall meeting God chose Hierusalem The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there and to appeare there before him Secondly the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit obliged to meet at least on solemne dayes wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled Finally the actuall meeting of them to such end as such more solemne and publike meetings are ordained to are no where commanded nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word practised If any say these are not the causes of a Diocesan Church but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselves to such a Church and the ministery thereof that they may be governed by them I answer First there is no ordinance of God for this that can be shewed that Churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a certaine head Church for government Nay it is false For every Church by Christs institution hath power of government and the Synagogue had in ordinary matters the government that the Church of Jerusalem had being all over except onely in some reserved causes Secondly I say that this will not make a Diocesan Church formally so called As a Nationall Church could not formally be without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head Church of it So by proportion Yea government is a thing which doth now â—ccidere to a Church constituted and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a Church of this or that kinde Againe were this true that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers have onely government committed to them then it will follow that they onely have the governing of particular Churches who are not any way Pastors of them ministring Word and Sacraments to them But this is most absurd that their proper and ordinary Pastors who dispence Word and Sacraments to them should not have potestatem peâ—i nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them If any say they were not actu but they were virtute potentiae I say it is also to make the Apostles Churches imperfect and how can this be knowne but by a presumed intention which hath nothing to shew it but that after event of things From the effect I argue 2 Those Churches which Christ did ordaine and the Apostles plant might ordinarily assemble to
Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been teaâ—med by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised nor had and therefore could not bee succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters thaâ— which Christ gave them out of his power even the power of ordinary government They are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed as well by government as doctrine They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock What feare of tyranny where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him hee having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee imployed I thought it necessary to send Spaâ—brâ—dit us to you Secondly hee doth imply that Epaphraditus had not returned to them but that hee sent him and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might bee dispatched to them Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle as their ordinary and eminent Pastor In the Scriptures none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them Now this is undoubted the Philippians had sent him to Paul It is then most probable when he is â—â—lled their Apostle it is in regard he was sent by them which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words who hath ministred to me the things â—eâ—dfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve should be used of those sent civilie Not so for while the persons sending are signified they are sufficiently contradistinguished it being the Priviledge of the Apostles that they were the Apostles of Christ Jâ—sus not simply that they were Apostles Secondly Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent For though Christ meane it of himselfe yet he implies it by a discourse a genere ad speciem Thirdly we see the like phrase 2 Cor. 8 The Apostles of the Churches For Chrysostâ—me there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were by Paul to the Churches therefore the churches might not send them with their contributions Neither is this an argument that he was their bishop because their church sent him for they sent Apostles themselves and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from church to church for the edification of them For the instance of Archipus I finde it not urged Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus First we deny the Antecedent that they were instituted bishops by Paul And in the first presillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogisme tending to prove this assertion denyed we answer first to the propoâ—ition by distinguishing the Episcopall authority which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Proposition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to have had authority Episcopall given them both for the substance of it and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary bishop they are presupposed bishops but this is denyed For they are presupposed to have and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to have and exercise in that manner and formallity which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Evangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Evangelist to exercise all that power â—hey did exercise as Evangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth 〈◊〉 Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crâ—te which himselfe present in person might not and would not have done If wee should reason then thus Hee who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to have beene bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation Hee who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop hee was Bishop but not â—ee who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner at doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee deny the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Evangelists ordinary Pastors have many things common in their administration Hence is it that the example of the one may be a patterne to another though they are not identically and formally of one calling Councells have enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles as being patternes for them Vide Aug. De doctrin Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4. To the third reason Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the very duties of Bishops bee doth take them to have beene Bishops The Proposition is not true without a double limitation If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped he doth not therefore presuppose them bishops because thâ—se are duties of Evangelists agreeing to bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the wâ—ord doth ascribe and appropriate to bishops yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them it will not follow that he doth take them for bishops not that Paul doth purpose the very duties of bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly we deny him to purpose for substance the duties of bishops For hee doth not bid him ordaine as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers nor governe with power directive and corrective over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvâ— uni useuiusque Ecclesiae iure the Apostles did not otherwise For thougâ— Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting and framinâ— of othâ—rs Secondly because they were in degree and dignity abovâ— all other ordinarâ— governours of the Church which their Consâ—â— like preheminencye was sufficient why they should be written alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to inform not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesâ— Bishops thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Eâ—â— The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothâ—â—â— written to any persons can informe Diocesan bishops unlesse 〈◊〉 persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same ordâ—â— For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apâ—stolique
