Office and not in the individual acts the Bishops As Eve was a Rib of Adam materially but when she was a woman she was no part of Adam nor her acts like his acts and so of all woman-kind thereafter Qu. 2. Whether the Bishop any other way commit the work or Office to him than by calling him to an Office which God himself had made or instituted and Ministerially investing him in it as a Servant that hath no land of his own may be sent by his Master to invest another in some Land which he hath given him by a Legal Solemn delivery of possession or as a Steward may send such Reapers into his Masters field as his Master did before exactly describe to him Christ being the only maker of the Office and punctual describer of it and the Bishop people and Magistrates altogether doing no more but choose the Person described as fit and deliver him possession of the place But if he thought that the Bishop himself doth make the Presbyters Office by parting his own and so giving him as much as he thinketh fit I shall shame this Opinion in due place Pag. 132. and in his Dissert he would make us believe that Polycarp's Epistle and so Clement's to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were to be interpreted extensively as relating to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church in the Parish that is the Diocess of Corinth or Province of Achaia And so he distoâ—teth Phil. 1. â— and other places but in all his Citations giveth us not a word of proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to dwell in the Circuit or extent of a Diocess and not simply to soâ—â—uru or dwell As if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the first notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were a Diocess or a City with its Territories As Pat Young saith on Clement's Epist p. 1. cum idem sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—t videre est statim in initio libri Ruth alibi apud 70 which he further proveth yea and by an old Inscription of an Altar brought from Delos c. see the place And we took it to be agreed on that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its strict sense is but habito tanquam peregrinus advena sum and in its usual larger sense juxta habito accolo sum prâ—ximus vicinus accola And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but incolatus vicinia habitatio propinqua a place of cohabitation or a neighbourhood As we still take cohabitation to be a necessary qualification or dispositio materiae of a Church-member of the same particular Church contrary to the Diocesan state where the Members never see each other nor hear of their Names And though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in process of time as Bishops enlarged their Diocess or Church came to signifie a whole Country or Circuit as large as a Diocess did yet no man can prove that it was so from the beginning of the Churches or signified any determined space of ground beyond the habitation of the members of one Worshipping Church or Congregation Even as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to build in the same Diocese but neaâ— or in the same Neighbourhood and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to set ones dwelling in the same Diocess but vicinity That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in its strictest signification is but inquilinus a sojourner and in its largest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a cohabitant but in boâ—n signifieth a Neighbour and not strangers dwelling out of the notice of each other through a Diocess is so fully shewed out of many Authors by the Basil Lexicon published by Henr. Petr. 1568 that I need not add to it And the Authors of that Lexicon suppose that the third the Church signification is primarily but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut accola that Paraeci huic dicuntur qui fanum aliquod accolnit not that dwell near a thousand or many hundred several Churches unde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curia viciniae conventus not many hundred Conventions accolâ—rum coitio congregatio hoc parochiam dicunt absurde Much more would they call the newer Notion of a Diocess-Parish like ours absurd In Heb. 11. 9. and Luk. 24. 18. Act 7. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 11. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Act. 13. 17. Act. 7. 29. Eph. 2. 19. which are all the places in the new Testament where these words are used that I know of the Dr. himself in his Annotations doth not once pretend that the word is used in his Province sense And is not Clemens and Polycarp liker to use the word in the Scripture sense than in this aliene sense that since came into the Church We must therefore take leave till better proof of the contrary to expound Clemens Polycarp and Ignatius meerly by sojourning and cohabiting in such a vicinity as Personal and Congregational Communion required But his only seeming proof is again because Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians was to the Province of Achaia To which again I answer that Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians was to be communicated to all Achaia and after to all the World but that maketh not Corinth and Achaia nor the Church at Corinth and the Churches of all Achaia to be the same Nay Paul expresly distinguisheth them by the Conjunction as aforesaid else his words were Tautological if by To the Church of Cod which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaia he had meant To the Church of God which is in all Achaia with the Saints that are in all Achaia And I had thought all Achaia had been more than a Parish even as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used Ecclesiastically in those times in the opinion of the Diocesane Divines themselves And so much of Dr. Hammond and all that have written for our Prelacy The Opposers of Prelacy To name the Authors that write on the other side or some of them is enough Viz. 1. Beza 2. Cartwright 3. Jacob against Downame 4. Didoclane alias Ca'derwood's Altare Damascenum 5. Learned Parker de Polit. Ecclesiast not so florid as his Treat of the Cross but more nervous 6. Holy and Learned Paul Baine Perkin's Successor his Diocesan's Tryal short and nervous in Syllogisms 7. Salmasius in 2 Books Apparat. ad primat P. Walo Messalinus 8. Before him Gersom Bucer dissert de Gubern Ecclesiae against Downame large and learned 9. Jer. Burroughs in 2 or 3 sheets Argumentatively 10. Prins unbishoping of Timothy and Titus 11. Dr. Bastwick's Flagellum Pontificis Episcoporum Latialium oratorical 12. And such are Miltons 13. Smectymnuus that is Steph. Marshal Edw. Calamy Tho. Young Mat. Newcomen and Will. Spurstow And a defence of it 14. The Lond. Ministers Jus Divinum Presb. Minist 15. The Isle of Wight Papers 16. Dav. Blondel that wonder of the world
Prelacy to be so made And were they Christians or no Christians that made the Diocesane Form If Christians were they orderly Christians or rebellious If orderly how happened it that they were of no Church themselves when the Apostles setled so much of Church Form and Order as I have before named If rebellious they were a dishonourable original of Diocesanes And if the Church Form be not of Divine institution then the Church it self is not For forma dat nomen esse And so the cause is given up to the Brownists by these Learned moderate men so far as that there is no Church in England of Divine institution Were it not that when in general they have said that no Church Form of Government is so Divine they again so far unsay it as to confess the Parith Churches or Congregations with their Pastors to be of Divine institution and of continued necessity All that is to be said by and for them is this That the Apostles were the makers of the English or Diocesane Form but not of that only but of the Presbyterian and Independent also and so made no one necessary but left all indifferent Or that they made one of these Forms as mutable allowing men to change it Answ But 1. I have proved what they made Let them prove that they made any other of a different sort not subordinate or supraordinate if they can 2. And let them prove the mutability of that which they made and their power to change it which they assert Till one of these is proved we are or should be in possession of that which was certainly first made I am bold to conclude this argument with the speech of a bold but a wise and holy man Joh. Chrysostome de Sacerdotio lib. 3. pag. mihi 48. cap. 15. And when some Bishops have obtained that prefecture of a Province not belonging to them and others of one FAR GREATER THAN THEIR OWN proper STRENGTH CAN BEAR THEY CERTAINLY BRING TO PASS THAT THE CHURCH OF GOD SEEMETH NOTHING TO DIFFER FROM AN EURIPUS or a confused turbulent changeling thing pag. 49. AND DO NOT THESE THINGS DESERVE GODS THUNDERBOLT A THOUSAND TIMES ARE THEY NOT WORTHY TO BE PUNISHED WITH THE FIRE OF HELL NOT THAT hell WHICH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THREATEN TO US BUT EVEN OF ONE THAT IS FAR MORE GRIEVOUS Forgive the words my Lords They are not mine but Chrysostome's or if you will not forgive the citing of them I will bear it as he did the like Only I will abate you in my prognostication or sentence that far sorer hell fire than the Scripture threameth supposing this will be sharp enough even for the most dispersing silencing persecuting Prelate and imputing those words to honest Chrysostome's vehement Oratory And I 'le tell you what went next before these words And they do not only take in the unworthy into the Priesthood but they cast out the worthy For as if they had agreed both ways to spoil the Church of God and the first cause were not enough to kindle the wrath of God they add the second or worse to the former For I judge it equally pestilent to drive out the Profitable and to take in the unprofitable which certainly they do that the flock of Christ may from no part either find consolation or be able to take breath O what would this man have said had he lived now in England CHAP. XI Argument 3. From the destruction of the order of Presbyters of Divine Institution and the Invention of a new order of Sub-half-Presbyters in their stead ARGUMENT III. THe office of Presbyters instituted by the Holy Ghost containeth an Obligation and Authority to Guide by Doctrine Worship and Discipline the flocks committed to their care But the office of a Diocesane being one only Bishop over many score or hundred Congregations is destructive of that office of Presbyters which containeth an obligation and authority to Guide by Doctrine Worship and Discipline or the exercise of the Church keys the flocks committed to their care Therefore the office of such a Diocesane is destructive of the office of Presbyters instituted by the Holy Ghost The Major is thus proved by