upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâ—iers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâ—d upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâ—en that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâ—ment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâ—an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâ—r English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ— they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâ—fe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hâ—nd not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and â—hird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâ—ite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
being of the Church was not to end But the functâ—oÌ„â—hâ—y had as being assigned to certaine Châ—rches is necessary to the beâ—ng of the Church Ergo c. 6. Finally that Antiquity testifieth agreeing with Scripture is true But they testifie that they were bishops which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirme Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 4. Dâ—â—nis Areopag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambâ—ose pâ—oeâ—n in 1. Tim. 1. Jerom. 1. Tim. 1.14 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5 Prïmas prefat in 1. Tim 1.1 Theod. praefat in Tit. Oâ—cum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories Greg. Lâ—b 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34. Answer We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme with all the instances brought to prove it Fâ—â—st for Iameâ— we deny he was ordained bishop or that it can be proved from antiquity that he was more then other Apostles That which Eusebius reporteth is grounded on Clement whom wee know to be a forged magniâ—ier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should have ordeyned Peter Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to have ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignity which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus doe plainely affirme Secondly as the ground is suspected so the phrase of the Fathers Calling him the Bishop of that Church doth not imply that he was a Bâ—shop properly so called The Fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict and formall propriety Ierom on the first to the Galathians and in his Epistle to Damasus affirmeth that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles So many Fathers call Phillip an Apostle Clem. 5. Consi cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ulâ— Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops not in propriety of speech but because they did such things as Bishops doe and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them Thus Peter Paul Iohn Barnabas and all the rest are by he Ancients called Bishops Object This is granted true touching others but not in this instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture aâ— well as all other Story that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Jerusalem Iohn the Baptist did still abide with them even to death Answer Though this be but very conjecturall yet it nothing bettereth the cause here It followeth not He did abide with this Church Ergo he was the proper Bishop of this Church For not abiding in one Church doth mâ—ke a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Chuâ—ch secondly to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it thirdly to governe it with a power of jurisdiction limited onely to that Church But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumcâ—sion by his office as they should from all the world resort thither Secondly he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth Ergo not as an ordinary Bishop Thirdly as the rest in what Provinces soever they rested had not their jurisdiction diminished but had power occasionally as well where they were not as where they were so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more sounded out of Iames that he did in this circumstance of residing more neerely expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other It is plaine Antiquity did hold them all Bishops and gather them so to be a Priari Postâ—riori the Author de quaest vet nov tâ—st cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis institiusâ—e pâ—â—usquam escenderet imponens manus Apostolis ordinavit eos in Episcopus Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could regularly doe Oecum cap. 22. in Act. It is to bee noted faith hee thaâ— Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops for they did not make Bishops onely but Presbyters also Now wee must conster the ancient as taking them onely eminently and virtually to have been Bishops or else wee must judge them to have been of this minde That the Apostles had both as extraordinarie Legats most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors with power of teaching and governing such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them which indeed Doctor Downam himselfe confuteth as Popish and not without reason though while hee doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly himselfe doth confirme it not a little Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings First That which might make us doubt of all their teaching and writing is to bee hiffed forth as a most dangerous assertion But to make Iames and so any of them have both these offices in proprietie might make us doubt Ergo. The assumption proved thus That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour when they teach from one office as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infallible discerning when they teach from the other that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write But this opinion doth so Ergo. The proposition is for ought I see of necessarie truth the assuâ—ption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infallibly as hee was formally the ordinary bishop of Jerusalem let us heare it if there were none may not I question whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour For if hee taught them as an ordinarie bishop and did write his Epistle so then certainly it might erre If he did not teach them so then did hee not that hee was ordained to neither was hee properly an ordinary Pastor but taught as an extraordinarie Embassadour from Christ. Secondly Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one but the one must expell the other were never by God conjoyned in one person But these doe so Ergo. The assumption is manifest Because it is plaine none can be called to teach as a Legat extraordinarie with infallible assistance and unlimited jurisdiction but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church teaching as an ordinary person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner bee called to doe this but at least the exercise of the other is suspended Thirdly that which is to no end is not to bee thought to bee ordained of God But to give one an ordinarie authority whereby to doe this or that in a Church who had a higher and more excellent power of office