they must needs succeed theâ— who are spoken to in them whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes in the Supper in the commandement of teaching and baptizâ—ng Ergo Presbyteâ—s must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chuâ—ches which they had planted for theâ—r fuâ—ther building thâ—m up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo tâ—â—se were thâ—ir successors most proper and immediate Thirdly tâ—ese to whom now tâ—king their farewells they resigned the Churches these were thâ—ir succâ—ssours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to sâ—e Ephesus more Act. 20. Peter neere death 1 Pet. 5.2 Erâ—o Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more propâ—rly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath same powâ—r Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for first their power of teachâ—â—g and ministring the Sacraments doth â—s fully and propâ—rly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Pâ—eaching not necâ—issarily câ—nnexâ—d to a Presbyters office but a bishopâ— or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs 〈◊〉 Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bâ—shop which are both too absurd Secondly for governement the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to one then to another Object This is denyed for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination and the coercive power in their owne hands and to have committed these in the end onely to Apostolike men as Timothy Titus who were their successours succeeding them in it Answ. A notable fiction for it is most plaine by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise have provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men above others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinary Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legarâ— Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselves urged with this that the Apostles have none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could have a successour The other of bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we have proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two For first in all that is spoken to the seventy two the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinary office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtfull Thirdly it is not read that they ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministery of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Evangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from City to City without limitation to Evangelâ—ze and after we read of some as Philip that he was an Evangelist the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others Thus wâ— Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples in his 7. Book Armenicâ—râ—m quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receive a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is he not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers where of there may be but one onely during life in a Church they are in singularity of preheminence above others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothy one Titus one Archippus one Eâ—aphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conâ— Nice cap 8. Conc. Calud cap 4. Pâ—ssidonius in vita Augustine Ieremâ— Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Tâ—eoâ— Orcâ—umen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to be the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divâ—nâ— institution Now the assumptâ—on is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Actâ— 20. and that there were
Fervi â—rdinarli or praepofiti some are under others to do this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serve their Master 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 ordained some to be helpes and assistants to othersome It is said that God hath ordained powers helps governours 1 Cor. 12.8 and were not the Evangelists assistants to the Apostles doing that to which they directed them To this I answer that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons and such as ministred to the infirme ones As for Evangelists they were companions and assistanâ—s to the Apostles but it was in order to the work of God in their hands which they were to serve not in order to their persons as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferiority Observe how Paul speaketh of them 2 Cor. 8.23 Vituâ— wâ—s his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his worke and fellow souldier 1 Thess. 3.2 Timothy was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2 Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministery The truth is this was servitus 〈◊〉 porfâ—â—â—lis 〈◊〉 reâ—lis the Evangelists did serve the worke the Apostles had in hand with out being servants to their persons When brick-layers worke some mixe line and make mortar some beare up tile and mortar some sit on the house and there lay that which is bâ—ought them These are all fellow servants yet the one doth serve to set forward the worke of the other But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles wholly in exercise of their calling I answer as Christ gave some to be Evangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any There is a double direction one pâ—tesâ—atiue which is made from majority of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other socialis such as one servant having fit knowledge of his masters will and ripe experience may give to another The latter kinde of direction it was not the former by which the Evangelists were directed Which though commonly Paul used yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords hither and thither as may be gathered 2 Cor. 8.16 17. and 2.7.14 15. The fift Argument That which the Apostles had not over Prophets Evangelists Presbyters nor Deacons themselves that power whâ—ch the Church hath not over any member the bishop hath not over other ministers But they had not over any inferior officers any majority of directive or corrective power neither hath the Church it selfe any such power Ergo. The assumption is proved for majority of directive and corrective power is a Lord-like and Regall power now there is no such power in the Church or in the Apostles or in any but onely in that one Lord all other power being but a declarative and executive ministery to signifie and execute what Christ out of majority of power would have signified and put in execution The sixth Argument That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation never was of Christs institution But bishops majority of power in regard of order and jurisdiction doth so Ergo. That which maketh the bishop a head as doth in sâ—uere derive the power of externall government to other his assistants that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation But to claime the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church doth so for he must needs substitute helpers to him because it is more then by himselfe he can performe But this is it which maketh Antichrist he doth take upon him to be head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of externall government and the bishop doth no lesse in his Diocesan Church that which he usurpeth differing in degree onely and extension not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth If it be said that his power is Antichristian because it is universall it is not so For were the power lawfull the universality could not make it Antichristian The Apostles had an universality of authority yet no Antichrists because it did not make them heads deriving to others from their fulnesse it was not prince-like majority of power but steward like and ministeriall onely If one doe usurpe a kingly power in Kent onely he were an Anti-king to our Soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Sâ—otland and Ireland There is but one Lord and many ministrations Neither doth this make the Popes power papall because it is not under a Synod for the best of the Papists hold and it is the most common tenent that he is subject to an Oecumenicall Councell Secondly though he be subject yet that doth not hinder but he may usurpe a kingly government for a King may have a kingly power and yet confesse himselfe accountable to all his people collectively considered neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church because one may manage it and the Popes unlawfull because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church for then all the power the Pope doth challenge is not per se but per accidens unlawfull by reason of mans unsufficiency who cannot weâ—ld so great a matter The seventh Argument Those Ministers who are made by one patent in the same words have equall authority but all Ministers of the Word are made by the same patent in the same words Receive the holy Ghost whose staâ— ye forgive c. Ergo. The proposition is denied because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken These words spoken to Apostles they gave them larger power then to a Bishop and so spoken to a Presbyter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop Answ If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the Word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then we would grant the excepâ—ion but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assistent but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists who were among themselves equall in degree Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power then another so no Pastor or Teacher but must receive the same power as who are among thâ—mselves of the same degree Secondly were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bâ—shop haâ—h as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde which the Apostles had though not so universall but contracted to particular Churches Now to some unto some conclusions or assertions which may leâ—d light unto the deciding of this question Conclus