the ordinances of worship But a Diocesan Church cannot ordinarily assemble Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the Sabboth is for man he will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and impossible as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude If any distinguish the assumption and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts or as she is a torum standing of her parts now collected together and say she may and doth meet and communicate and edifie her selfe in the first respect I answer This is nothing and doth prove her to be nothing as she is a Diocesan Church quia quid quid est â—git secundum quoâ—est If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church she must have the effect of such a Church to wit assembling as she is Diocesan The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth but were no Nationall Church in this regard that is to say as it is a Nationall Church it had her Nationall reall meetings I reason thirdly from the subject 3 That Church which doth per se essentially require locall bounds of place that must have locall limits set forth of God But a Diocesan Church doth so Ergo. Whence I thus inferre He who institutes a Diocesan Church must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church But God hath not set out any locall bounds of the Church in the New Testament Ergo. He hath not instituted any Diocesan Church The proposition is certaine for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church as also of a Nationall And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Jewes did as in a map set forth the limits of that Nation So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provinciall Churches he would have appointed locall bounds if not particularly described yet knowne and certaine But God hath not done this For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places it being so with the power of teaching and the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that it doth respicere subditos onely perse not terminos locales Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily the subjects on it in the second place As for that commandement of appointing Presbyters Citie by Citie it is too weake a sparre for this building Againe that Church which may be said to be in a Citie is not Diocesan But the Churches which the Apostles planted are said to be in Cities Ergo. If one say to the proposition they may because the head Church is in the Citie Answer The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiasticall But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie Ergo. The soule may be said to be in the head though it be in other parts and God in heaven God because of his most infinite and indivisible nature And so the soule because it is indivisible and is as all of it in every part not as a thing placed in a place containing it but as a forme in that which is informed by it But in things which have quantity and are part out of another there is not the like reason 4 From the adjuncts That Church which hath no time set wherein to assemble is no Church I suppose the ground above that nothing but union of a Diocesse in worship can make a Diocesan Church But this Church hath no time Ordinary it cannot have extraordinary solemnities God hath not commanded Ergo there is no such Church For if it be a reall Dâ—ocesan Church it must have a reall action according to that nature of which it is The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship Of a Nationall Church is to meet nationally and communicate in 〈◊〉 If then it must meet it must have some time set downe ordinary or extraordinary But God hath done neither The Churcheâ— which the Apostles planted were in their times most perfect and flourishing But Diocesan Churches were not for in those times they were but in seminali infolded not explicated as the adversaries confesse 4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers is absurd But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times when now they had but one congregation and give ordinary gifts onely when now they had 800. churches under them is absurd But this doth the Diocesan frame Ergo. 5 The churches throughout which a Presbyter might doe the office of a teaching Presbyter and a Deacon the office of a Deacon were not Diocesan But every Presbyter might minister in the Word and Sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church whereof he was a Deacon Ergo these were not Diocesan The reason of the proposition is No Pesbyter can through many congregations performe ordinary ministery In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches cap. 10. quaest 3. Vna plures Ecclesiae vni nâ—quaquam committantur Pesbyterâ— quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere nec rebus carum necessariam curam impendere 6 If God had planted Diocesan churches that is ordeined that all within citie suburbs and regions should make but one Dâ—ocesan Church then may not two Diocesses be united into one Church or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Dâ—ocesan Church But neither of these are so The judgement of the African fathers shew the one and the Canon law doth shew the other pag. 2. cap. 16.41 Ergo 7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church oâ—hers united in subjection then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop requiring a number of Presbyters and Deacons to minister unto them there may be the perfection of a church But in some one congregation may be such a multitude Ergo 8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops are such churches as God instituted But churches in Townes populous Villages have had and may have their Bishops Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Towne such as our market townes and others yeâ— by a synudâ—cht villages for there they taught as well as in Cities There were Synogogues in Villages as well as in Cities They excepted against them afterward in unconformity to Law The testimony of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congregations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth And the fathers of Africa did not require that a Dâ—ocesan multitude but a sufficient multitude not through eveâ—y part for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onely had served the turne should have their Bishop If
