signare nec publice quidem in Missa quemquam poenitentem reconciliare nec formâ—tas cuilibet Epistolas mittere By which it appeareth how big that Man's Diocess must be who besides all his other work must be present to sign every baptized person and reconcile every Penitent in every Congregation And it 's worth the noting what kind of works they be that the Bishop's Office is maintained for XXXVII From the great Church of Rome at its first Tide time let us look to the great Church of Constantinople even in the days of a better Bishop Chrysostom Besides that they had long but one Temple of which anon Chrysostom saith in 1 Thes 5. 12. Orat. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Et primum debet imperare praeesse volentibus lubentibus qui ei gratiam habent quod imperet p. 1472. p. 1473. Sacerdos in hoc suum contulit negotium Nulla est ei alia vita quam ut versetur in Ecclesia Qui Christum diligit cujusmodicunque sit Sacerdos eum diliget quod per eum sit veneranda assecutus Sacramenta And Doctor Hammond saith this Text speaketh only of Bishops 1 Thes 5. 12. Et ibid. Pro te precatur dono quod per Baptismum datur tibi inservit visitat hortatur monet media nocte si vocaveris venit And how many Parishes can a Bishop thus serve And how many score miles will they send and he go to visit the Sick at midnight And Chrysost in 1 Cor. 14. p. 653. saith Conveniebant olim omnes psallebant communiter Hoc nunc quoque facimus They had no separating Choristers sed tunc in omnibus erat una anima cor unum Nunc autem nec una quidem anima illam concordiam videris consensum sed ubique magnum est Bellum Pacem nunc quoque precatur pro omnibus is qui praeest Ecclesiae ut qui in domum ingreditur paternam sed hujus pacis nomen quidem est frequens res autem nusquam Tunc etiam domus erant Ecclesiae though called Conventicles Nunc autem Ecclesia est domus vel potius quavis domo deterior When Churches grew to be Dioceses they grew worse than when they were in houses But he that here is said praeesse Ecclesiae is he also that pronounceth Peace to them XXXVIII Gregory Nyssen speaking of the gathering of true Churches by preaching saith in Ecclesiast Hom. 1. p. mihi 93. He is the true Preacher who gathereth the dispersed into one Assembly and bringeth those together into one Congregation or Convention who by various Errors are variously seduced XXXIX He that readeth impartially Beda's Ecclesiastical History shall find that in England between six and seven hundred years after Christ they were but single Churches that had Bishops For indeed the famousest and holiest of them in the Kingdom of Northumberland were but Scots Presbyters and such as were sent by them without any Episcopal Ordination Aidan Finan c. And though they did Apostolically preach in many places to convert the Heathen Inhabitants yet their Churches of Christians were small yet presently the Roman Grandeur and Ceremoniousness here prevailed and so by degrees did their Church-form Yet saith Cambden Brit. ed. Frank. p. 100. When the Bishops at Rome had assigned several particular Churches to several Presbyters and had divided Parishes to them Honorius Arch-Bishop of Canterbury about the Year 636. first begun to distribute England into Parishes as is read in the Canterbury History But it 's plain in Beda if he did then begin it he went but a little way with that division The same Cambden also tells us that the Bishoprick of York devoured seven Bishopricks and the Bishoprick of Lincoln more c. Some Seats were but removed but many Bishopricks were dissolved and turned into one which yet were erected when Christians were fewer saith Isaackson Chronolog There was one at Wilton the See at Ramesbury one at Crediton one at St. Patrick's at Bodmin in Cornwall and after at St. Germains one at Selsey Island one at Dunwich one at Helmham and after at Thetford one at Sidnacester or Lindis one at Osney one at Hexham c. And at this day Landaff St. Asaph's Bangor St. David's are no Cities where we have Bishops Seats as notices of the old way XL. Isidorus Peleusiota lib. 1. Epist 149. to Bishop Tribonianus distinctly nameth the Bishop's Charge and the calamity if he be bad that will befall himself first and then the whole Church Himself for undertaking and not performing and the whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quod hujusmodi viro Sacerdotium indigne mandavit The whole Church then was no bigger than to chuse the Bishop and be under his present inspection as he intimateth And Epist 315. to Bishop Leontius If thou tookest on thee the care of the Church against thy Will and art constrained by the Suffrages and the Contentions and Hands of the People God will be thy helper But if by Money c. Lib. 3. Ep. 216. p. 342. He reckoneth up such and so much work as necessary for a Bishop as no man living can do for above one ordinary Parish And frequently he describeth the City and Congregation at Pelusium as the place where the wicked Bishop and his wicked Priests together destroyed the interest of true Religion XLI I conclude this with the words of Eusebius with the Collection of Papirius Massonus a Writer of the Popes Lives Fabianus ab iis electus est ad Episcopatum