the Enumeration of the Acts which contain the general office and by the proof of the General power extending to those Acts viz. 1. They that had the Authority and Obligation to exercise the Church keys in the Scripture sence had the authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine Worship and Discipline But the Presbyters of the Holy Ghosts institution had the authority and obligation to exercise the Church keys in the Scripture sence Ergo they had authority and obligation to Guide their flocks by Doctrine Worship and Discipline 2. Again The office which contained an Authority and Obligation to Teach Exhort Rebuke publickly and privately to judge of persons baptizable and to baptize them to Pray Praise God and administer the Lords Supper to the Church and to judge of them that are to receive it to watch over them privately and publickly to Excommunicate the obstinately impenitent and absolve the penitent doth contain authority and obligation to Guide that flock by Doctrine Worship and Discipline But such is the Office of Presbyters as instituted by the Holy Ghost Ergo c. Here note 1. That I am not now medling with the Questions Whether such Presbyters hold this power in subordination to any superiour Bishops nor whether there lie any appeal from them to a higher power in the Church 2. Nor am I now questioning Whether in Scripture sence Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Name or thing 3. But that which I maintain is 1. That there is no proof in Scripture that God ever instituted any order of Presbyters which had not the forementioned power of the keys 2. And that God did institute such an Order of Presbyters as had that power de nomine de re And 3. That the Diocesane Office destroyeth such and setteth up others in their stead What God instituted I will prove 1. Out of the Scripture records 2. Out of the History of the Church which long retained them in some degree CHAP. XII That God instituted such Presbyters as had the foresaid power of the Keys in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and no other proved by the Sacred Scriptures THat God instituted such Presbyters and no other I shall prove by the enumeration and perusal of all the Texts of Scripture which mention them viz. as instituted in the New Testament and now in force Act. 14. 23. When they had Ordained them Elders in every Church Compared with Tit. 1. 5. That thou shouldest Ordain Elders in every City as I had appointed thee 7. For a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God And his power is described v. 11 13. Ch. 2. 1 7 15. and 3. 10. intimate it Compare this with 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be
A TREATISE OF EPISCOPACY CONFUTING BY SCRIPTURE REASON and the CHURCHES TESTIMONY that sort of Diocesan Churches PRELACY and GOVERNMENT Which casteth out The Primitive Church-Species Episcopacy Ministry and Discipline and confoundeth the Christian World by Corruption Usurpation Schism and Persecution Meditated in the Year 1640. when the Et caetera Oath was imposed Written 1671. and cast by Published 1680 by the importunity of our Superiours who demand the Reasons of our Nonconformity By RICHARD BAXTER LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons at the Three Cocks at the West end of S. Paul's and Thomas Simmons at the Princes Arms in Ludgate-street 1681. The History of the Production of this Treatise with its Design and Sum to prevent mis-understanding BEcause many of late as well as Justice Roger L'Estrange do seem to believe themselves in their accusation of me as changing with the Times though I greatly affect the change of a Proficient and know not at what age it is that such men would fix us that we may grow no wiser nor ever repent of former Ignorance or Errour yet I will here confess to them that if what I here write against be good and right I have been forty years unchanged in my Errour My mutability hath been little to my advantage for this world For further than I was for the King I never was one year on that which was called the upper or stronger prevailing side as far as I understand it Nor to the very day that I was turned out of all did my Preferments or Riches ever serve me so much as to have a House or keep a Servant man save in Travail or Woman save one aged Woman that provided me necessaries in a few top rooms of another mans House which I mention for the sake of the mistaken French stranger Mr. Durel that tells the World another story And as to this Subject this is the Breviate of its History ab origine I was in my Child hood first bred up under the School and Church-teaching of eight several men of whom only two preached once a month and the rest were but Readers of the Liturgie and most of very scandalous lives After that I fell into the hands of a Teacher that studied for preferment and reviled Puritanes and after that I fell into the happier acquaintance of three ancient Divines that were called then Conformable Puritanes and all of them bred in me an Opinion that Nonconformists were unlearned men addicted to humorous causeless Singularity For I knew but one who was an honest plain Preacher but of little learning And to settle me the Divines that I followed made me read Bishop Downame's Defence Bishop Andrews and others for Episcopacy and Mr. Sprint Dr. Burges and others for the Ceremonies And I verily judged them to be in the right But as soon as I was ordained I removed into a Countrey where were some Nonconformists some few of them Learned Ministers and many Lay-men of whom one in the house with me was oft disputing the Case with me and I thought I had still the better And the Nonconformable Ministers there were men of so much Holiness and Peace that they would scarce ever talk of the matters in difference but of Holiness and Heaven and repressing the over-much heat of the Lay men And the famous William Fenner being lately of the next Parish a Conformist of learning yet plain and affectionate in preaching God had blest his Ministry with so great success in the Conversion of many ungodly Persons as that the reverence of him kept up the honour of Conformity among the Religious people thereabouts But in 1640. I was removed to Brignorth and the Canons newly made imposed on us an Oath which had these words I A. B. do swear that I do approve of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government of the Church of England as concerning all things necessary to Salvation Nor will I ever give my CONSENT to alter the Government of this Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans and Arch-Deacons c. As it stands now established and as by right it ought to stand And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mental evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And this I do heartily willingly and truly upon the Faith of a Christian So help me God in Jesus Christ Though every Minister in the Countrey as well I was for Episcopacy yet this Oath so startled them that they appointed a meeting at Brignorth to consult about it It fell out on my Lecture day and at the meeting it fell to my lot to be the Objecter or Opponent against Mr. Christopher Cartwright a good Man incomparably beyond me in Learning the Derender of K. Ch. 1. against the Marquess of Worcester and the Author of the Rabbinnical Commentary on Gen. whose Papers of Justification I since answered He defended the Oath and though my Objections were such as were none of the strongest the Ministers thought he failed in answering them and we broke up more dubious than before I had a little before set my self to a more serious study of the Case of the Ceremonies than before and upon the reading of Dr. Ames Fresh suit and some others having before read little on that side I came to see that there was a great difference between the determination of such Circumstances of Order as the Law of Nature or Scripture allow and oblige men to determine one way or other the Genus being necessary and the making of new mystical significant teaching Ordinances and Symbols of Christianity of which see Bishop Jer. Taylor cited in my 2d Plea And hereupon I had setled my Judgment only against the imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and the abuse of undertaking Godfathers But now I resolved before I took such an Oath as this to study over again the Controversie of Episcopacy which else I think I should scarce have done For I saw 1. That such an Oath and Covenant so Universally imposed was made the test and terms of Church concord and so would be an Engine of division by shutting out all that could not take it The Scotch Oath and Covenant was not the first imposed on us The Bishops Oath and Covenant to the contrary went here before it 2. I saw that the whole frame of the present Church-Government was about to be fixed as by an Oath of Allegiance on the Land as if it were as necessary as Monarchy and to be woven into the fundamental unchangeable constitution and it were true No Bishop no King 3. I askt What was the meaning of the Et caetera and could have no solution but from the following words As it stands now established And understood not well how far Lay chancellous Officials Surrogates Registers Proctors Advocates were part of the established Government but I saw it certainly included Arch-bishops Deans and Archdeacons 4. I