the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters hâ—d right of suâ—â—rage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oâ—cumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instructiâ—n of bishops received from their Churches And Aâ—hanasius yet a Deacon is read to have beene at the Counsell of Nice and to have had right of suffrage in it Finally the Presbyteries did a long time execute jointly all actions of Church government as is before declared Other arguments we shall touch in answer of theâ—e which have beene objected Now to come to the conclusioâ—s let this be first Conclus 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singular persons so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other This I speake in regard of Apostles and Evangelists whose power in many things could not have concurrance of particular Churches which in the former question is sufficiently declared Conclus 2. That ordinary power and the execution therof was not committed to any singular governors whereof there was to be one onely in each Church This is against the Jesuits who make account the most of them that as all civill power of government is given to Kings to bee executed by them within their common-wealth so Ecclesiasticall power say they is given to the Pope and to bishops in their particular Churches to be executed by them and derived from them to the whole Church Conclus 3. Ordinary power with the execution thereof was not given to the community of the church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melanâ—thon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have beene Tertullians errour for in his bookâ— de pâ—dicitia he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power but the church for her honor did dispose it as we see The proposition of a pollitick body and naturall deceived them while thâ—y will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omnisimile for then should it bee the same with the â—nâ—logaâ—um True it is all civill power is in the body politicke the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the community or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannnot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the community in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the church for Christ his sake Therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole community which are the Queene of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly but to have persons who in regard of his relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in natuâ—â—ll bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediatly in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediatly in the person all beleever for whose good it servâ—th more properly thâ—n for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so deriâ—ed to the Priestâ—s but immediaâ—ly from Christ feared in Aaron and his sonnes Oâ—ject Yea they were given the church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ. I but this is not enough that power may be said to be immediatly received by the church as the first receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intâ—itu hominâ— as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the church For as all are said not to have beene Apstoles so not to hâ—ve beene Doctors But if the power of ordinary teachiâ—g had been given to every beleever all should have beene made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the church the church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus â— Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbytery of the church If any fâ—â—e in any office the church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to bee executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellency Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot bee otherwise dealt wiâ—h without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Now to answer the arguments first propounded The Proposition of the first Syllogisme is denyed That what was committed to the Chuâ—ch 〈◊〉 committed to sâ—me principall member And are deny the second part of the next Syllogisme proving this parâ— denyed For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church Which is so farre from absurdity that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacrâ—d Doe we not see in Parliament a representative Common-wealth within our Common-wealth having the greatest authority Not to mention that a Church within a Church should not be strange to them who imagine
a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrons of our Hierarchy Ierome saith ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordinatiâ—n which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimony D. Downan avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be over long to declare all the use which may be made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prâ—lixity in the Preface If the Author had lived to have accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would have left all so clear that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observationâ— are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader W. Ames THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsive conclusions and answer the objâ—ctions made against that part we take to be the truth Thâ—se who affirme the frâ—â—e of Diocesan Churches vouâ—h their Arguments pâ—râ—ly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finâ—lly from the congruity it hâ—â—h with reason thâ—t so thâ—y should be constitute The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders City by City They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a City with the Suburbs and â—egions about it should make but one Church they ordained a Diocesan Church But â—he Apostles who use these phrases as aequâ—pollent To ordaine Presbyâ—ers in every City and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a city with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Dâ—ocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a City with the suburbes villages and countries about it â—â—uld not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleare for these phrases are used as ad aequaâ—e and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities suburbs and regions into one church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitive times and from Patternes in our owne times yea even from such churches as we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the church of the Jewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which maâ—y particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common-wealâ—h and had all but one profeâ—siâ—n that mâ—y many christian churâ—hes now bee upon the lâ—ke grounds But thâ—y then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdome and had all but one profession were all one nationall church Ergo upon like grounds many churchâ—s with us in a nation or city may be one nationall or Diocesan church Secondly the church of Jerusalem in the New Testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head church to all Christians in Judea that was a