urbis Ac forte evenit ut in locum ubi convenerant Columba e sublimi volans capiti ejus insideret Id pro foelici signo accipientes magno consensu alacritate animorum ipsum elegerunt Haec Eusebius Hist l. 6. Ex quo loco collegimus Electionem Episcopi Romani non ad paucos sed ad omnes olim pertinuisse Pap. Masson in vita Fabiani fol. 18 col 2. And if all the whole People of the great Church of Rome were then no more than could meet in one Room to chuse their Bishop what were the rest of the Churches in the World and how many Congregations did they contain CHAP. VII More Proofs of the aforesaid Limits of Churches THe thing that we are proving is that every Bishop should have but one Church supposing him to be no Arch-Bishop and that this Church should be such and so great only as that there may be personal Communion in publick Worship and holy Conversation between the Members and not so great as that the Members have only a Heart-Communion and by Delegates or Synods of Officers As to our Historical Evidence of the matter of fact it runs thus 1. That in the first state of the Churches it cannot be proved that any one Church in all the World consisted of more stated Communicating Assemblies than one or of more Christians than our Parishes But though through Persecution they might be forced as an Independant Church
and work upon them 4. That it maketh the Discipline or Government instituted by Christ in the very matter of it to become impossible and impracticable and so excludeth it under pretence that they are the only persons impowred for it and they set up a kind of secular Courts and Government in its stead and so are practically Erastians I shall conclude all with these Consectaries which follow what is already proved Cons. 1. Such Diocesane principles greatly strengthen the Brownists cause who deny us to have any Church or Ministry of divine institution as is before shewed And as for them that say No form of Church Government is of divine institution Ans 1. It is well that they are forced to except both the universal and the particular Churches and expound this only of Associations of Churches 2. It is well that yet they confess that the office of Pastors is of Divine institution who are made Church Governours by Christ 3. But it is scant well that yet they subscribe to the book of Ordination which asserteth the Divine right of three distinct orders if they do not believe it 4. And these also too much gratifie the Brownist who affirmeth that we have no Churches of Divine institution and thinketh that it is no fault to separate but from a Church of humane invention Cons 2. To say that no man High or Low is bound in his place and calling to endeavour a Reformation of such a Church-Government and so to justifie the neglecters and opposers of all such Reformation is to draw upon a mans self the guilt of so much pollution and of the ruin of such a multitude of souls as should make that Conscience smart and tremble which is not seared and past all feeling Cons 3. To swear or subscribe or say and declare that though millions should swear to endeavour such a reformation in their places and callings by lawful means there is no obligation lieth on any one of them from that Vow or Oath So to endeavour it is The Lord have Mercy on that Land City or Soul that is guilty of it Cons 4. All carnal interest and all carnal reason is on the Diocesanes side and all the lusts of the heart of man and consequently all the Devil can do Therefore while carnal Christians make a Religion of their lusts and interest and pride and covetousness and idleness are more predominant than the fear of God and the love of souls no wonder if the Diocesane cause prevail with such Cons 5. A truly sanctified heart knoweth the nature and worth of Grace and the nature and weight of the Pastoral Office and is devoted to God and the good of souls and contemneth the ease and pleasures of the flesh and the riches and the honours of this World and is the best argument in the World against such Diocesane Prelacy and must at least be weakened before it can subscribe never to endeavour to amend it Cons 6. No wonder if the most serious zealous practical sort of Christians are ordinarily against such Diocesanes Prelacy when it hath the described effects and that those among themselves Cons 7. No wonder if the principal work of such Diocesanes be to silence faithful preachers and persecute zealous Christians where they had espoused a cause so contrary to the interest of Godliness that all these are unreconcilable thereto Speak not of any other Prelacy Cons 8. Take but from such Prelacy the plumes which it hath stolen from Magistrates and Presbyters and it will be a naked thing and simply a name Cons 9. If Magistrates were not the Prelates Executioners or seconded them not by writs de excommunicato capiendo c. such Prelacy would give up as dead or aweary of it self Cons 10. The ill Mixtures of force and secular power corrupteth Church Discipline and depriveth it of its proper nature use and force maketh it another thing or undiscernable Cons 11. Though in cases of necessity civil Rulers may trust Church men with part of their power about religion it is far