termes and lay downe conclusions whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were constistuted First the word Church we understand here not figuratively taken Metonymically for the place Synced for Ministers administring ordinances but properly for a body politick standing of people to bee taught and governed and of teachers and governours Secondly it may be asked what is meant by a Diocesan church Ans Such a frame in which many Churches are vnited with one head church as partaking in holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe church for all the other within such or such a circuit These phrases of a Diocesse a Diocesan Bishop or Church are all since the time of Constantine yea the two last much later A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have been taken up in the Church from what time Bishops had Territories ample demaines and some degree of civill iurisdiction annexed to them For a Diocesse by the Lawyers is a circuit of provinces such as the Romans Praesidents had or active an administration of those Prouinces with jurisdiction L. unica c. nt omnes iudices And in the Canon law sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously dist 50. c. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory or Countrey circuit opposed to the Citie Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesame Ecclesiae cont tur c. 8. Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra-distinguished to Parishionall These had every one a Diocesse and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani these churches had a moyite of houses dwelling in neighbourhood that belonged to them but at length by a Synecdoche the whole Church was called a Diocesse though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called seeing the Diocesse is the meaner part by much in comparison of the Citie and should not give the denomination to the whole So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had been called Ecclesia civitatis matrix nutrix Cathedralis grew to be called Diocesan But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union and communion in some sacred things Now a Diocesan Church may be put objective that is for a Church in which are ministers and ministerie for the good of the whole Diocesse though they should never assemble as the worship in the Church of Ierusalem was for al Iudea profited though absent Or it may be put formally for a body politicke a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse with the ministers of the same having some reall union and communion in sacred things We deny any such Church A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally Materially as it is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other This God instituted not for it is accidentall to the Church may abesse and adesse a Church remaining one If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell as the Dutch doe one farre enough from the other while the same beleevers were united with the same governours the Church were not changed though the place were altered Secondly it is put formally for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate such Churches and such onely we say God erected Now for some conclusions what wee agree in then what severs us Conclus 1. Churches of Cities Provinces Kingdomes may bee called Diocesan Provinciall National Churches as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall yea haply not without warrant of Scripture As 1. Pet. 1.1 writing to all those dispersed Churches speaketh of them singularly as of one flock 1. Pet. 5.2 The reason is things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves but according to some respect of reason under which we may apprehend them Concl. 2. That there may be a reall Diocesan Nationall or head Church wherewith others should be bound to cōmunicate more solemnly in word sacraments and in some more reserved cases concerning their government This was done in the Church of Iudea Our men are to shie that feare to come to this proposition de posse I am sure our adversaries will grant us that our parishionall frame might have been so constituted Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church but by Gods institution No Ministers can take this honour but they must as Aaron be called to it When nothing in nature can have further degree of perfection then the authour of nature putteth into it how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall depend on God Wee may reason from the Church of Iudea as a pari to prove That there cannot bee such a Church but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things which may make them one Church Thus there would not have been a Church Nationall of the Iewes but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship The men onely went up so the male onely were circumcised but the female representativelie went up in them Obiect It is enough if the communion be in government which all our opposites grant necessarie Answ This maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separibili then one Church governement being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaining a Church The first Churches of Bishops when now they were divided did keep all other who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called and the people also in some communion with the head Church for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither See decret dist 3. dist 38. 4 Conclus We agree in this that Churches were in their first planting either not actually Diocesan being one congregation without any other subordinate or if they had any yet were they imperfect wanting many parts or members of particular Churches which belonged to them That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Iewes as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church Parishionall for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church I answer not taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church it is but a part and member and hath not perfection no more then a parochiall Church hath compared with a Diocesan Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed To the first I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who
doe the work of ordinarie Pastors is indeed necessarie not assignation to doe the worke of Euangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be taken What they speak so agreeing that it is virtually conteyned in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to be beleeved and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainly contradicted but yet no way included may be admitted fide humana if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it 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 declyning To the assumption we answer What doe not some ancient enough call Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while and in like sense a Primate and a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to haue been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in proprietie of speech all these were absurd Obj. I but they call him Bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Ans They call him Bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordeyne 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 Euangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishops in their time used to doe But that he was not an Euangelist and more then an ordinary Bishop they doe not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1. Tim. pag. 405. Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusqnam Episcopus etiamsi ad tempus in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit unde quidem vocant eum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinarie Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I haue shewed contrary to Scripture yea contrarie to that text which maketh him to haue done the worke of an Euangelist As for the shew from the Subscriptions we haue spoken sufficiently Now to shew that they were not properly Bishops First we haue shewed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Epistopall duties a while but were not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therfore not Bishops properly Secondly they who did the work of an Euangelist 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 Euangelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Euangelist Bishop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Euangelist and the act of an ordinarie Pastor or Bishop cannot be formally one For when everie thing doth agere secundum quod actu est those things which are not the same formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Euangelist and the ordinarie Pastor or Bishops are not formally the same Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gaue now ascending by the work of the Ministerie to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet a Prophet from an Euangelist so an Euangelist 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 Euangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Answ 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 altiori tamen ratione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formallie the power of all other offices suites which the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Iustice of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospell but this maketh not an Euangelist no more then an Apostle but doth per accidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this cometh per accedens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Marke and Luke was not therefore Euangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should haue been Euangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowmed then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that we call them Euangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospels whom the Scriptures never call Euangelists These Euangelists 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 ministerie common for the generall of it to all the other did gather Saints and build Christs Bodie Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministerie common to Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly giue to othersome and othersome those he did not giue conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gaue to some one to others another Else he must haue said he gaue the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Euangelists and Pastors Ergo. That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an Euangelist that Paul never annexed to an Euangelist But the Calling of a Bishop is such For a Bishop is tyed to a particular Church The Calling of an Euangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministerie 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 Euangelist The Calling of an Euangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Euangelist 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 Euang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as Eusebius reporteth Euseb hist li. 5. cap. 9. Now a Calling wherby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certain place and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would haue debased Timothy and
Bishops received from their Churches And Atbanasius yet a Deacon is read to have been at the Councell of Nice and to have had right of suffrage in it Finally the Presbyteries did a long time execute joyntly all actions of Church government as is before declared Other arguments we shall touch in answer of these which have been objected Now to come to the conclusions let this be first Conclus 1. Extraordinarie power was committed to some singular persons so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other This I speak in regard of Apostles and Evangelists whose power in many things could not have concurrence of particular Churches which in the former question is sufficiently declared Conclus 2. That ordinarie power and the execution thereof was not committed to any singular governors whereof there was to be one onely in each Church This is against the Iesuits who make account the most of them â—hat as all civill power of government is given to kings to be 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. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie 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 Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke de pudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honor did dispose it as we see The proportion of a pollitick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should should it be the same with the analogatum 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 care and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie 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 Therfore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly but to haue persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediatly 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 personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his own faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israell so derived to the Priest but immediatly from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Obiect Yea they were given the Church intuitu eiusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd 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 intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subiect from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been 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 communitie of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgment Victoria Soto others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile 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 communitie have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie 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 ioynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonor 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 Church was committed to some principall member And we deny the second part of the next Syllogisme proving this part denyed For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church Which is so farre from absurditie that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacred Doe we not see in Parliament a representatiue 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 many Parishionall Churches within one Diocesan Church To the proofes which prevent as it were an objection shewing that the Church Math. 18.17 may be put for one chiefe Governour The proposition is denyed Jf that Peter one Governour may be in type and figure the Church to whom the jurisdiction is promised