contrary that needeth a Reply Cap. 5. he would prove the Angels to be Archbishops which if done would not touch our Cause who meddle not with Archbishops but onely prove that the full Pastoral or Episcopal Office or power of the Keys as over the Flock should be found in every particular Church that hath unum Altaere To prove Metropolitans again he tells us how that in Provinces we find Churches mentioned in the Plural number and in Cities onely a Church singularly not perceiving how hereby he overthrows his Cause when he can never prove that in Scripture many particular Churches are called A Church Diocesane or Metropolitan as united in one Bishop as our Diooesane and Metropolitan Churches now are Nay indeed though the Society be specified by the Government yet the Name sticketh in their teeth here in England and they seldom use the Title of the Church of Canterbury and York for the whole Province and they use to say the Diocese of Lincoln London Winchester Worcester Coventry and Litchfield c. rather than the Church of Lincoln London Coventry and Litchfield c. lest the Hearers would so hardly he seduced from the proper sense of the word Church as not to understand them His Proofs of the Civil or Jewish distinction of Metropolitans § 4 5 c. let them mind that think it pertinent But § 9. we have a great word that It may be proved by many examples that after this Image the Apostles took care every where to dispose of the Churches and constituted a subordination and dependence of the lesser on the more eminent Cities in all their Plantations Answ This is to some purpose if it be made good The first Instance is Acts 14. 26. 16. 4. and 15. 2 3 22 23 30. Not a word else out of Scripture And what 's here Why Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem from Antioch to the Apostles and Elders about the Question and were brought on their way by the Church and passed thorow Phenice and Samaria Chosen men are sent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas Judas and Silas with Letters from the Apostles Elders and Brethren even to the Brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia And when they came to Antioch they delivered the Letters and Paul and Timothy as they went thorow the Cities delivered them the Decrees to keep that were ordained by the Apostles and Elders that were at Jerusalem Doth not the Reader wonder where is the Proof And wonder he may for me unless this be it The Apostles and Elders were at Jerusalem when they wrote this Letter and thence sent it to Antioch Syria and Cilicia Ergo They established the Bishop of Jerusalem to be the Governour and Metropolitan of Antioch Syria and Cilicia The Apostle Paul went from Antioch to other Cities and delivered them these Decrees Ergo Antioch is the governing Metropolis of those Cities I think the major Propositions are Every City from which Apostles send their Letters to other Cities and every City from which an Apostle carrieth such Letters or Decrees to other Cities is by those Apostles made the Governing Metropolis of those other Cities What dull Heads are the Puritans to question such a Proposition as this But it is not given to all Men to be wise And we ignorant Persons are left in doubt Q. 1. Whether the Universal Headship or Papacy of the Bishop of Jerusalem be not of Apostolical Institution and that more than by one Apostle even by all of them that were then at Jerusalem Q. 2. Whether the Apostles did not this as they did other parts of Church-settlement by the Spirit of God and so whether it be not jure Divino yea by a more eminent Authority than the Scriptures which were written by parts by several single Men some Apostles and some Evangelists when this is said to be done by all together Q. 3. Whether Christ's Life Death Resurrection Ascension and sending the Apostles thence into all the World and not into the Roman Empire onely do not incomparably more evidently make Jerusalem the Universal Metropolis of the Earth and so set it above Rome which is but the Metropolis of one Empire Q. 4. Whether then an Universal Head of the Church or Vicar of Christ be not jure Divino and so a Jerusalem Papacy be not essential to the true Church and Religion Q. 5. Whether then all the Emperours Bishops and Churches that did set up Rome Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople above Jerusalem were not Traytors against the Universal Sovereign of the Church and guilty of Usurpation and gross Schism Q. 6. To what parpose this Sovereignty was given to Jerusalem which was never possess'd and exercised Q. 7. Whether Peter's being at Rome could alter this Church-Constitution and one Apostle could undo what all together had done Q. 8. Whether the Apostles carried this Metropolitical Prerogative with them from place to place where-ever they came And whether it did belong to the Men or the Place And whether to the Place whence they first set out or to every place where they came or to the place where they dyed Judge what is the proof of any of these Q. 9. When they were scattered which of their Seats was the Metropolitan to the rest or were they all equal Q. 10. If the Power followed the Civil Power of the Metropolitane Rulers whether Caesar did not more in constituting the Church-Order and giving power comparatively to the Metropolitanes than Christ and his Apostles Q. 11. Whether it was not in Caesar's power to unmake all the Church Metropolitans and Bishops at his pleasure by dissolving the Priviledges and Charters of Cities Q. 12. If it please any King or be the Custom of any Kingdom as it is in many parts of America that the Kingdom have no Cities or Metropolis whether it must have any Churches Bishops or Metropolitane Q. 13. Whether when Paul wrote his Letters from Corinth to Rome he thereby made the Bishop of Corinth the Governour of the Bishop and Diocess of Rome And whether little Cenchrea was over them also because Phoebe carried the Letter And did his writing from Philippi to Corinth subject Corinth to the Bishop of Philippi And did his writing from Rome to Galatia Ephesus Philippi the Colossians and from Athens to the Thessalonians and from Laodicea and Rome to Timothy and from Nicopolis to Titus and John's writing from Patmos to the Asian Metropolitanes produce the same effect Q. 14. If Paul's carrying the Letters from Antioch to other Cities proved Antioch the Governour of the rest whether when he returned from the other to Antioch again he made not the other the Governours of Antioch I am ashamed to prosecute this Fiction any further His following Citations from the Fathers I think unworthy of an Answer till it be proved 1. That these Fathers took the Metropolitane Order as such to be of Apostolical Institution and not in complyance with the Roman Government by meer humane
than one or two Churches 6. And what was the cause of this one or two like to touch the Bishops of the other Churches And what Cognisance was all Achaia like to have of the cause of one or two distant persons so as for them to rise up against their own Bishops 7. If it was not all nor many Pastors that were thus turned out as Clemens words import why should all Achaia be called seditious and blamed for it 8. Doth not the common Law of Charity and Justice forbid us to extend those words of reproof to a whole Province which cannot be proved to extend farther than to a single Church and principally toucht but one or two 9. I have before proved that Paul by the Saints at Corinth meaneth but one Church Therefore it 's like that Clemens doth so too 10. The Bishops and Deacons that Clemens speaketh of were set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cum consensu totius Ecclesiae or as the Dr. will needs have it applaudente aut congratulante tota Ecclesia indeed with the good liking Pleasure or Approbation of the whole Church And shall we be perswaded that all the Cities and Countrey of Achaia were that whole Church which approved or consented to these particular Pastors that were put out Or that had Cognisance of them or acquaintance with them 11. He expresly saith pag. 62. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Church of Corinth for the sake of one or two moved Sedition against the Presbyters And why doth he never say it was the Church of Achaia 12. p. 63. He supposeth the Person Emulating to be a Believer of power in explaining Doctrine wise in judging of Speeches c. And would have the concern'd Person say p. 69. If the Sedition be for me and the Contention and Schisms I will remove I will be gone wither you will and will do what the People pre-determine of or command only let the Flock of Christ with the Presbyters set over them live in peace And is it like that the Flock that this Person must say so to was all Achaia 13. And p. 73. He requireth those that begun the Sedition to be obediently Subject to the Presbyters and not to their Bishop onely And is it like to be the Bishops of other Churches through all Achaia that this one or two is required to Obey and be in Subjection to I have given my Reasons to prove that these Presbyters were in the One Church of Corinth Compare his if you can find them to the contrary and Judge Impartially as you see cause Cap. 8. Hath nothing that concerneth us but the recitall of his grand Concession lest we should think that in Clemens days the great Bishop of Corinth or any in Achaia had any more Church-assemblies than one to whom he could do all the Pastoral Offices himself he thus concludeth § 9. Indeed mention is found only of Bishops with Deacons constituted in each City sometimes under the Title of Bishops sometimes of Presbyters there being no token or foot-step at all appearing of such as we now call Presbyters c. To which I wholly agree though not that there was but one Presbyter in Corinth Cap. 9. He is offended much with Blondel for reproaching Hermas and yet using his Testimony As if a Hereticks or an Infidels Testimony might not be used in point of History And § 14. he again cometh to his supposition of Bishops without Subject Presbyters as if it served his turn more than ours Cap. 10. About Pius words hath nothing that I find the cause concerned in Cap. 11. Is of little moment to us both parties have little that is cogent but velitations about dubious words Cap. 12. Is but about the sense of the word applyed to Ireneuâ— which Dr. H. taketh here and by many after to mean a Bishop and wonders that Blondel pleadeth for a parity of order from a common Name But it is not so much without reason as he maketh it For if Bishops and Presbyters were in the first times called by one Name and the highest Person in the Church then was ordinarily known by the name Presbyter and the appropriating of Bishop to one sort and Presbyter to another came afterwards in by such insensible degrees that no man can tell when it was it sounds very probable that it was the true Episcopal Power or the same Office and Order that was first commonly possessed by them to whom the name was Common And so much of Dr. Hammond's Dissertations wherein I must desire the Reader to note 1. That I meddle not with other mens Causes nor particularly with the question Whether one man in each Church had of old a guiding superiority over the rest of the Presbyters Nor yet whether the Apostles had such successors in the General care of many Churches such as Visiters or Arch-Bishops but only 1. Whether every Presbyter were not Essentially a Bishop or Governour of the Flock having the power of Keys as they call it in foro interiore exteriore both for resolving Consciences and for Church-order 2. Whether every particular Church which ordinarily communicated together in the Lords Supper and had unum Altare had not one or more such Bishops 3. Whether it was not a sinful corrupting change to bring in another Species of Presbyters and so to depose all the particular Churches and Bishops and set up a Dioâ—esane Bishop inâ—â—â—is ordinis with half Churches and half-Priests under him in their stead 2. And note That as it concerned me not to speak to all that the Doctor hath said so I have carefully chosen out all that I thought pertinent and of a seeming weight as to the cause which I mannage and have past by nothing in the whole Book which I thought an understanding Reader needeth an answer to There is yet the same Authors Vindication of his Dissertations to be considered But I find nothing new in them to be answered by me nor that I am concerned for the Cause in hand any further than to give you these few Observations 1. That again p. 5. he saith That by observing the paucity of Believers in many Cities in the first Plantations which made it unnecessary that there should by the Apostles be ordained any more than a Bishop and Deacon one or more in each City and that this was accordingly done by them at the first is approved by the most undenyable ancient Records 2. That p. 7. he again well averreth that the Jewish and Gentile Congregations occasioned several Churches and Bishops in the same Cities And p. 14. 15. That Timothy was placed by Paul Bishop of the Gentiles at Ephesus and S. John and another after him Bishop of the Jews Pag. 16. He thinketh that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus or Angel when Rev. 2. was wrote Pag. 17. From Epiphanius he reckoneth above 50 years from the Revelation of John Rev. 2. to the writing of Ignatius's Epistles By which we may Calculate the time when the