better out of necessity that they keep if wholly to themselves And let them thunder their excommunications without any power of the Sword Cons 12. Such Bishops and Arch-Bishops as overthrow not the Churches officers and discipline of Christ must be submitted to by all peaceable men though we cannot prove them as such to be of Divine institution CHAP. XXIV Some testimonies of Prelatists of the late state of the Church of England lest we be supposed partial in our description of it 1. FOr the true understanding of the late state of the Church of England the Reader may find some light in the Lord Falklands Parliament Speeches and Sir Edward Dearings and in Heylins own History of the Sabbath with Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath and the Bishop of Lincolnes book of the Holy Table name and things and Dr. Heylens answer to him And the same Heylins History of Arch-Bishop Laud and from Mr. Thornedicks four last bookes II. To what common scorne all serious Godliness was brought by the rabble through the abuse of the name Puritane used by the Prelatists to make odious the Nonconformists is after shewed out of Bishop Downame and Mr. Robert Bolton who is large and frequent in it III. Bishop Halls Confession of the corruptions in the Church Governours and Government in his Modest offer and Peacemaker and his disclaiming those that deny it I have cited elsewhere IV. Williams Arch-Bishop of Yorke Morton Bishop of Durham with many other Episcopal Divines of greatest name and worth did assemble in Westminister and collected a Catalogue of things needing reformation in Discipline and worship which are to be seen in print V. A Prelatical Divine in a Treat called Englands faithful Reprover and Monitor thus speaketh to his prelates and Pastor pag. 60 61. c. And now with what depth of sorrow ought we to recount your past errours partly through neglect of duty partly through abuse of power were the faithful in your trust did ye diligently instruct the ignorant severely punish the disobedient Endeavour to reclaime those that walked disorderly and contrary to the Gospel That ye were violently bent against Action and Schisme against singularity and Non-conformity all confess a few excepted who thought nothing too much yea nothing enough in this kind how opposite soever to Christian mildness prudence and Conscience But in the mean time by reason of your Connivence or Supineness in the Episcopal office Ignorance and Superstition every where misled the people and caused them to wander in darkness not knowing whither they went Profaness like a rank pernicious weed overspread the field and Vineyard of the Lord And the prophane and vicious lives of those who stood up in defence of your Government occasionally gave increase and added strength to the opposite factious party who alledged this as one main ground of their separation from the Church that those who adhered to it were for the most part
Office of half-Presbyters began to be invented according to his own Computation That pag. 21. passim his supposition of the 24 Bishops of Judaea sitting about the Throne of James Bishop of Jerusalem and his other supposition of their being so ordinarily there And of the Bishops of Provinces in other Nations being so frequently many score if not hundred Miles off their people in the Metropolitane Cities when the people had no other Priest to Officiate doth tend to an Atheistical conceit that the Ordinary use of Sacred Assemblies and Communion is no very needful thing when in the best times by the best men in whole Countreys at once they were so much forborn Pag. 26. Again you have his full and plain Assertion That there were not in the space within compass of which all the Books of the new Testament were written any Presbyters in our modern Notion of them created in the Church though soon after certainly in Ignatius time which was above 50 years after the Rev. they were Pag. 60. He supposeth that whoever should settle Churches under a Heathen King among Heathens must accordinly make the Churches gathered subordinate to one another as the Cities in which they are gathered were though Heathen subordinate to one another of which more in due place Pag. 76 77. He saith that As Congregations and Parishes are Synonimous in their Style so I yield that Believers in great Cities were not at first divided into Parishes while the number of Christians in a City was so small that they might well assemble in the same place and so needed no Partitions or Divisions But what disadvantage is this to us who affirm that one Bishop not a Colledge of Presbyters presided in that one Congregation and that the Believers in the Regions and Villages about did belong to the care of that single Bishop or City Church A Bishop and his Deacon were sufficient at the first to sow their Plantations For what is a Diocess but a Church in a City with the Suburbs and Territories or Region belonging to it And this certainly might be and remain under the Government of a single Bishop Of any Church so bounded there may be a Bishop and that whole Church shall be his Diocess and so he a Diocesan Bishop though as yet this Church be not subdivided into more several