Diocesan church But this they did by the church of Jerusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionâ—lly was no Parishional but Diocesan church But that church was such First by growing to 3000. then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to have millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocâ—san church Thirdly the church of Corinth is objected to have beene a Metropolitan church He who writing to the church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that church But thâ—s doth Paul 1 Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with prâ—heminence before the rest of Achâ—ia doth imply thâ—t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Achaâ—a was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother city of all Macedonia the church in that city must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan church But Philippi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the churâ—hes of Asia which are thus proved at least to have beene Diocesan 1. Those seven churches which contained all other churches in Asia strictly tâ—ken whether in city or countâ—â—y those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocâ—san churches But those seven did containe all other in Asâ—â— Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia writeth by name but to thâ—se seven he doth impâ—y that all the rest were contâ—ined in these Buâ— Christ writing to the seven writeth to all churches in Asia not to name that five of these were Metropolitan cities viz. Philadelphia and Peâ—gâ—mus two Diocesan at least 3. He who makâ—th the singular church he writeth to to â—e a multitude of churches not one onely as the body is not one member onely hee doth make that one church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every church which he had spoken to in singular doth speake of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath eares beare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo. Thus leaving sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancienâ— churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For â—f the multitude of christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one congregation how much more likely is it that christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200. yeares that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further coâ—firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed churchâ—s these prove a Diocesan church That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congregâ—tion But maâ—y distincâ— congregations gathered in one city may make wee say one
Diocesan churches and Provinciall churches be Gods frame then we had no Churches in Britaine of Gods frame before that Austin was sent by Gregorie the great But here were churches from before Tertullian after the frame God requireth at least in their judgements Ergo. Now to come to open the termes and lay downe conclusions whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were at the first constitute First the word Church we understand here not figuratively taken Metonymically for the place Synâ—ed for Ministers administring ordinances but pâ—operly for a body politick standing of people to be taught and governed and of teachers and governours Secondly it may be asked What is meant by a Diocesan church Answ. Such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church as partaking in holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church for all the other within such or such a circuit These phrases of a Diocesse a Diocesan Bâ—shop or Church are all since the time of Constantine yea the two last much later A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have beene taken up in the Church from what time Bishops had Territories ample demaines and some degree of civill jurisdiction annexed to them For a Diocesse by the Lawyers is a circuit of Provinces such as the Romans Praesidents had or active an administration of those Provinces with jurisdiction L. unica c. ut omnes sudicet And in the Canon law sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously Dist. 50. cap. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory or Countrey circuit opposed to the Citie Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesanae Ecclesiae cont tur câ—p 8. Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra distinguished to Parishionall These had every one a Diocesse and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani these Churches had a moity of houses dwelling in neighbourhood thâ—t belonged to them but at length by a Synecdoche the whole Church was called a Diocesse though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called seeing the Diocesse is the meaner part by much in comparison of the Citie and should not give the denomination to the whole So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had beene called Ecclesia civitatis matrix nutrix Cathedralis grew to be called Diocesan But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union and communion in some sacred things Now a Diocesan Church may be put objectivè that is for a Churâ—h in which are ministers and ministery for the good of the whole Diocesse though they should never assemble as the worship in the Church of Jerusalem was for all Judea and profited though absent Or it may be put formally for a body politicke a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse with the ministers of the same having some reall union and communion in sacred things We deny any such Church A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally Mâ—â—erially as it is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other This God instituted not for it is accidentall to the Church may abesse and adesse a Church remaining one If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell as the Dutch doe one farre enough from the other while the same beleevers were united with the same governours the Church were not changed though the place were altered Secondly it is put formally for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate such Churches and such onely we say God erected Now for some Conclusions what we agree in then what severs us Conclus 1. Churches of Cities Provinces Kingdomes may be called Diocesan Provinciall Nationall Churches as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall yea haply not without warrant of Scripture As 1 Pet. 1.1 writing to all those dispersed Churches speaking of them singularly as of one flocke 1 Pet. 5.2 The reason is things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves but according to some respect of reason under which we may apprehend them Conclus 2. That â—here may be a reall Diocesan Nationall or head Church wherewith others should be