Office of half-Presbyters began to be invented according to his own Computation That pag. 21. passim his supposition of the 24 Bishops of Judaea sitting about the Throne of James Bishop of Jerusalem and his other supposition of their being so ordinarily there And of the Bishops of Provinces in other Nations being so frequently many score if not hundred Miles off their people in the Metropolitane Cities when the people had no other Priest to Officiate doth tend to an Atheistical conceit that the Ordinary use of Sacred Assemblies and Communion is no very needful thing when in the best times by the best men in whole Countreys at once they were so much forborn Pag. 26. Again you have his full and plain Assertion That there were not in the space within compass of which all the Books of the new Testament were written any Presbyters in our modern Notion of them created in the Church though soon after certainly in Ignatius time which was above 50 years after the Rev. they were Pag. 60. He supposeth that whoever should settle Churches under a Heathen King among Heathens must accordinly make the Churches gathered subordinate to one another as the Cities in which they are gathered were though Heathen subordinate to one another of which more in due place Pag. 76 77. He saith that As Congregations and Parishes are Synonimous in their Style so I yield that Believers in great Cities were not at first divided into Parishes while the number of Christians in a City was so small that they might well assemble in the same place and so needed no Partitions or Divisions But what disadvantage is this to us who affirm that one Bishop not a Colledge of Presbyters presided in that one Congregation and that the Believers in the Regions and Villages about did belong to the care of that single Bishop or City Church A Bishop and his Deacon were sufficient at the first to sow their Plantations For what is a Diocess but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territories or Region belonging to it And this certainly might be and remain under the Government of a single Bishop Of any Church so bounded there may be a Bishop and that whole Church shall be his Diocess and so he a Diocesan Bishop though as yet this Church be not subdivided into more several Assemblies So that you see now what a Diocess is And that you may know that we contend not about Names while they call the Bishop of one Congreation a Diocesane we say nothing against him A Diocesan in our sense is such as we live under that have made one Church of many hundred or a thousand But Reader be not abused by words when it is visible Countreys that we talk of As every Market-Town or Corporation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City in the old sense so the Diocess of Lincoln which I live in at this reckoning hath three or fourscore Diocesses in it and the Diocess of Norwich about 50 Diocesses in it c. That is such Cities with the interjacent Villages Pag. 78. He saith When they add these Angels were Congregational not Diocesan they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City having authority over the Regions adjacent and pertaining to that City and so as CHURCH and CONGREGATION ARE ALL ONE AS IN ORDINARY USE IN ALL LANGUAGES THEY ARE Thus were Congregational and Diocesan also What follows of the paucity of Believers in the greatest Cities and their meeting in one place is willingly granted by us I must desire the Reader to remember all this when we come to use it in due place And you may modestly smile to observe how by this and the foregoing words the Dr. forgetfully hath cast out all the English Diocesans While he maketh it needful that the Cities be Ecclesiastically subordinate as they are Civilly and maketh it the very definition of a Diocesan Bishop to be a Bishop of a City with the Country or Suburbs belonging to it But in England no lesser Cities ordinarily at least nor Corporation-Towns are at all Subject to the great Cities Nor are any Considerable part of the Countrey Subject to them nor do the Liberties of Cities or Corporations reach far from the Walls or Towns So that by this Rule the Bishop of London York Norwich and Bristow would have indeed large Cities with narrow liberties But the rest would have Diocesses little bigger than we could allow to conscionable Faithful Pastors But he yet addeth more p. 79. he will do more for our cause than the Presbyterians themselves who in their disputes against the Independents-say that Jerusalem had more Christians belonging to the Church than could conveniently meet in one place But saith the Dr. This is contrary to the Evidence of the Text which saith expresty v. 44. that all the Believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meeting in one and the same place The like may be said of the other places Act. 4. 4. and 5. 14. For certainly as yet though the number of believers increased yet they were not distributed into several Congregations Will you yet have more p. 80 81. When the London Ministers say that the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles days he answereth This observation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it and not to be confutable in any part And therefore instead of rejecting I shall imbrace it and from thence conclude that there is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is a Church not Churches BEING FORECED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHERE THERE WERE MORE CHURCHES THERE WERE MORE BISHOPS I am almost in doubt by this whether the Dr. were not against the English Prelacy and he and I were not of a mind especially remembring that he said nothing against my disputations of Church Government written against himself when I lived near him Observe Reader 1. That even now he confessed that a Church and Congregation is all one 2. And here he confesseth that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops and his words Because it is a Church not Churches seem to import that de jure he supposeth it is no Church without a Bishop and that there should be no fewer Bishops than Churches And then I ask 1. Where and when do all the Christians in this Diocess of above an hundred miles long Congregate who meet but in above a thousand several Temples and never know one of a thousand of the Diocess 2. Doth not this grant to the Brownists that the Parish Churches are no Churches but onely parts of the Diocesane Church 3. And then if it be proved that the Diocesane Church form is but of humane invention what Church in England will they leave us that is of divine institution This is the unhappiness of overdoing to undo all and of aspiring too high to fall down into nothing And doth he not speak
that other a Tutor And so if a Physician commit his work statedly to another or a Pilot or the Master of a Family he maketh the other a Physician a Pilot a Master And so if a Bishop or Presbyter commit his work statedly to another he maketh that other a Bishop or Presbyter And then that Bishop or Presbyter so made is himself obliged as well as empowred and the work that he doth is his own work and not his that delivered him his Commission So that this doing these twelve parts of a Bishops work per alium is a meer mockery unless they speak unfitly and mean the making of all those to be Bishops as they are or else by perfidious usurpation casting their trust and work on others For if they could prove that God himself had instituted the Species of Sub-presbyters it would be to do their own work and not another mans My next proof of the limitation of Churches in Scripture times is that Deacons and Bishops were distinct Officers appointed to the same Churches The Church which the Deacon was related to was the very same and of the same extent with the Church which the Bishop was related to as is plain in all Texts where they are described Act. 6. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 7. c. But it is most clear that no Deacon then had the charge of many hundred Churches or more than one such as I have described Therefore neither had the Bishop of that Church They that have now extended the Office of the Deacons further and have alienated them from their first works of attending at the Sacred Tables and taking care of the Poor cannot deny but that this was at least a great part of their work in the Scripture times and some Ages after at least when Jerome ad Evagr. described the Offices of the Presbyters and Deacons And was any man then made a Deacon to a Diocess or to many hundred Churches or to more than one Did he attend the Tables of many Churches each Lords day at the same time If you say that there were many Deacons and some were in one Church and some in another it is true that is They were in several Assemblies which were every one a true Church and they were oft many in one Assembly But there was no one that was related to Many stated Church Assemblies nor to a Church of a lesser size or magnitude than the Bishop was 5. And that there was no Church then without a Bishop one or more is evident from Act. 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church compared with other Texts that call them Bishops And Doctor Hammond sheweth that these Elders were Bishops And indeed it was not a Church in a proper political sense that had no Bishops formally or eminently No more than there can be a Kingdom without a King a School without a School-master or a family without a Master Object They are called Churches Act. 14. 