Assemblies So that you see now what a Diocess is And that you may know that we contend not about Names while they call the Bishop of one Congreation a Diocesane we say nothing against him A Diocesan in our sense is such as we live under that have made one Church of many hundred or a thousand But Reader be not abused by words when it is visible Countreys that we talk of As every Market-Town or Corporation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a City in the old sense so the Diocess of Lincoln which I live in at this reckoning hath three or fourscore Diocesses in it and the Diocess of Norwich about 50 Diocesses in it c. That is such Cities with the interjacent Villages Pag. 78. He saith When they add these Angels were Congregational not Diocesan they were every of them Angels of a Church in a City having authority over the Regions adjacent and pertaining to that City and so as CHURCH and CONGREGATION ARE ALL ONE AS IN ORDINARY USE IN ALL LANGUAGES THEY ARE Thus were Congregational and Diocesan also What follows of the paucity of Believers in the greatest Cities and their meeting in one place is willingly granted by us I must desire the Reader to remember all this when we come to use it in due place And you may modestly smile to observe how by this and the foregoing words the Dr. forgetfully hath cast out all the English Diocesans While he maketh it needful that the Cities be Ecclesiastically subordinate as they are Civilly and maketh it the very definition of a Diocesan Bishop to be a Bishop of a City with the Country or Suburbs belonging to it But in England no lesser Cities ordinarily at least nor Corporation-Towns are at all Subject to the great Cities Nor are any Considerable part of the Countrey Subject to them nor do the Liberties of Cities or Corporations reach far from the Walls or Towns So that by this Rule the Bishop of London York Norwich and Bristow would have indeed large Cities with narrow liberties But the rest would have Diocesses little bigger than we could allow to conscionable Faithful Pastors But he yet addeth more p. 79. he will do more for our cause than the Presbyterians themselves who in their disputes against the Independents-say that Jerusalem had more Christians belonging to the Church than could conveniently meet in one place But saith the Dr. This is contrary to the Evidence of the Text which saith expresty v. 44. that all the Believers were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meeting in one and the same place The like may be said of the other places Act. 4. 4. and 5. 14. For certainly as yet though the number of believers increased yet they were not distributed into several Congregations Will you yet have more p. 80 81. When the London Ministers say that the Believers of one City made but one Church in the Apostles days he answereth This observation I acknowledge to have perfect truth in it and not to be confutable in any part And therefore instead of rejecting I shall imbrace it and from thence conclude that there is no manner of incongruity in assigning of one Bishop to one Church and so one Bishop in the Church of Jerusalem because it is a Church not Churches BEING FORECED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHERE THERE WERE MORE CHURCHES THERE WERE MORE BISHOPS I am almost in doubt by this whether the Dr. were not against the English Prelacy and he and I were not of a mind especially remembring that he said nothing against my disputations of Church Government written against himself when I lived near him Observe Reader 1. That even now he confessed that a Church and Congregation is all one 2. And here he confesseth that where there were more Churches there were more Bishops and his words Because it is a Church not Churches seem to import that de jure he supposeth it is no Church without a Bishop and that there should be no fewer Bishops than Churches And then I ask 1. Where and when do all the Christians in this Diocess of above an hundred miles long Congregate who meet but in above a thousand several Temples and never know one of a thousand of the Diocess 2. Doth not this grant to the Brownists that the Parish Churches are no Churches but onely parts of the Diocesane Church 3. And then if it be proved that the Diocesane Church form is but of humane invention what Church in England will they leave us that is of divine institution This is the unhappiness of overdoing to undo all and of aspiring too high to fall down into nothing And doth he not speak