Downam avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be overlong to declare all the use which may bee made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prolixitie in the Preface If the Authour had lived to haue accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would haue left all so cleare that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observations are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITVTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsiue conclusions and answer the objections made against that part we take to be the truth Those who affirme the frame of Diocesan Churches vouch their Arguments partly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finally from the congruitie it hath with reason that so they should be continued The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders Citie by Citie They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a Citie with the Suburbs and region about it should make but one Church they ordeined a Diocesan Church But the Apostles who use these phrases as aequipollent To ordaine Presbyters in every Citie and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a Citie with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Diocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a Citie with the suburbes villages and countries about it could not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleere for these phrases are used as ad aequate and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed Cities subburbs and regions into one Church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitiue times and from Paternes in our owne times yea euen from such Churches is we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the Church of the Iewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which many particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common wealth and had all but one profession that may many Christian Churches now be upon the like grounds But they then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdom and had all but one profession were all one nationall Church Ergo upon like grounds many Churches with us in a Nation or Citie may be one Nationall or Diocesan Church Secondly the Church of Ierusalem in the New-testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head Church to all Christians in Iudea that was a Diocesan Church But this they did by the Church of Ierusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionally was no parishionall but Diocesan Church But that Church was such First by growing to 3000 then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to haue millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the Church of Ierusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocesan Church Thirdly the Church of Corinth is objected to haue bene a Metropolitan Church He who writing to the Church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that Church But this doth Paul 1. Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with preheminence before the rest of Achaia doth imply that the Church of Corinth was the Metropolitan Church to which all Achaia was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother Citie of all Macedonia the Church in that Citie must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan Church But Philipi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the Churches of Asia which are thus proved at least to haue bene Diocesan 1 Those seven Churches which conteyned all other Churches in Asia strictly taken whether in Citie or Countrey those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocesan Churches But those seven did conteine all other in Asia Ergo. 2 He who writing to all Churches in Asia writeth by name but to these seven he doth imply that all the rest were conteyned in these But Christ writing to the seven writeth to all Churches in Asia not to name that two of these were Metropolitan Cities viz. Philadelphia Pergamus seates Diocesan at least 3 He who maketh the singular Church he writeth to to be a multitude of Churches not one onely as the bodie is not one member onely he doth make that one Church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan Church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every Church which he had spoken to in singular doth speak of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath cares heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo Thus leaving Sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancient Churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should be a Parishionall Congregation 200 years after Christ For if the multitude of Christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proproportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further confirmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed Churches these proue a Diocesan Church That respect which many congregations distinct may haue now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unitie of the place is but extrinsicke to the unitie of the congregation But many distinct congregations gathered in one Citie Church may make we say one Church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in diverse places may make one Church It many Churches which may subject themselves to the govornment of one Presbyterie may so make one they may subject
distinguish the assumption and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts or as she is a totum standing of her parts now collected together and say she may and doth meete and communicate and edifie her selfe in the first respect I answer this is nothing and doth proue her to be nothing as she is a Diocesan Church quia quid quid est agit secundum quod est If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church she must haue 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 local bounds of the Church in the New Testament Ergo he hath not instituted any Diocesan Church The proposition is certain 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 Iewes 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 particularlie described yet known and certain 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 onelie per se not terminos locales Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarilie the subiects on it in the second place As for that commandement of appoynting Presbyters Citie by Citie it is too weake a sparr for this building Again that Church which may be said to be in a Citie is not Diocesan But the Churches which the Apostles planted are sayd 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 vnited 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 quantitie and are part out of another there is not the like reason 4 From the adjuncts That Church which hath no time set wherin to assemble is no Church I suppose the ground above that nothing but union of a Diocese in worship can make a Diocesan church But this Church hath no time Ordinarie it cannot have extraordinarie solemnities God hath not commanded Ergo there is no such Church For if it be a reall Diocesan Church it must haue 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 worship If then it must meet it must have some time set down ordinarie or extraordinarie But God hath done neither The Churches 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 through out which a Presbyter might do 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 Presbyter can through many congregations performe ordinarie ministerie In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches C. 10. q. 3. Vna plures Ecclesâ—e vni nequaquam committantur Presbytero quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere nec rebus earum necessariam curans impendere 6 If God had planted Diocesan churches that is ordeined that all within citie suburbs and regions should make but one Diocesan Church then may not two Diocesses be vnited into one Church or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Diocesan church But neither of these are so The judgement of the African fathers shew the one and the Canon law doth shew the other p. 2. c. 16.41 Ergo. 7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church others vnited 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 Ptesbyters and Deacons to minister unto them there may be the perfection of a church But in some one congregation may bee such a multitude Ergo. 8 Those churches which may lawfullie have Bishops are such churches as God instituted But churches in Towns populous Villages have had may have their Bishops Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Towne such as our market townes and others yea by a synecdoche villages for there they taught as wel as in Cities There were Synagogues as well as in Cities They excepted against them afterward in vnconformitie to Law The testimonie of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congreations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth And the fathers of Africa did not require that a Diocesan multitude but a sufficient multitude not through every 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 Diocesan churches and provinciall churches be Gods frame then we had no Churches in Brittaine 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