23. before they had ordained Elders Answ 1. It is not certain from the Text for the name might be given from their state in fieri or which they were now entring into 2. If it were so it is certain that the appellation was equivocal as it is usual to distinguish the Kingdom from the King the School from the School-master the Family from the Master but not in the strict political sense of the words for that comprehendeth both 3. The truth is they were true political Churches before For they had temporary unfixed Bishops even the Apostles and Evangelists that converted them and officiated among them Otherwise they could have held no Sacred Assemblies for holy Communion and the Lords Supper as having none to administer it The fixing of peculiar Bishops did not make them first Churches but made them setled Churches in such an order as God would establish 6. Lastly The setling of Churches with Bishops in every City Tit. 1. 5. doth shew of what magnitude the Churches were in the Scripture times For 1. It is known that small Towns in Judea were called Cities 2. And that Creete which was called Hecatompolis as having an hundred Cities must needs then have small ones and near together 3. And it is a confessed thing that the number of Converts was not then so great as to make City Churches so numerous near as our Parishes are And if the consideration of all this together will not convince any that the Churches that had Bishops in Scripture times consisted not of many stated Assemblies as afore described but of one only and were not bigger than our Parishes let such enjoy their error still CHAP. IV. The same proved by the Concession of the most Learned Defenders of Diocesane Prelacy THough the Scripture Evidence be most satisfactory in it self yet in controversie it much easeth the mind that doubteth to find the Cause fully and expresly granted by those that most learnedly defend those consequents which it overthrows And if I do not bring plain Concessions here I will not deprecate the Readers indignation 1. Among all Christians the Papists are the highest Prelatists And among all Papists the Jesuits and among all the Jesuits Petavius who hath written against Salmasius c. on this Subject Petavius Dissert Ecclesiast de Episcop dignit jurisd p. 22. concludeth his first Chapter in which he had cited the chiefest of the Fathers Hactenus igitur ex antiquorum authoritate conficitur primis temporibus Presbyterorum Episcoporum non tantum appellationes sed etiam ordines in easdem concurrisse personas iidem ut essent utrique i. e. Hitherto it is proved by the Authority of the Ancients that in the first times not only the Names but the Orders of Presbyters and Bishops did concurr into the same persons so that both were the same men And if so I shall shew the consequents anon And pag. 23. He thus beginneth his third Chapter as opening the only necessary way to avoid the Scripture Arguments against Episcopacy Si quis amnia illa scripturae loca diligenter expendat id necessario consequens ex illis esse statuet eos ipsos qui ibi Presbyteri vocantur plus aliquid quam simplices fuisse presbyteros cujusmodi hodieque sunt nec dubitabit quin Episcopi fuerint iidem non vocabulo tantum sed re etiam potestate i. e. If any one will diligently weigh all those places of Scripture he will conclude that this is the necessary consequent of them that those that are there called Presbyters were somewhat more than simple Presbyters and such as now they are and he will not doubt but the same men were Bishops not only in name but in deed and in power Pag. 24. Existimo Presbyteros vel omnes vel eorum plerosque sic ordinatos esse ut Episcopi pariter ac presbyteri gradum obtinerent I think that either all or most of the Presbyters were so ordained as that they obtained both the degree of Bishop and
affirmamus So that it is a Bishop of one Assembly or Church which Doctor Hammond will have the question stated about 2. And such a Church or Assembly as great Cities a while had divers of and so divers Bishops 3. And this was after the Scripture times for they had divers Bishops with a divers Clergy 4. But that in Scripture times the Order of Sub-Presbyters cannot be proved instituted 5. And in his Annotations he expoundeth all the Texts of the New Testament of Bishops that mention Presbyters 6. But in his Answer to the London Ministers not daring yet to hold that they were of Humane and not of Divine Institution he holds that they were instituted in the end of St. John's days after all the Scripture was written which was about two or three years before his death and so were of Divine Institution though all the rest of the Apostles were dead Before I apply this I will subjoyn his words of more numerous Witnesses to our opinion with himself for he saith 8. Doctor Hammond of the rest Vindication against London Minsters pag. 104. And though I might truly say that for those more minute considerations or conjectures wherein this Doctor differs from some others he hath the suffrages of many of the learnedst men of this Church at this day and as far as he knoweth of all that embrace the same Cause with him I purposely pass by such Bishops as Cranmer Jewel c. and such conformable Divines as Doctor Whitaker Fulke c. as being not high enough to be valued by those that I have now to do with As Jewel Art 4. p. 171. sheweth that every Church must have one Bishop and but one and out of Cyprian that the Fraternitas universa was to chuse him Et â—piscopus delegatur plebe praesente de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus ei Sabino deferretur And mentioneth the Rescript of Honorius the Emperor to Boniface that If two Bishops through division and contention happen to be chosen we will that neither of them be allowed as Bishop but that he only remain in the Apostolick Seat whom out of the number of the Clergy Godly discretion and the consent of the whole Brotherhood shall chuse by a new Election How big yet was the Church even then Now all this being asserted 1. It is evident that they hold that in Scripture times no Church consisted of more than one ordinary stated worshipping Assembly 2. And that every such Assembly had a Bishop For if there were no Presbyters there could be no Assembly but where a Bishop was present for the Lords days were then used for publick Worship and the people could not do that without a Minister for they had Communion in the Lords Supper every Lords day And therefore they must have a Bishop or have no such Worship And Doctor Hammond departeth from Petavius in holding that no Church had more Bishops than one So that de facto he granteth all that I desire 1. That the Churches were but so many Assemblies having each a Bishop 2. And that no Sub-Presbyters were instituted in Scripture times And by what right the change was made we shall enquire anon CHAP. V. The same proved by the full Testimony of Antiquity THat the particular Churches infimae speciei vel ordinis of which combined Associated Churches were constituted were no larger than is before described and had but Unum Altare I shall prove Historically from Antiquity I. And Order requireth that I begin with Clemens Romanus But let the Reader still remember that while I cite him and others oft cited heretofore by many I do it not to the same end as they who thence prove that Bishops and Presbyters were then the same but to prove the Churches to be but such single Congregations as are fore-described Ep. ad Cor. pag. 54 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Per regiones igitur urbes verbum praedicantes primitias eorum spiritu probantes Episcopos Diaconos eorum qui credituri erant constituerunt Here are these concurrent evidences to our purpose 1. In that he speaketh only of Bishops and Deacons and neither here nor elsewhere one syllable of any other Presbyters but Bishops it is apparent that in those times there were no Subject-Presbyters distinct from Bishops in being Nor could Doctor Hammond any other way answer Blondel here but by confessing and maintaining this and so expounding Clemens as speaking of Bishops only before other Presbyters were in the Church And if so then there could be none but Churches of single Assemblies then or such as one man could officiate in because there was then no more to do it 2. In that Cities and Countries are made the Seats of these Bishops for though some would make them to be mentioned only as the places where the Apostles preached the obvious plain sense of the words is connexive of preaching and constituting Bishops by preaching they made believers in Cities and Countries and over those believers they placed Bishops and Deacons which implieth it to be in the same places And whereas some would strain the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Provinces and not Country Villages it must then as distinct from Cities have meant many Cities and so have stled Bishops and Arch-Bishops intimating Subject-Presbyters under them But here is no such word or intimation Yea when the Countries are made first the Place of the Apostles preaching as they confess let any impartial man judge whether this be like to be the sense They preached in Provinces that is in the Cities of Provinces and in Cities And if there were Country Churches and Bishops seâ—ied by the Apostle's its easie to see that each particular Church-Assembly had a Bishop when even the City Churches themselves were no bigger than Petavius and others mention 3. Ad hominem Though I believe that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eorum qui credituri erant be intended only to signifie the subsequence of believing to their preaching yet waving that to them that suppose it to intend the subsequence of believing to making Bishops it must needs imply that the Churches then consisted but of few and were yet to be filled up But whether one Bishop to have many Churches is a question which must be otherwise and aliunde decided 4. The magnitude of the Churches is plainly intimated when he saith p. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Constitutos itaque ab illis vel deinceps ab aliis viris celebribus cum consensu universae Ecclesiae qui inculpate ovili Christi inservierunt c. If the Bishops were chosen by the Consent of all the Church it was no greater a Church than would and did meet to signifie their consent and not such as our Diocesses now are 5. Also the same is intimated by pag. 69. If it be for me that Contention Sedition and Schisms arise I will depart I will be gone whither you will and will do what