any Parish or Congregation belonging to them When find you Augustine teaching in any Church but one in Hippo as part of his charge Of Epiphanius I need not speak seeing it is confest that in Cyprus no City had two Churches in his days and that it was their custome to place Bishops in villages as Socrates Sozomen and Nicephorus agree So that the matter of fact is certain except four or five Churches if so many in all the world 400 years after Christ and except but two or three hundred years after Christ you will find no Bishop in any Church but one as part of his own Charge But the consequence inferred hence will be denied because the other Parishes might be taught by Subpresbyters without him Answ But I would ask 1. Whether all the rest of the Parishes were not the Bishops Charge yea part of his Church yea equally with the other part As to what Onuphrius and others say of the stations and the Bishops going from Church to Church 1. It was scarce any where but in Rome 2. It was of later times 3. It was only in the City 4. It was commonly the same auditors that followed him to several Churches And it 's true that other Bishops went to the memorials of the Martyrs oft and had as monuments more Churches than assemblies And it 's true that of later times certain Canons bind the Bishops to visit all their Parishes And the eldest oblige him to visit all the people which sheweth that yet his Docese was not great If he be the Bishop of the Church and the office of a Bishop be to guide the Church in Worship and by Discipline then he is bound to do this to all the Church indeed if you make but a meer Presbyter of him then as many may divide the work between them so each might know his proper part as things stood when Parishes or Chappels were divided But if a Bishop as such be the uniting head as the King of a Kingdom he must be equally related to the whole But if it were not equally who can believe that there was so great a difference in the parts of the same Church as that one parcel of them only should have right to their Bishops presence teaching worshipping and personal guidance and ten twenty an hundred a thousand other parcels have no right at all What! a Bishop of a whole Church not at all obliged to Teach or Guide in personal worshipping any part of that Church but one Some great change was made in Churches before men could arrive at such a conceit Even now among us a Bishop taketh himself by the constraining Law of man which is his Rule to visit his Diocese once in three years I do not mean one Church of fourty or an hundred in his Diocese much less to preach himself usually in those few Towns he comes to but to call his Curate Priests together and to set one of them to preach his Visitation Sermon But where find you this done by three Bishops in the world for 300 years after Christ unless that Archbishops visited the Bishops Churches under them Now they say there have been Bishops in England who have once in three years confirmed some children abroad throughout their Diocese I do not mean one of two hundred but where find you that then the Bishop went out of his City to do this 2. My next question therefore is Whether the Bishops of those times were not at least as conscionable and careful and laborious in their offices as any now are if not much more What! not a Gregory a Basil a Chrysostome an Augustine a Fulgentius a Hillary c. What! not they that preached almost daily They that write so strictly of the labours of the Ministery They that lived so austerely and favoured not the flesh that speak so tenderly of the worth of souls And would all these think you undertake to be Bishops of a whole Church and yet so leave the whole work upon others as never to come among them and teach them and examine them nor give them the Sacrament in all the Parishes of the Diocese save one This is not credible If you say that in Alexandria it was certainly so that distinct congregations were committed to the Presbyters I answer 1. Yet so as that they might any part of them as living in the same city come and hear the Bishop when they would 2. They might communicate with him per vices if they would 3. They were all bound to do so at the great festivals of the year 4. They were all personally governed by the discipline of the Bishop and Presbyters conjunct in Council But of this next XXI Another evidence is that the whole Plebs or people of the Bishops charge till Churches were setled under Presbyters far off in the countreys were bound by the Canons to come to the Cathedral Church and communicate with the Bishop at Easter Whitsuntide and some other such festivals even after they were distinguished into several Auditories and Communicating Assemblies under Presbyters which I have before proved from the particular Canons which certainly proveth that the Dioceses were no more than could assemble in one place XXII Another evidence is that Presbyters did but rarely preach in the two or three first ages except in Alexandria or in some few Churches which had got some extraordinary men Chrysostome's preaching at Antioch Augustin's at Hippo while they were but Presbyters are noted as unusual things And it is said of Augustine as forecited that it being not usual in other Churches for the Presbyters to preach in the Bishops presence the example of that Church by the humility of the honest Bishop who preferred his abler Presbyter before himself did lead many other Churches into the same practice Spalatensis and many others have given large proofs that the Bishops and not the Presbyters were the ordinary preachers in their Church * Filesacus saith De Episcop authorit cap. 15. Sect. 1. pag. 344. Episcopos consuevisse ex ambone verba facere refert Concil Lateran sub Martino Concil Trull c. 33. Permissum deinde Presbyteris quanquam non passim nec in quibuslibet ecclesiis Diaconis olim id concessum sed raro p. 351. ait Balsamon juris Graeco-Romani li. 2. cap. 9. in Alexii Comneni Bullis Populum docere solis est datum Episcopis magnae ecclâ—siae Doctores Patriarchae jure docent These were like our Canons as he shews at large and this was in later ages when a Bishop might teach per alium And p. 351 352. Concil Trull c. 64. docet ex Greg. Nazianz. solis Episcopis convenire concionari sanctas scripturas interpretari Presbyteris vero non nisi Episcoporum concessione Of the Bishops teaching see the numerous citations in Filesacus cap. 1. And if any be stumbled at the name Presbyteri Parochiani usual in the Councils and Fathers as if they were Countrey Presbyters who preached then in