Corinth by the name of Achaia hee doth imply that it is but one particular Church equall with the other Churches in Achaia To the third the proposition is againe denied That hee that speaketh of all the Churches as one doth imply a metropolitan Church For by the first conclusion we may speake of things not onely as they are really but according to any respect of reason under which they are apprehended Again the assumption is false He speaketh not of them as one Church but as divers Churches in one Province But it is named and set before others Ergo. c. The sequell is againe denied For it may be named before other because it is the most illustrious and conspicuous Church but not because it hath any power over other Finally it is too grosse to thinke that all in Achaia came to Corinth to be instructed and make their contributions every Church using the first day of the week when they assembled to make their collections within themselves The fourth instance is Crete where the many Churches in that Iland so full of Cities are said to be one Church of Crete whereof Titus was Bishop Those manifold Churches which made but one whereof Titus was Bishop those were all one Nationall Church But the Churches of Crete as saith the subscription were so Ergo. Ans The proposition might be questioned on the ground aboue but the assumption is false proved by a subscription which is like his proofe which was brought out of the book after the Revelation For first they are not in the Syriack testament Secondly they are not thought of Antiquity ancienter then Theodoret. Thirdly the subscription is false and most unlikely For had Paul written from Nicopolis he would haue wished Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he was for the present and meant to winter rather then haue spoken of it as a place from which he was absent and whether he meant to repaire The fift instance Phillip 3. That church which was in the chiefe citie of all Macedonia must needs be at least a Diocesan But the Church of Philippi was so Ergo. This will proue an argument when Churches must needs be conformed to the civill regencie of the Emperour his foure chiefe Governours called praefecti praetorii his presidents of Provinces under them and inferiour Iudges and Magistrates under these in one citie and the regions of it But this is an errour giving ground to a Patriarchall and Oecumenicall Church as well as a Provinciall and Diocesan This rule of planting Churches varieth at mans pleasure For the Romane Provinces after the people of Rome gaue up their right to the Emperour were brought all into one under one head and Monarch and Provinces haue bene diversly divided from time to time From this Monarchie arose the Popes plea against the Greeke Churches for his Oecumenicall soveraigntie What forme of Churches must wee haue amongst them who never received any such governement nay any government at all If I were a Conformitant I should object otherwise for a Provinciall Church in Philippi viz. thus That Church which had many Bishops in it could not bee Parishionall nor Diocesan but Provinciall For the Provinciall Church hath the Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops in it and no other But Philippi had so Ergo. But the Proposition is true onely when it is understood of Diocesan Bishops not of Parishionall Bishops Againe Paul writeth not to the Bishops in the Church but in the Citie Now many Bishops are not in the Provinciall Citie though many are in a Provinciall Church Now to come to the churches of Asia I answer to the proposition of the first Syllog by distinction One church may conteine others as an example doth conteyne in it a thing exemplified oâ— as a head Church doth Churches united in subjection to it Those Churches which conteine all other in the latter sence it is true they were at least Diocesan but in this sense the assumption is denyed The same answer sitteth the Prosyllog Hee that writing to these writeth to all other by vertue of their subjectionall subordination he doth imply that all others are conteyned in these as member Churches under one head But he who writing to these writeth to all other as exemplified onely in them he doth not imply any such thing Now this is manifest because hee writeth to seven Churches whereas this were superfluous if Christ did intend his letter onely to head Churches conteyning other For then fiue Churches should haue bene written to onely seeing in them all others were conteyned as they say For by law of this virtual continencie Philadelphia and Thiatira were included in two of the other viz. Sardis Pergamus which were their mother cities What needed he haue named Thyatira which by law of this virtuall continencie did intend to direct his letter onely to head Churches Againe the assumption is false For he doth write principally to the seven and to all other Churches in Asia no further then hee writeth to all the Churches in the world There were other Churches in Asia such as were Colosse Hierapolis Troas the Church at Miletum and Assos which the Centuries mention which depended not on those seven If Colosse and Hierapolis were not as Laodicaea reedified when Iohn did write the Revelation yet these other Churches were then extant Not to name Magnesia and Tralles the independancie whereof is fully cleared whatsoever Doct. Downam objecteth To the third reason from Christs manner of concluding his Epistles it is answered by denying the assumption For Christ doth not use the plurall number in respect of that one Church preceding but in respect of the seven collectiuely taken it being his will that the members of each singular Church should lay to heart both severally and jointly what ever was spoken to them and to others Now to come to the Ecclesiasticall examples as of Rome and Alexandria two hundred yeares after Christ And first to answer the reason brought for their increase such as could not keepe still in a Parishionall meeting The Proposition is not of necessarie consequence for there were very extraordinarie reasons of that which which was effected in the Church of Ierusalem From Christ himselfe from the residence of all the Apostles from the state of the people there assembled from the state of that Church from the time in which these were done Christ had prayed for them particularly to which some attribute the first miraculous conversion by Peters preaching Againe it was fit that being now ascended into his glory hee should there more aboundantly display his power and more conspicuously swallow up the scandall of his crosse Againe this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it whose care and industrie we may guesse by their ordination of Deacons that they might not bee distracted Thirdly the confluence and concourse to Hierusalem was of much people who though explicitely they did not beleeue in Christ yet had in them the faith of