they might with one voice sing by Jesus Christ to the Father that he may hear them and know by whom they do good Where it is most plainly signified that it was a Church which sung to God by Christ in one Chore in unity of concenting voice under one Bishop and his Presbytery and Deacons present and conducting them 3. After pag. 20. he praiseth them for being consonant in Unity with the Bishop For if any be not within the Altar he is deprived of the â—read of God For if the prayer of one or two have so great force how much more that which is of the Bishop and all the Church He therefore that cometh not to the same is proud and condemneth himself And by how much you see the Bishop silent reverence him the more for we must receive every one that the Lord of the house sendeth as him that sent him you must therefore look upon the Bishop manifest or visibly present as to the Lord. Onesimus praiseth your Divine Order Here it is plain that it was a Church where many yea all the Church joyned presentially in prayer with the Bishop which a thousand Parishes nor two do not 4. It was a Church where the Bishop was seen by all when he was silent and so reverenced for his silent presence 5. It was a Church which they that wilfully absented themselves from were self-condemned But a man can be but in one Parish at once 6. It was a Church where they might all see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop manifest that is Perspicuum visible 7. It was a Church where all that had the Sacred Bread were within the Altar that is the one Sacrarium or place of communicating in the Eucharist 8. And this was their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Order of their Assembly After pag. 25. he saith Hasten therefore to assemble frequently for the Eucharist or thanksgiving of God and for Glory For when you oft meet for the same thing the powers of Satan are destroyed and his perdition loosed in the concord of your faith 9. Here it is plain that it was a Church that used to meet together for the Eucharist manifesting therein the concord of the faith of all the Church And after pag. 29. he saith Because they who according to Man do all by name meet commonly in Grace in one faith and in Jesus Christ in your obeying the Bishop and Presbytery with an undivided mind breaking one bread c. 10. Here it is signified that the Bishop and Presbytery were all present as Guides in one Assembly which was that Church which they supervised 11. And that it was such a Church that brake one Bread professing one faith in presence with undivided minds So plainly doth this Epistle decide our controversie IV. The next Epistle is Ad Magnesios In which he saith Canto Ecclesias in quibus Unionem oro Carnis Spiritus Union of Flesh signifieth local Communion 2. Pag. 31. he saith I am dignified to see you by Dama your Bishop worthy of God and the worthy Presbyters Bassus and Apollonius and my fellow Servant Sotion the Deacon whom I enjoy because he is subject to the Bishop and Presbytery c. By which words it is plain that this Church which had a Bishop Presbytery and Deacon was a Parochial Church that had presential Communion with them and not as our Diocesses 3. Pag. 33. Having mentioned the Bishop he saith Because in the aforesaid persons I behold all the multitude in faith and love I warn you study to do all in the concord of God the Bishop presiding in the place of God and the Presbyters in the stead of the Consession of the Apostles and the Deacons c. Which sheweth that it was a Church where Bishop Presbyters and Deacons sate together in presence 4. And after it 's said Let there be nothing among you which may divide or separate you but be united to the Bishop and Presidents c. Which sheweth the same present Presidency as aforesaid 5. Pag. 33. He repeateth without the Bishop and Presbyters do nothing which no reason can interpret of any Presbyters but the present So 6. Pag. 34. Let nothing else seem reasonable proper to your selves but one Prayer for the same thing one deprecation one understanding one hope in love and undefiled joy Which importeth their present Communion in Prayer and Profession 7. He addeth All of you run or meet together into one Temple of God as to one Altar This needeth only an impartial Reader and it 's plain 8. And pag. 37. With your worthily honoured Bishop and the worthily Complexe Spiritual Crown of your Presbytery and the Deacons c. Where no Presbyters are mentioned but the Bishops Presbytery which sate about him in the Church called the Complexe Corona 9. He addeth ut unio sit carnalis spiritualis that is of present bodies and of minds V. The next is the Epistle to the Philadelphians where praising them for their union with their Bishop as the strings of a Harp he saith Study therefore to use one Eucharist or Thanksgiving that is to joyn all together in the Eucharistical Communion For there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one Cup that is which is there Sacramentally represented and given into Union of his Blood one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow Servants that what you do you may do according to God Here one Church is notified in its Unity by these marks 1. That they all joyn in one Assembly for the Eucharist Which signifieth one Body and Blood of Christ 2. And that there be one Altar for this Communion 3. And one Bishop 4. And one Presbytery with his Deacons with him But here Bishop Gunning saith It is not meant of one material Altar Answ 1. It must be noted that as Master Mede and others have observed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in Church Writers for the Chancel Sacrarium or place where the Altar stood as well as for the Altar it self Into which place the Communicants only were admitted to which form our Chancels are made 2. And to be intra Altare is usually meant of being one admitted to that Eucharistical Communion 3. And though as we give the Sacrament in private houses to the sick and have Chappels for the weak and distant so might some great Churches then and yet have but one Chancel Altar or place for the Communion of the whole Church 4. The express words and the Context and sense fully shew that it is personal present Communion that is here spoken of and therefore in one place 5. The common use of the word in other Writers sheweth it as being intra vel extra Altare and setting up Altare contra Altare that is separated Assemblies for such Communion 6. The most learned and famous Expositors so expound it such as Master Mede before cited and Arch-Bishop Usher and others 7. The Contradictors can feign no other
probable sense For 1. If by the Altar they say is meant One Christ 2. or one Species of Altars these are before confuted and are palpably false He that is in another part of the World may come to an Altar of the same species which is nothing to the unity of a particular Church here spoken of 3. If they say It is called one Altar because under one Bishop this maketh not many to be one no more than many Temples And if tropically it were so meant it would be but a vain repetition One Bishop being mentioned besides And it is an Altar which the Bishop with his Presbytery is supposed to be present at which cannot be All in a Diocess called One. Partiality can give no other probable sense Object 1. One Church it is known had many Altars Answ Not then no nor long after except at Rome and Alexandria and then they were but as parts of Chappels and not of Churches Object 2. It is said also There is one Body of Christ and one Cup which cannot be meant literally Answ It is well called One agreeably to our present sence For 1. It is one and the same Bread though not one piece which is there present consecrated and divided to them all and one Cup or present quantity of Wine which is there distributed among them 2. And it is One body and blood or sacrificed Christ which is in every Church represented and offered by One Bishop at one Altar This doth but confirm our Exposition But what can be so plain as to convince the prejudiced and unwilling 2. Pag. 45. he willeth `` the Church to send a Deacon to Antioch as other neighbour Churches sent Bishops and some Presbyters and Deacons And can any man think that a Diocess met to chuse a Deacon to go on a visit or that it was a Diocesane Bishop that was sent by a Diocess yea that all these neighbour Churches that sent them were so many Diocesses VI. The next is the Epistle ad Trallesios Where he saith of the Bishop that came to him That he saw all the multitude in him that is the Assembly And as before he bids them Do nothing without the Bishop and be subject to the Presbytery and that as to the Counsel of God and Conjunction of Apostles adding For without these the Church is not called what can be plainer to shew that it was a Church that had a present Bishop and Council of Presbyters conjunct without whom the Church was not lawfully called together So that every Church had such 2. And pag. 50. he saith again Not inflated but being inseparable from God Jesus Christ and the Bishop and the Orders of the Apostles that is the Confess of Presbyters He that is within the Altar is clean and he that is without the Altar is not clean that is he that doth any thing in the Church without the Bishop Presbytery and Deacon is not clean in Conscience which plainly sheweth that every Church-Assembly had a guiding Bishop Presbytery and ministring Deacon 3. Pag. 52. he saith I salute you from Smyrna with the Churches of God which are present with me He had not then the presence of many Diocesses nor were Bishops alone used then to be called Churches Therefore they were Church-Assemblies which he visited and were with him and about him 4. Again he repeateth Be subject to the Bishop and Presbytery and love one another with an inseparable heart Which hath the sense aforesaid VII In the Epistle to the Romans the words of the Church presiding in locho chori Romanorum is much spoken of already by many The Epistles ascribed to him have much of the like kind as Epist ad Tarsenses pag. 80. Ad Antiochenos pag. 86 87 88. The Epist ad Heroum Diaconum calleth the Presbyters of Antioch Bishops who baptize sacrifice and impose hands So Epist ad Philippenses pag. 112. If after all this evidence from Ignatius any will wrangle let him wrangle what words can be plain enough for such And what a blind or blinding practice is it which too many Writers for Prelacy have used to pretend Ignatius to be for them who is so much and plain against them And to toss about the name of a Bishop and Presbytery as if all that was said for a Parochial Bishop and Presbytery that is in a Church associated for personal presential Communion were spoken for such a Diocesane Prelacy as putteth down and destroyeth all such Churches Bishops and Presbyteries And what falshood is it to perswade the World that we are against Episcopacy because we would have every Church to have a Bishop and would not have all the Churches in England except Diocesane to be unchurched and turned into Chappels or Oratories When yet we refuse not to submit to more general Overseers of many Churches to see that the Pastors do their duty and counsel and exhort them to it whether appointed hereto by the Magistrate or the consent and choice of many Churches IV. Justin Martyr's Testimony is trite but most plain and not to be evaded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Postea fratrum praeposito panis poculum offertur Postquam praepositus gratias egit totusque populus fausta omnia acclamavit qui inter nos Diaconi vocantur dant unicuique partem panis calicis diluti super quos facta est gratiarum actio atque etiam deferre sinunt absentibus Die solis urbanorum ac rusticanorum coetus fiunt ubi Apostolorum prophetarumque literae quoad fieri potest praeleguntur Cessantâ— Lectore Praepositus verba facit adhortatoria Posthaec consurgunt omnes preces offâ—rimus quibus finitis profertur panis vinum aqua Tum praepofitus quantum potest preces offert gratiarum actiones Plebs vero Amen accinâ—t Inde consecrata distribuuntur singulis absentibus mittuntur per Diaconos Ditiores si libeat pro sua quisque voluntate conferunt Collecta deponuntur apud praepositum Is subvenit pupillis viduis propter morbum aliamve necessitatem egentibus vinctis quoque peregrinis in summa curator fit omnium inopum Thus Justin Apolog. 2. Where he describeth the Church State and Worship which we desire as plainly as we can speak our selves Note here 1. That whether the Country-men and Citizens had several Churches or met in one City Church it sheweth that they were but single Congregations For every Church had a present Bishop For Doctor Hammond maintaineth that by the Praepositus here is meant the Bishop and so do others of them 2. This Bishop performed the Offices of the day every Lord's day praying preaching and administring the Lord's Supper c. 3. All the Alms of the Church was committed to the Bishop at present and therefore he had not many hundred or any other Churches under him where Presbyters did all receive the Alms. 4. He was the common Curator of all the Poor Orphans Sick c. which could not be for more than