in one place Epist. to the Ephesians and to the Philippians where the Bishop is let the people be gathered to him as where Christ is there is the whole host of heaven He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God which cannot agree to a Diocesan church For these were particular congregations opposed as to that Nationall church so to all Provinciall and Dâ—ocesan Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria but as he was Bishop of the congregation in Syria as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England 2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth But a Dâ—ocâ—san church cannot 3 Tertullian Apol. cap 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet and did worship God in which prayers readings exhortations and all manner of censures were performed Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselves 4 Churches are said at first to have beene Parishes and Parishes within cities in Eusâ—b lib. 3 44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. cap. 6. lib. 4. cap. 25. and Sâ—int Iohn lib 3. cap. 23. â—aith to the Bishop redde juvenem quem tibi ego Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his dep setum or trust was but one congregation lib. 4. cap. 11. Hâ—g nus and Pius are said to have undertaken the Mâ—nistery of the church of Rome which church was such therefore as they might minister unto lib 7.7 Dionisius Alex. writeth to Xistus and the church which he governed A Diocesan church cannot receive letters Before Iulian and Demetrius his time there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish The church of Alexandria was within the citie lib. 7. cap. 2. Cornelius is said officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Rome ex Cyp. lib. 1. epist 3 Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui cum tamen de provincia pellare ron potuit Vide Ruffinum lib. 1. cap. 6. suburbicarariarum Ecclâ—sirum tantum curam gessâ—t Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagiaee of the Parish in Carthage Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cypriani lib. 1. epist. 4. 5 It is the rule of Scripture that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people Bishops were chosen long after by the people As of Rome and others by the people committed to them Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set and chose the Bishop in presence of the people Schismes were said to be from thence Quod Episcopâ— universa fraternitas non obtemperat Cypr. epist. 55. tota fraternitas i. unius congregationis tota multitudo ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis Sabino â—le universa fraternitatis suffragâ—o Episcopatus fuit delatus Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 47.58.68 Ecclesiae â—gitur circâ—iâ—us non suit maâ—or quà m ut Episcopuâ— totam plebem suam in negoâ—iis bujusmodi câ—â—vocare potuerit Soc. lib. 7. cap. 3. de Agâ—peto Convocavit omnem clerum populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem 6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages there is no likelihood of the other notation Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates or Suffragan Bishops to them 7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse 8 They were neighbours and might meet a dozen six three in the cause of a Bishop 9 They were united sometimes in Provinciall Councels in which many Bishops met twice yearly Ruffin lib. 1 cap. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica 660. fled to save themselves Austin saith there were innumerable orthodox Bishops in Africa and the Provinciall Councels doe confirme the same Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan 1 That church whose causes are wanting that church is wanting But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found Ergo. First the efficient cause God ordeyning For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan no place to be a place where the Assembly Diocesan should be held no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministery without warrant of his word Ergo. In the Nationall church of the Jewes Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour it was given them The place of the Nationall meeting God chose Hierusalem The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there and to appeare there before him Secondly the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit obliged to meet at least on solemne dayes wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled Finally the actuall meeting of them to such end as such more solemne and publike meetings are ordained to are no where commanded nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word practised If any say these are not the causes of a Diocesan Church but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselves to such a Church and the ministery thereof that they may be governed by them I answer First there is no ordinance of God for this that can be shewed that Churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a certaine head Church for government Nay it is false For every Church by Christs institution hath power of government and the Synagogue had in ordinary matters the government that the Church of Jerusalem had being all over except onely in some reserved causes Secondly I say that this will not make a Diocesan Church formally so called As a Nationall Church could not formally be without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head Church of it So by proportion Yea government is a thing which doth now â—ccidere to a Church constituted and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a Church of this or that kinde Againe were this true that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers have onely government committed to them then it will follow that they onely have the governing of particular Churches who are not any way Pastors of them ministring Word and Sacraments to them But this is most absurd that their proper and ordinary Pastors who dispence Word and Sacraments to them should not have potestatem peâ—i nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them If any say they were not actu but they were virtute potentiae I say it is also to make the Apostles Churches imperfect and how can this be knowne but by a presumed intention which hath nothing to shew it but that after event of things From the effect I argue 2 Those Churches which Christ did ordaine and the Apostles plant might ordinarily assemble to