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 haue been in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinarie office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the Holy Ghost who onely had out of authoritie 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 themselues 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 aboue other No Apostle Prophet Euangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition bee denyed upon supposall of a different reason because that though paritie in a few extraordinarie Ministers might bee admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinarie Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therfore 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 divided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the paritie is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yet this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should be 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 haue governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of government sufficient to preserue 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 delinquencie hath directiue and correctiue power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyrannie subject it As for the distinction of Priests we grant it but as man could not haue made that distinction 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 power 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 any 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 haue is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee haue it as immediately 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 prayer and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacramentall there being other sacraments of ordination and confirmation which we may not minister all which are grosse we 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 doe 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 giue it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she giue 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 callenge so much as to giue 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 truth is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can haue 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 giue him no help against the Wolfe is to furnish 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 exercitative to the representatiue 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 soveraigntie standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in fore externo is committed to him Not to mention how Bishops while they were Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the slower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicitie and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistorie did carie all the credite everie office in the Church being counted a dignitie as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which haue civill authoritie 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
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 therfore 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 ourselves 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 authoritie 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 principall a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ex mero altâ—rius obsequio Conclus 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or qualitie inherent in the foule but a relative respect founded on this that I am called by God to this or that actuall admimnistration in his Church For it is not a power simply whereby a man is made able to doe some supernaturall act which he could not before in any manner performe but it is respectively sayd a power in as much as it doth inable him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully and ex officio vvith vvhich before hee might not intermedle 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 vvith vertue and efficacie reach those effects and ends to vvhich they are designed because they are proportioned to them and exceed not their activitie but Ecclesiastical power cannot thus concurre to the end and effects for which it is ordained because they are such as the omnipotencie of God onely can produce as the converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner to vvhich no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall though instrumentarie efficacie conduce any thing Conclus 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any vvhich 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 hee must withall put it in a mans power to take others and to impart with them power of teaâ—hing and governing so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone Hee that will have the end will have that vvithout vvhich the end cannot be attained If God vvould have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the vvorld hee 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 care If I will have one keep my flocks vvhich goe in 20 sheep-gates if I commit them them to one I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under-sheepheards to him Thus if God giue a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Parashionall Churches through a Diocesse hee must needs together allovv him this povver of being a head of internall influence even a head virtually communicating vvith others part of pastorall power vvhether teaching or government Thus should none but Bishops be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God all others should bee immediatly and formally servants to the Bishop and doe everie thing in the name of the Bishop being immediatly 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 flockes he is the masters servant to vvhom the master committeth the trust from vvhom he onely looketh to see it performed but those whom this sheepheard taketh to himselfe for his aide they come under his dominion and are servants to him If it be sayd that God doth not thus make the Bishop Pastor but that he will likewise that there be parish Pastors under him and helpes of government To this I answer if God will have them then either after his own designement or else leaving it to the Bishops arbitrement if hee leave it to the Bishops arbitrement then the objection before is in force God will looke for the cure from him onely he shall take according to his judgement such as may help him If God will have them after his own 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 seen through nature that inferiour things receive iufluence from the superiour But they misconceive the matter they had only a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apostleship The Pastorall power of Evangelists or of ordinarie Pastors 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 ful power of a steward but not the power of all other officers as Clark of the kitchin Butler Chamberlaine c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house his Church If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall cure 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 bee in degree of dignitie aboue another For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another or in the same kind 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 Evangelists and Apostles Thus the power of ordinarie Pastors was not so universall as the Apostles even as in the orders of servants domesticall some are implied about lesser some about greater and more honorable subjects Concl. 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majoritie of directive and corrective power over those who are in inferiour order of ministerie and service The reason is because this exceedeth the bounds of ministeriall power and is a participation of that despoticall power which is appropriate to the master of the familie Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signifie their masters direction and to execute ministerially what their master out of his