The Chorepiscopi which were at first placed in Country Churches where were many Christians do shew what extent the Churches were then of That these were really Bishops at first whatever the aforesaid Parenthesis in Leo or Damasus say most Writers for Episcopacy Papists and Protestants do now grant and therefore I may spare the labour of proving it And whereas it is said that they were but the Bishop's Deputies I answer even as Bishops are the Arch-Bishops Deputies that is they were under them but were really Bishops themselves For if a Bishop may depute one that is no Bishop to be his Deputy either a Presbyter also may depute one that is no Presbyter to administer the Sacraments or not If yea then Lay-men shall come in and all be levelled For a Deacon also may depute his Office If not then either a Bishop cannot do it or else the Presbyter's Office is much holier than the Bishop's And that these Chorepiscopi Country-Bishops were not such Rarities as to invalidate my Proof but very common besides what is before said is evident by the Subscriptions of many Councils where great store of Chorepiscopi are found And besides the names in our common Collections of the Councils how it was in the Egyptian and Neighbour Churches at least if not how it was at Nice you may see in the Arabick Subscriptions published by Selden in his Comment on Eutych Orig. Alex. pag. 93 94 95 c. Num. 29 31 55 64 68 119 122 128 131 179 193 215 237 241 278. There are seventeen named And the Canons made to curb and suppress them shew that they were ordinary before as Concil Laodic Can. 57. But they should rather have increased them that Bishops might have multiplied as Churches or Christians increased which was decreed here in England in the cap. 9. of the Council at Hertford per Theodor. Cantuar. referente Beda lib. 4. Hist Eccles cap. 5. II. The very name Ecclesia which was first used before Parochiâ— or Dioecesis and still continued to this day doth shew what the form of a Church then was especially if you withal consider that the name was communicated to the Temples or sacred Meeting-Places which are also ordinarily called Ecclesiae which no Man doubteth was in a secondary sense as derived from the People who were the Ecclesia in the primary sense And so even in our Tongue the word Church is used for both to this day as iâ— is in many other Languages Now it is certain that a part especially a small part a hundredth or a thousandth part of the Church is not the Church unless equivocally Why then should the Temple be so called from the Church when no Church at all but a Particle only of a Church doth meet there For that the word Church in our Question is not taken for any Community or Company of Christians but for a governed Society consisting of the governing and governed part I have before shewed But 1. A Church in its first and proper Notion being Coetus Evecatus An Assembly or Convention or Congregation as distinguished from the Universal Church which is so called because it is called out of the World to Christ the Head and with him shall make one glorious Society how are those twenty or an hundred Miles off any more a part of the Assembly where I live than those at the Antipodes may be If you fly to one Governor I answer 1. So the Pope claimeth a Government at the Antipodes 2. A Governor of many Assemblies may make them one Society as to Government but not one Assembly 2. And certainly when Temples were first named Churches it was not because those met there that were no Churches but only Members of Churches Nor is this Parish Church called a Church because some meet here that belong to the Church at Boston Lincoln or Grantham But to this day we cannot disuse our selves from saying the Church of Barnet the Church of St. Albans of Hatâ—ield c. yea in the same City we denominate the several Temples still several Churches Hesychius explaineth Ecclesia by no other words than these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which all signifie the Meetings of the People and not Men that never see each other only because one Man ruleth them Mr. Mede in his Exercitat of Temples proveth largely that the places of Meeting are ordinarily by the Ancients called Churches even in several Centuries Euseb lib. 8. cap. 1. saith in every City they built spacious and ample Churches And Theophil Antiochen Autol. saith Sic Deus dedit mundo qui peccatorum tempestatibus naufragiis jactatur Synagogas quas Ecclesias sanctas nominamus in quibus veritatis doctrina fervet ad quas confugiunt veritatis studiosi quotquot salvari Deique judicium iram evitare volunt So Tertullian de Idololat cap. 7. pag. 171. Tota die ad hanc partem zelus fidei ingenuum Christianum ab Idolis in Ecclesiam venire de adversaria Officina in domum Dei venire c. The very Name there of a Church and the naming of a single Temple thence doth signifie our supposition III. To this I may add the Name and Primitive Sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it signifieth a Vicinity and Parochus Vicinus a Cohabitant or Neighbour as well as inquilinus and is used in all the ancient Church-Writers as noting both a Sojourner as Christians are in the World and a Neighbour so constantly in this later sense not excluding the former Else Men of several parts of the World might have been said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because inquilini had it not also and specially signified Vicinity To avoid tediousness of Citations I refer the unsatisfied Reader but to Gers Bucer against Downam and the Basil Lexicon of Henr. Pet. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though the custom of calling a Church by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continued when the Church was altered in magnitude to a large Diocess yet that is so far from proving that this was the first and old signification as that the word rather plainly leadeth us up to the thing and sense which first it signified And therefore to this day Etymology teacheth us more wit than in English to call a Diocess a Parish but only a Vicinity of Christians And when the a Vicinity is the English of the Word why should Strangers that we shall never see or have to do with any more than those in the uttermost part of the Land be called our Parishioners or Neighbours IV. Another clear Evidence of the truth in question is the Paucity of Churches or consecrated Meeting-Places for many hundred Years after Christ both before they were called Temples and after Not that occasional Meeting-places were few Houses Fields c. but appropriated consecrated places called Churches where there were Altars or ordinary Church-Communion in the Lord's Supper Or rather it is doubtful whether the name of
shall there tell him whom to Baptize where there is no Bishop And the power of Baptizing is the first and greatest Key of the Church even the Key of admission And they that do among us deny a Presbyter the power of judging whom to Baptize and give the Lords Supper to do not give it to the Bishop who knoweth not of the persons But the Directive part they commit to a Convocation of Bishops and Presbyters and the Judicial partly to the Priest and partly to a Lay-Chancellor X. Epiphanius Haeres 75. saith The Apostles did not set all in full order at once And at first there was need of Presbyters and Deacons by whom both Ecclesiastical affairs may be administred Therefore where no man was found worthy of Episcopacy in that place no Bishop was set By which it appeareth that he thought that for some time some Churches were Governed without Bishops And if so it there belonged to the Presbyters office to govern Whereto we may add the opinion of many Episcopal men who think that during the Apostles times they were the only Bishops in most Churches themselves And if so Then in their long and frequent absence the Presbyters must be the governours XI That many Councils have had Presbyters yea many of them is past doubt Look but in the Councils subscriptions and you will see it A Synod of some Bishops and more Presbyters and Deacons gathered at Rome decreed the Excommunication of Novatianus and his adherents Euseb lib. 6. c. 43. Noetus was convented judged expelled by the Session of Presbyters Epiphan Haeres 47. c. 1. See a great number of instances of Councils held by Bishops with their Presbyters in Blondel de Episc sect 3. p. 202. Yea one was held at Rome praesidentibus cum Joanne 12 Presbyteris An. 964. vid. Blond p. 203 206 207. Yea they had places and votes in General Councils Not only ut aliorum procuratores as Victor and Vincentius in Nic. 1. but as the Pastors of their Churches and in their proper right I need not urge Selden's Arabick Catalogue in Eutych Alex. where there were two persons for divers particular places or Zonaras who saith There were Priests Deacons and Monks nor Athanasius a Deacon's presence Evenof late the Council of Basil is a sufficient proof XII The foresaid Canons of Carthage which are so full are inserted into the body of the Canon Law and in the Canons of Egbert Archbishop of York as Bishop Usher and others have observed XXIII Hierom's Communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur seconded by Chrysostome and other Fathers is a trite but evident testimony XIV That Presbyters had the Power of Excommunications see fully proved