unum nomine Vivilo quem nos ante tempus ordinavimus Presbyteros vero quos ibidem reperisti si incogniti fuerint viri illi à quibus sunt ordinati dubium est eos Episcopos fuisse an non qui eos ordinaverunt si bonae actionis cathoâ—ici viri sunt ipsi Presbyteri in ministerio Christi omnemque legem sanctam â—docti apti ab Episcopo suo benedictionem Presbyteratus suscipiant consâ—â—râ—ntur siâ— ministerio sacro fungantur 11. Of old it was the Custom of the Church that Presbyters joyn with the Bishops in Ordination Concil Carth. c. 3. All the Presbyters present must impose their hands on the head of the Presbyter to be ordained with the Bishop Which fully sheweth that it is an act belonging to their Office and therefore not null when done by them alone in certain cases and that it was but for order sake that they were not to do it without a Bishop who was then the Ruler of the Presbyters in that and other Actions And its worth noting That ib. Can. 4. The Bishop alone without any Presbyters was to lay hands on a Deacon though not on a Presbyter Because he was ordained non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium not to the Priesthood but to a Ministery or service which plainly intimateth what Arch-Bishop Usher said to me that Ad Ordinem pertinet ordinare quamvis ad Gradum Episcopalem ordinationes regere The Priesthood containeth a power to ordain Priests but the Episcopal Jurisdiction as such sufficeth to ordain a Deacon Or that the Bishop ordaineth Presbyters as he is a Presbyter his Prelacy giving him the government of the action but he ordaineth Deacons as a Ruler only Arg. II. Ordination by Bishops such as were in Scripture time is valid and lawful But the Ordinations in England now questioned were performed by Bishops such as were in Scripture times Ergo the late ordinations in England now questionedare valid and lawful The Major speaking de nomine officio is granted by all The Minor I prove thus 1. The Ordinations in England now questioned were many or most performed by the cheif particular Pastors of City Churches together with their Colleagues or fellow Presbyters that had Presbyters under them But the Cheif particular Pastors of City Churches having Presbyters under them were such Bishops as were in Scripture times Ergo the Ordinations in England now questioned were performed by Bishops such as were in Scripture times I must first here explain what I mean by a particular Pastor as in an Army or Navy a General Officer that taketh up the General care of all is distinct from the inferiour particular Captains that take a particular care of every Souldier or person under their command so in the Church in Scripture times there were 1. General Officers that took care of many Churches viz. a general care And 2. perticular Bishops and Presbyters that were fixed in every City or perticular Church that took a perticular care of every Soul in that Church It is only these last that I speak of that were Bishops infimi gradûs not such as the Apostles and Evangelists but such as are mentioned Acts 14. 23. and Acts 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. c. Now for the Major it is notoriously known 1. That ordinarily some of our Ordainers were City Pastors 2. That they had Presbyters under them viz. one or more Curates that administred there with them or in Oratorics called Chappels in the Parish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Oppidum and our Boroughs and Towns Corporate are such Cities as are signified by that word And there are few of these but have more Presbyters than one of whom one is the Cheif and the rest ruled by him Besides that one was oft-times President of the Assembly chosen by the rest For instance if I had ever medled in Ordainings as I did not 1. I was my self a Pastor of a Church in a City or Burough 2. I had two or three Presbyters with me that were ruled by me so that I was statedly their Chief I was statedly chosen by the neighbourhood associated Pastors to be their Moderatour which was such a power as made Bishops at Alexandria before the Nicene Council Now that such were Bishops such as were in Scripture-times I prove 1. By the Confession of the Opponents Doctor Hammond and his followers maintain that there were no subject Presbyters instituted in Scripture times and consequently that a Bishop was but the single Pastour of a single ongregation having not so much as one Presbyter under him but one or more Deacons which granteth us more than now I plead for and that afterwards when Believers were encreased he assumed Presbyters in partem curae So that our Bishops which I plead for are of the stature of those after Scripture times in the Doctors sence Defacto this is granted 2. The Bishops in Scripture times were ordained in every City and in every Church Tit. 1 5. and Acts 13. 