bound to communicate more solemnly in Word and Sacraments and in some more reserved cases concerning their government This was done in the Church of Judea Our men are too shie that feare to come to this proposition de posse I am sure our adversaries will grant us that our Parishionall frame might have beene so constituted Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church but by Gods institution No Ministers can take this honour but they must as Aaron be called to it When nothing in nature can have further dâ—gree of perfection then the author of nature putteth into it how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall depend on God We may reason from the Church of Judea as à pari to prove That there cannot be such a Church but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things which may make them one Churâ—h Thus there would not have beene a Church Nationall of the Jewes but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship The men onely went up so the male onely were circumcised but the female representatively went up in them Object It is enough if the communion be in government which all our opposites grant necessary Answ. This maketh then rather one in tertio quodam separabili then one Church government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaining a Churcâ— The fiâ—st Churches of Bâ—shops when now they were divided did keep all other who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called and the people also in some communion with the head Church for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither See decret dist 3. dist 38. Conclus 4. We agree in this thâ—t Churches were in their first planting either not actually Diocesan being one congregation without any other subordinate or if they had any yet were they imperfect wanting many parts or members of particular Churches which belonged to them That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Jewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church and Parishionall for that hath in it
being of the Church The reason is because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner viz. as Evangelists and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner was not necessary to perpetuate the being of the Church Assignation to churches to doe the worke of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary noâ— assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be â—aken What they speake so agreeing that it is virtually conteined in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainely contradicted but yet no way included may be admâ—tted side humanâ— if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it is is in effect of light credulity A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declining To the assumptioÌ„ we answer What do not some ancient enough cal Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while in like sense others a Primate a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to have been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in propriety of speech all these were absurd Object I but they call him bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Answ. They call him bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordaine Deacons Presbyters For wheresoever they found this done and by whomsoever they did call them bishops as I noted before from Oecumen The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these bishops because they made longer stay in these Churches then Evangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishopes in their time used to doe But that he was not an Evangelist and more then an ordinary bishop they do not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1 â—im pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusquâ—â— Episcopus etiamsi ad â—emâ—us in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicavâ—rit sacrâ—s ordiâ—nes promoveris unde quidem vocant cum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinary Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I have shewed contrary to Scripture yâ—a contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist As for the shew from â—he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently Now to shew thâ—t thâ—y were not properly bâ—shops First we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episcopall duties a while but wâ—re not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therefore not bâ—shops properly Secondly thâ—y who did the worke of an Evangelist in all that they did did not perform formally the worke of a bishop But these did so As is vouched of Timothy Doe the worke of an Evâ—ngelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Evangelist and bâ—shop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Evangelist and the act of an ordinary Pastor or bishop cannot be formally one For when everything doth agere secundum quod actis est those things which are not thesame formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or bishops are not formally the same Ergo The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gâ—ve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguâ—shed from a Prophet a Prophet from an Evangelist so an Evangelist from an ordinary Teacher Object But it may be said they were not distinct but that the superiour contained the inferiour and Apostles might be Evangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Aâ—sw That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently in as much as they could doe altiâ—ri tamen raâ—ione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formally the power of all otâ—er offices suites wâ—th the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Justâ—â—e of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penmen of the Gospell but this maketh not an Evangelist more then an Apostle but doth per cecidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this commeth per cecidens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Maâ—kâ— and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should have beene Evangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowned then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that wee call them Evangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospells whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension but the first writer of the Gospell being an Apostle was at least eight yeares after Secondly they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles Thirdly they were such as by labour of ministery common for the generall of it to all other did gather Saints and build Christs Body Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministery common to Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome and oâ—hersome those he did not give conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gave to some one to others another Else he must have said he gave the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Evangelists and Pastors Ergo. That calling which is not compatible with the calling of an Evangelist that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist But the callâ—ng of a bishop is such For a bishop is tyed to a particular Church The calling of an Evangelist is a calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministery to gather Saints and edifie Christs body without any limitation to any particular Church Ergo Paul never annexed the calling of a bishop to an Evangelist The calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist But this doth difference them to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church Thus Phillip thus all those who were the Apostles helpers working the work of the Lord as they did were Evang. of which sort some
externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Acts 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have beene in the churches of Corinth when it had no bishop power of ordination 1 Tim. 4. If any say that this their power was but by commission in them and that they were subordinate to the Apostles in exercise of it being to reteine it onely untill such time as more eminent Pastors should be given I answer all this is spoken gratis without any foundation and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected The Presbyters so had this power that they did commit it to the bishops as we shall shew after and therefore it must have beene in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinary office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the holy Ghost who onely had out of authority trusted them with it If the Apostles and they did concurre in doing one and the same thing they did it as inferiour to the Apostles and servants of a lower order not with any subjection to them as heads of derivation serving Christ their onely Lord no lesse immediately then the Apostles themselves Argument 3. That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors but in all other orders there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power above other No Apostle Prophet Evangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition be denied upon supposall of a different reason because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest and other secondary ones so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be devided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the parity is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yâ—t this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should bee in degree inferiour to other the governing Elders to the Pastors and the Deacons to them Thirdly if every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body should have governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracy especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of gouernment sufficient to preserve order But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it selfe Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled and to the civill Magistrate who in case of delinquency hath directive and corrective power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyranny subject it As for the distinction of Priests wee grant it but as man could not have made that distiction had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament no more can we under the new Howbeit that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule as our Bishops now challenge Argument 4. If some be inferiour unto othersome in degree of power it must be in regard of their poweâ— to teach or their power to govern or in the application of this power to their persons or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe or finally in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on an other but Christ for any of these Ergo. The proposition standeth on a sufficient enumeration the assumption may be proved in the severall parts of it The former branch is thus cleared First the power we have is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee have it as imediately from Christ as they I shew them both thus The power of order is the power which inableth us to preach and deliver the whole counsell of God and to minister all Sacraments sealing Gods covenant Now unlesse we will with the Papists say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office or that his power is a rudimentall limited power as to open the creed Lords praier and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacraâ—entall there being other sacraments of ordination and â—onfirmation which wee may not minister all which are groâ—â—e weâ— must yeeld their power of order to be the same Yea were these sacraments properly they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath Ordination in doâ— this in remembrance of me confirmation in power to baptize The power being the same it is happily in one immediately and in the other by derivation from him Nothing lesse All grant that Christ doth immediately give it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she give this power might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order no sacrament no preaching The Pope doth not if we follow the common tenent challenge so much as to give the power of order to any bishop or priest whatsoever If you say the Presbyter is ordained by the bishop that is nothing so is the bishop by other bishops from whom notwithstanding he receiveth not this power We will take this as granted of all though the truâ—h is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can have none but what is derived to him from the bishop who hath the fulnesse of it within his Diocesan Church But this is false and grounded on many false presumptions As first that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors for to make a Pastor and give him no help against the Wolfe is to furniâ—h him forth imperfectly Secondly it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church and so to others whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter and exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it Thirdly this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the bishop and from him to be derived to other which maketh him a head of virtuall influence that in his Church which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all bishops For his headship and spirituall soveraignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in forâ— externo is committed to him Not to mention how bishops while they were bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicity and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistory did carry all the credite every office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more