all the perfection of a Church I answer not taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church it is but a part and member and hath not perfection no more then a parochiall Church hath compared with a Diocesan Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed To the first I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who ordained that the Civitaâ— and Vâ—bs people taken in regard of the whole multitude of the one and locall bounds of the other should make but one Church they did institute a Diocesan church But those who so instituted a Church in Ciâ—y Suburbs Countrey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church Againe to the assumption But those who use City by City and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that Câ—â—y Suburbs and Countâ—y should make but one Churâ—h I answer by the like distinction They who use City by City people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may be said to have ordained that city suburbs and territories should make but one Church But thâ—s the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the City had a reason of an ample continent the Church of a thing contained These phrases are the one proper the other metonymicall and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other Hee placed Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest we should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is said in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted â—ut of the multitude and locall limites wherewith cities were bounded Secondly there is an adaequate acception of these phrases per accidens not because the citie and church was to make but one church but because the Christians by occasion of their number not being then too great were framed into one church or because by occasion there was yet but one church not because there was to be but one Now hee who thus usâ—th them promiscuously doth imply that one church was as yet constituted not that there was to be but one through the circuâ—t of city suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easiâ—y answered to the proofe of the proposition For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted could not be a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in city suburbs and territories were actually converted was no more then might be ordered into one church and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same locall bounds To the second Argument and first the objection from the Nationall church of the Jewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one church because they were all one Kingdome one possesâ—ion For thus there was one Oecumenicall church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unity of a Church whether the kingdome be one or no. If Israel when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worship of that Church they had still been one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have beene in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though maâ—y Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worships which were in that one Church to which they all belonged The high Priest was their proper Priest hee made intercession for them blessed them they were not to offer any where but there If any thinke this cannot bee the cause why there were one Church under the governement of one high Priest for then should Aaron have beene as well as Mâ—lehisedeck a type of Christs Kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacy and governement as well as Princely Thâ—y were under Aaron in the former regard in whâ—ch hâ— was a shâ—dow of Christ. To the second instance of Hierusalem we deny the proposition It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over othâ—rs If it should have beene a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have beene head to all the world Secondly wee deny the Assumption Thâ—t the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Judea as it had beene before under the High Priest That constitution was typicall and may better plead for an universall Christian Church then for a Nationall Secondly there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way Thirdly had this Dâ—vinity beene knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have beene made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meete ordinarily could not bee a Parishionall Church This was so Ergo c. To the proposition I answer That which was by inhabitants who had fixum domicilium so numbersome that it could not meete I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meete ordinarily as is above said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them Irenaeuâ— affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam cam convenisse Luke affirmeth the same As for that of millions of beleevers it is certaine they were not fixed members of this Church For would Luke who reckoneth the growth of them to five thousand have concealed so notable accessions where by they sâ—y they grew up to I know not how many thousands there is no likelihood Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned Iohn 2â— or whether by reason of the Passeover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in tranâ—tu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Neverthelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they be tollerated as in one Congregâ—tion The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and be dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to be because it was Ecclesiae surcularis many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time Yea had there beene five thousand setled members we read of some ordinary Auditories spâ—ken to by ordinary Pastors as great as Chrysâ—stome on Matth. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme thâ—y might be five thousand that then heard his voyce Touching the third instance As to the first reason The proposition is denyed for naming the
this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it whose care and industry we may guesse by their ordination of Dâ—acons that they might not be distracted Thirdly the confluence and concourse to Hâ—erusalem was of much people who though explicately they did not beleeve in Christ yet had in them the faith of the Messiah and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen The state of this Church was such that it was to send out light to all other a common nursery to the world Finally the time being now the beginnings of planting that heavenly Kingdome seeing beginnings of things are difficult no wonder if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily It doth not therefore follow from this particular to the so great encreasing of these churches in tract of time Nay if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings it would not follow as thus Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them how numbersome wâ—re they many yeares after Because the growing of things hath a Period set after which even those things which a great while encreased doe decrease and goe downward as it was in Jerusalem Not to mention that we deny the assumption But though the Argument is but Topicall and can but breed an opinion onely yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians And Cornelius that there was besides himselfe and 45. Presbyters a number-some Clergie I answer That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall for who can beleeve that more then halfe the Citie and world after a sort were Christians But he speaketh this and truely in some regard because they were so potent through the world that if â—hey would have made head they might have troubled happily their perâ—ecutors Or else â—he might sâ—y they were halfe of them Christians not because there were so many members of the Church â—ut because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause and were it as safe as otherwise would not sticke to â—urne to them But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet having prayers exhortations and ministering all kindes of censures If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time it will make little for Diocesan Churches Touching Cornelius we answer It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries Cornelius keeping the Catherall Church and being sole Bishop of them but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church For first the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie in which regard he is said Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae Neither was his Church as ample as the Province which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently reacheth Secondly we say that these Parochiall churches were to tâ—e mother church as chappels of ease are to these churches in metrocomiis they had communion with the moâ—her church going to the same for Sacraments and heâ—ring the Word and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them Porsome of them were not suâ—h as had liberty of Baptizing and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church Now to answer further it is beyond 200. yeares for which our defence is taken For there is reason why people which had beene held togeâ—her for 200. yeares as a Congregatâ—on might now fifty yeares after be exceedingly encreased The Ecclesiasticall story noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius Neiâ—her must we thinke that an Emperour as Philippus favouring the faith did not bring on multitudes to the like profession Secondly weâ— say there is nothing in this of Cornâ—lius which may not well stand that the Church of Rome though now much increased did not keepe together as one Church For the whole people are said to have prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop who had ordeyned Novaetus and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Novaeâ—us his pertinacie From hence that none of the numerous Clergie nor yet of the people very great and innumerable could turne him or recall him which argueth that the Church was not so aboâ—ndant but that all the members of it had union and communion for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another And I would faine know whether the seven Deacons seven Subdeacons two and forty Acolouthes whether those exorcistes Lâ—ctors Porters about two and fifty are so many as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twenty thousand Surely the time might well require them when many were to be sent forth to doe some part of ministery more privately Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters to vilifying of them as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons There were sixâ—y in the church of Sâ—phia for the helpe of the Liturgie True it is the Congregation could not but be exceeding great and might well be called in a manner innumerable though it were but of a twenty thousand people But because of that which is reported touching division by Evaristus Hyginus Dionisius and Marcellinus though there is no authenticke authour for it neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement Let it be yeelded that thâ—re were some Parochiall divisions they were not many and within the Citie and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church Concerning the objection from the Churches of Belgia or the low Countries we deny the proposition for we cannot reason thus If many Masters and distinct formeâ— of Schollers in one freeâ— Schoole be but one Schoole then many Masters and company of Schollers severed in many Schooles are but one Schoole Secondly they have communion in the community of their Teachers though not in the same individuall word tended by them But it is one thing when sheepe feed together in one common Pasture though â—hey bite not on the same individuall grasse Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe-gates Not to urge that in the Sacraments and Discipline they may communicate as one Congregation Touching the objection from Geneva I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who subject themselves to a Presbyterie as not having power of governing themselves within themselves as being under it by subordination these may in effect as well be subject to a Consistorie But thus the twenty foure Churches of Geneva doe not They or have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbytery Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein thâ—y shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherin themselves are members and Judges with others Thirdly say they had no power nor were
or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which have civill authority in lesse or greater measure conjoyned The truth is it cannot be shewed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors or as they are Prelats in the Church it cannot be avoided but that the Pastor should have it because though every Praesul or Pralatus be not a Pastor yet every Pastor is Pralatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinary Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with every Church if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition should not have power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house so God in his God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites and Christ the 70. not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authority apply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person his sole authority doth it though sometime as in ordinary callings the ministery of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of government as are in their Kingdome yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they have a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it 〈◊〉 immâ—diaâ—iâ—â— suppositi quâ—m virtutis sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Saâ—â—el to anoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immediatione virtutis not suppositi Object But yet Bishops have the Churches and the care of them wholly committed to them though therefore Ministers have equall power to them yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churâ—hes and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an error likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he mâ—y atâ—end God calleth Ministers not to a faculty of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartulâ—rios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary Judges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the University giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physicke without any patients among whom he may practise But Gods Ministery is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order if nothing by the way but a relative respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should give them a faculty of feeding and leave them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to have set the Presbyters over theiâ— flocke A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth give him a power of doing