by Calderwood Altar Damasc p. 273. XV. Basil's Anaphora Bibl. Pat. Tom. 6. p. 22. maketh every Church to have Archpresbyters Presbyters and Deacons making the Bishop to be but the Archpresbyter CHAP. XIV The Confessions of the greatest and Learnedest Prelatists 1. THe Church of England doth publickly notifie her judgment that Church Government Discipline and the power of the Keys is not a thing aliene from or above the Order of the Presbyters but belongeth to their office 1. In that they allow Presbyters to be members of Convocations and that as chosen by the Presbyters And whereas it is said that the Lower house of Convocation are but Advisers to the Upper I answer All together have but an advising power to the King and Parliament But in that sort of power the lower house hath its part as experience sheweth 2. There are many exempt Jurisdictions in England as the Kings Chappel The Deanry of Windsor and Wolverhampton Bridgenorth where six Parishes are governed by a Court held by a Presbyter and many more which shew that it is consistent with the Presbyters office 3. The Archdeacons who are no Bishops exercise some Government And so do their Officials under them The Objection from Deputation is answered 4. The Surrogates of the Bishops whether Vicar General Principal Official or Commissaries are allowed a certain part of government 5. They that give Lay-Chancellors the power of Judicial Excommunication and Absolution cannot think a Presbyter uncapable of it 6. A Presbyter proforma oft passeth the sentence of Excommunication and Absolution in the Chancellors Court when he hath judged it 7. A Presbyter in the Church must publish that Excommunication and Absolution 8. By allowing Presbyters to baptize and to deliver the Lords Supper and to keep some back for that time and to admit them again if they openly profess to repent and amend their naughty lives and to absolve the sick they intimate that the Power of the Keys belongeth to them though they contradict themselves otherwise by denying it them 9. And in Ordination the Presbyter is required to exercise discipline And the words of Act. 20. 28. were formerly used to them Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers or Bishops to feed or Rule the Church of God Whence Bishop Usher gathereth that the Churches sence was that the Presbyters had a joynt power with the Bishop in Church Government And though lately Anno 1662. this be altered and those words left out yet it is not any such new change that can disprove this to have been the meaning of them that made the book of Ordination and that used it II. Archbishop Cranmer with the rest of the Commissioners appointed by King Edward the Sixth for the Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws decreed the administring Discipline in every Parish by the Minister and certain Elders Labouring and intending by all means to bring in the ancient discipline Vid. Reform Leg. Eccles tit de Divinis Officiis cap. 10. And our Liturgy wisheth this Godly Discipline restored and substituteth the Curses till it can be done And the same Cranmer was the first of 46 who in the time of King Henry the Eighth affirmed in a book called The Bishops Book to be seen in Fox's Martyrology that the difference of Bishops was a device of the ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture And of the opinion of Cranmer with others in this point his own papers published by Dr. Stillingfleet Irenic p. 390 391 c. are so full a proof that no more is needful III. Dr. Richard Cosins in his Tables sheweth how Church Discipline is partly exercised by Presbyters and by the Kings Commission may be much more And it is not aliene to their office IV. Hooker Eccles Pol. lib. 5. pleadeth against the Divine settlement of one form of Government And lib. 7. Sect. 7. p. 17 18. he sheweth at large that the Bishops with their Presbyters as a Consess governed the Churches And that in this respect It is most certain truth that the Churches Cathedral and the Bishops of them are as glasses wherein the face and very countenance of Apostolical antiquity remaineth yet to be seen notwithstanding the alterations which tract of time and course of the world hath
General Pastors And therefore it they say It is not the Presbyters but the Diocesane that is the cheif Pastor of your Parish Church I answer there is none above the Resident or incumbent Presbyters that take the particular charge and oversight The Bishop takes but the general charge as a general Officer in an Army If they do indeed take the particular Pastoral charge of every Soul which belongs to the Bishops infimi gradus then woe to that man that voluntary takes such a charge upon him and hath such a charge to answer for before the Lord. If they say that the Presbyters have the particular charge for teaching and Sacraments but the Bishops for ruling I answer 1. It is Government that we are speaking of if they are Bishops infimi gradus then there are no Bishops or Governours under them And if so then it is they that must perform and answer for Government of every particular Soul And then woe to them 2. Governing and teaching are acts of the same Office by Christs institution as appears in 1 Tim. 5 17. Acts 20. 28. c. And indeed they are much the same thing For Government in our Church sense is nothing but the explication of Gods Word and the application of it to particular Cases And this is Teaching Let them that would divide prove that Christ hath allowed a division If one man would be the general Schoolmaster of a whole Diocess only to oversee the particular School-masters and give them rules we might bear with them But if he will say to all the particular Schoolmasters you are but to teach and I only must govern all your Scholars when governing them is necessarily the act of him that is upon the place conjunct with teaching this man would need no words for the manifestation of the vanity of his ambition The same I may say of the Masters of every Science whose government is such as our Church Government is not Imperial but Doctoral yea of the Army or the Navy where the government is most imperial Now for the Argument 1. The consequence of the Major is undeniable because every such Society is essentially constituted of the Ruling and Ruled parts as every Common-wealth of the pars imperans and the pars subdita So every organized Church of the Pastor and the Flock 2. And for the Minor if they denyed both our Parish Churches and our City Churches that is those in Towns Corporate to be true Churches they then confess the shame and open the ulcer and leprosic of their way of governing that to build up one Diocesane Church which is not of Christs institution but destructive of his institution they destroy and pull down five hundred or a thousand Parish Churches and many City Churches If they will also feign a specifique difference of Churches as they do of Pastors and say that Parish Churches are Ecclesiae dociae but Diocesan Churches are only Ecclesiae gubernatae of which the Parish Churches are but parts I answer 1. The Scripture knoweth no such distinction of stated Churches All stated Churches for worship are to be governed Churches and the government is but guidance and therefore to be by them that are their Guides 2. I have before proved that every worshipping Church that had unum altare was to have a Bishop or Government by Presbyters at least Arg. III. That Ordination which is much better than the ordination of the Church of Rome or of any Diocesane Bishops of the same sort with theirs is valid The Ordination now questioned by some in England is much better then the Ordination of the Church of Rome or of any Diocesane Bishops of the same sort with theirs Ergo the Ordination now questioned by some in England is valid The Major will not be denied by those which we plead with because they hold the Ordination of the Church of Rome to be valid and their Priests not to be re-ordained The Minor I prove If the Ordination that hath no Reason of its validity alledged but that it is not done by Diocesane Bishops be much better than the Ordination of such as derive their power from a meer Usurper of Headship over the universal Church whose succession hath been oft interrupted and of such as profess themselves Pastors of a false Church as having a Head and form of divine Institution and that ordain into that false Church and cause the ordained to swear to be obedient to the Pope to swear to false Doctrine as Articles of Faith and ordain him to the Office of making a peice of Bread to be accounted no Bread but the Body of Christ which being Bread still is to be worshipped as God by himself and others to pass by the rest than the Ordination now questioned in England is much better than the Ordination of the Church of Rome But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the consequent And for the other part of the Minor I further prove it If the Office and government of the Romish Bishops and of any Diocesanes of the same sort with them be destructive of that form of Episcopacy and Church Government which was instituted by Christ and used in the Primitive Church then the Ordination now questioned by some in England is much better than that which is done by such Diocesanes But the Office and Covernment of the Romish Bishops and of any Diocesanes of the same sort with them is destructive of that form of Episcopacy and Church Government which was instituted by Christ and used in the Primitive Church Ergo The Ordination now questioned by some in England is much better than that which is done by such Diocesanes The Reason of the consequence is because the Ordination of Presbyters now in question is not destructive of the Episcopacy and Government instituted by Christ and used in the Primitive Church Or if it were that 's the worst that can be said of it And therefore if other Ordination may be valid notwithstanding that fault so may it N. B. 1. I here suppose the Reader to understand what that Ordination is now questioned in England viz. Such as we affirm to be by Bishops not only as Presbyters as such are called Bishops but as the cheif Presbyters of particular Churches especially City Churches having Curates under them and also as the Presidents of Synods are called Bishops 2. Note that all I say hereafter about Diocesanes is to be understood only of those Bishops of a Diocess of many hundred or score Churches which are infimi gradus having no Bishops under them who are only Priests who are denied to have any proper Church Government And not at all of those Diocesane Bishops who are Arch-Bishops having many Bishops under them or under whom each Parish Pastor is Episcopus Gregis having the true Church Government of his particular Flock And thus because the Major is of great moment I shall handle it the more largely The Viciousnes of the Romish Ordinations appeareth thus 1.