1. Let this be the first No Minister of the Word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church Power is naturall or morall Morall is Civill or Ecclesiasticall Civill is either Lord-like and ruling or ministeriall and servile So Ecclesiasticall taken largely for all power subjectively in or objectively about the Church is either Lord-like and Regall such as is in Christ or it is ministeriall and servile such as is in the Church and the principall members of it The power therefore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service as doth make the ministers having it so servants that they are no way Lords Many ministers one Lord we preach Christ our selves your servants for Iesus sake S. Paul maketh his power steward-like not regall Now as that is regall power which doth any thing from the authority one hath in himselfe or from ones pleasure so that is ministeriall power which doth nothing but eying the will and power of him that is priâ—cipall a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ix merâ— alâ—erium obsequiâ— Conclus 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or quality inherent in the soule but a relative respect founded on this that I am called by God to this or that actuall administration in his Church For it is not a power simply whereby a man is made able to doe some supernatural act which he could not before in any manner performe but it is respectively said a power in as much as it doth inable him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully and ex officio with which before he might not intermeddle The power of a Deacon Pastor Evangelist Apostle belong to one predicament in regard of that which is the genus or common nature of them the power of the Church cannot be other Naturall and civill power doth with vertue and efficacy reach those effects and ends to which they are designed because they are proportioned to them and exceed not their activity but Ecclesiasticall power cannot thus concur to the end and effects for which it is ordained because they are such as the omnipotenty of God onely can produce asthe converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner to which no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall though instrumentary efficacy conduce any thing Conclus 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any which himselfe is not personally to discharge nor in further plenitude then that by himselfe it may be performed The reason is because God cannot give one the charge of doing more then a mans proper industry can atchieve but he must withall put it in a mans power to take others and to impart with them power of teaching and governing so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone He that will have the end will have that without which the end cannot be attained If God would have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the world he must needs allow him power to substitute Pastors here and there deriving unto them power both to teach and governe so far as may supply his absence in the Pastorall cure If I will have one keepe my flockes which goe in twenty sheepe-gates if I commit them to one I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under shepheards to him Thus if God give a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Parishionall Churches through a Diocesse he must needs together allow him this power of being a head of internall influence even a head virtually communicating with others part of pastorall power whether teaching or government Thus should none but Bishopâ— be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God all others should be immediately and formally servants to the bishop and doe every thing in the name of the bishop being immediately onely and in a remote sense the servants of God as in the former comparison of one servant receiving from his master the care of all the â—tockes he is the masters servant to whom the master committeth the trust from whom he onely looketh to see it performed but those whom this shepheard taketh to himselfe for his aid they come under his dominion and are servants to him If it be said that God doth not thus make the bishop Pastor but that he wil likewise that there be parish Pastors under him and helps of government To this I answer If God will have them then either after his owne deâ—ignement or else leaving it to the bishops arbitrement if he leave it to the bishops arbitrement then the objection before is in force God will looke for the cure from him onely he shal take according to his judgment such as may helpe him If God will have them after his owne designment then he giveth the bishop no more Pastorall power then he can discharge himselfe others having their right in all the bishop cannot execute as well as the bishop and as immediatly from Christ. Some write as if the Apostles had the plenitude of all Pastorall power that from them it might be derived to the Church it being seene through nature that inferiour things receive influence from the superiour But they misconceive the matter they had onely a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apoâ—tleship The Pastorall power of Evangelists or of ordinary Paâ—tours and teachers they never had For as Christ gave the one order so the two other also for the gathering of the Saints and exaedifying of the body of Christ and no person in any ranke had any power to do this or that in the Church further then himselfe might performe in person The steward in a house hath full power of a steward but not the power of all other officers as Clark of the kitchin Bâ—tler Chamberlaine c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house his Church If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall câ—re they should then have ordained others Evangelists and Pastors not onely by ministeriall mediation of their persons calling them but also by mediation of vertue Conclus 4. One ministeriall power may be in degree of dignity above another For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another or in the same kinde the power of one may be more extended and the power of another more contracted Thus the Deacons had for the object of their power and care not so excellent a thing as that of Pastors Evangelistâ— and Apostles Thus the power of ordinary Pastors was not so univerâ—all as the Apostles even as in the orders of servants domesticall some are implied about lesser some about greater and more honorable subjects Coâ—cl 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of â—â—â—â—ctive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order oâ— Ministery