something to his family and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessity of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exegency of his people so require he doth not call any to the function of Ministery Againe this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignty to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors and Bishops the moity of sheepe on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheepe feed my sheepe so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheepe in a Diocesan flocke to be his and that he hath power to assigne the severall flockes under him he doth usurpe an Antichristian authority Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a Curate is whom a Parson giveth leave to helpe within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dieth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Master what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now every Minister is an Embassadour of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministery if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministerâ—mediately onely serve God in as much as they have done this or that to which the bishop did direct them Moreover should the bishop bid him not preach at al preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and live from his charge he should not sinne in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministery which he cannot give It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called
or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtually as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one person Secondly the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdly the gradation doth shew it First by thy selfe Then shew a witnes or two Then to the Church as the sinne increaseth the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured increaseth also If one say though the Church signifie one governour yet the gradation holdeth for to tell it to â—he governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twenty Wee grant that this is true and were the word Câ—urch taken here to note some eminent governour it might be brought in as a further degree though one onely were enforced But how can Peter be complainaint if Peter the Praesul onely be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthly the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person was not any one but many Their rebuke upon which it is like he repented was a rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoyned for what ye shall â—ind on earth shall be bound in heaven Sixtly if the church did not note an assembly how could he assure them from hence that God would do what they agreed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Unlesse the Church meant were an assembly this argument could not be so correspondent Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on But where the Church is binding or loosing there are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly the churâ—h in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually but an assembly of Priests sitting together as Judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctly presuppose every particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joint authoriâ—y and joint execution of a representative Church a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practice of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to bee exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinâ—hians that power with the exercise of it was committed by Christ to many not to one But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many and to be performed by many assembled Ergo. The proposition is plaine For Paul would not have called for nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall other then Christ had ordained The assertion is denyed by some but â—t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumenâ—s For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast them forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si auâ—em quis potestalem non hâ—bâ—â— quim scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondly Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For hee doth not call on them to restraine him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdly Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within those who were called brethren and lived otherwise Fourthly Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or muâ—ct oâ— many writing to them that they would not proceed 2 Cor. 2 6. Lastly Paul doth attribâ—te power to them to forgive him and to receâ—ve him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as hâ—ve no power to binde have no power to loose So it mighâ— be provâ—d by the Church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess. 3.14 If any man waâ—k inâ—rdinatly note him that others may refraine him Noting being not a signification by letter which doth wrest the word against all copies and the current of all Greek interpreters but judicially to note him â—hat all may avoid him that is excommunicate him Finally the churches of Asia as it is plaine had power of government within themselves Argum. 5. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the churches nor Evangelists but with concurrence of the churches and Presbyteries that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour but by many But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with concurrence of the Presbyters of the church Ergo much lesse may any ordinary Minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery For that Persons must be understood here is apparant by the like place when it is said by the laying on of my hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person and so here a Presbytery Secondly 〈◊〉 take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicons and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers â—ake it a company of bishops For neither was that Canon of 3. bishops and the Metropolitan or all the bishops in a Province in the Apostles time neither were theâ—e who are now called bishops then called Presbyters as they say but Apostles men that had received Apostolick grace Angels c. Finally it is very absurd to think of companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but he placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from bishops which is the grant of our adversaries Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence besides testimonie of Scripture Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbytery with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of these keyes doing it ex officiâ— and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth Yea the bishops called Primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Prebytery did not give them Whence have bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the bâ—shop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained Ministers As Consuls and Dâ—ctators are said to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Jesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on