23. So are ours They had the particular Episcopacy over-sight rule and teaching of all the Flock committed to them Acts 20. 28. and if the Angel of the Church of Ephesus were one cheif he was but one of these and over these in the same Church and charge And so have our Parochial Pastours these very words Acts 20. 28. being read and applyed to them in their ordination They had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them and so have ours If it be said that these are but things common to the Bishop with the Presbyter 1. What then is proper to a Bishop To say Ordination is but to beg the question And Ordination it self is not proper in the sense of our own Church that requireth that Ordination be performed as well by the laying on of the hands of the Presbyters as of the Bishop 2. They use themselves to make the governing or superiority over many Presbyters to be proper to a Bishop 3. Those to whom the description of Bishops in Scripture belongeth are truly and properly Bishops But the Description of Bishops in Scripture agreeth at least to the chief particular Pastors of City Churches having Presbyters under them Ergo such are truly and properly Bishops The Minor which only needeth proof is proved by an induction of the several Texts containing such descriptions as Acts 20. and 13. 23. 1 Tim. 3. and 5. 17. Tit. 1. 5. c. 1 Thes 5. 12. Hebr. 13. 7. 17 24. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3. and the rest 4. If our Parochial Churches or at least our City Churches those in each Town Corporate and Borough be true Churches then the cheif particular Pastors of them are true Bishops but they are true Churches Ergo. Still note 1. That I speak of Churches as governed Societies in sensu Politico and not as a Company of private Christians 2. That I speak only of particular Pastors or Bishops infimi gradus and not of Arch-Bishops and
great priviledge of Church-Communion and that giving it to the unwilling that had but rather endure it than a Prison is a great profanation of it and a cheat to poor souls and a horrid corrupting of Christ's Churches and Ordinances 68. If wilful Church-corruptions have made any places uncapable of a present conformity to Christ's Institutions their incapacity must not become the measure and rule of our Reformation But a true Conformity to the Institution must be intended and endeavoured though all cannot come up to it at the first 69. We do not hold that every Corruption in Number or Officers or Order nullifieth a Church or maketh all Communion with it unlawful as long as the essential constitution doth remain Yea though my own judgment is that every Church in Town or Country should have a Bishop yet if they would but set up one Bishop with his assistant Presbyters in every Corporation and Great Town with the neighbour Villages according to the antient practise from the middle of the third Century for many following so that true discipline might but be made possible to them that had a heart to practice it I should greatly rejoyce in such a Reformation much more if every Parish Pastor were restored to all the parts of his Office though he exercised all under the Government of Bishops 70. We hold the Parish Churches of England that have true Ministers that are not utterly uncapable through Ignorance Heresie Insufficiency or Wickedness to be true Churches of Christ But that is because we hold the particular Ministers to be true Bishops Episcopos Gregis etsi non Episcoporum and to have the power of the Keys over all their Flocks And that is because we hold that it is not in our Bishops power to deprive them of it though they would And because we hold that when Christ hath instituted and described the Office of a Pastor or Presbyter and the Ordainers ordain a man to that Office their power shall be judged of by Christs institution and not by the Ordainers will though he mistake or would maim and change it by his wrong description And that the Ordainer is but a Ministerial Invester delivering possession according to his Masters will and not his own And as long as Christ giveth to Pastors the power of the Keys and they themselves consent to receive and use them especially if the People also consent to the exercise of them it is not the Bishops will or words that can nullifie this power And if this Answer were not good I confess I were not able to Answer a Brownist who saith that we have no true Publick Churches of God's Institution Diocesan Churches being but Humane if they had Bishops in each Church under them and being sinful when they have none and Parochial Churches being Humane or null as having no Bishops of their own nor Pastors of Christ's Institution but half Pastors and therefore being but part of a Diocesan Church But all this is sufficiently answered by our foresaid Reasons which no high Prelatist can soundly answer 71. I do hold that those Parish Assemblies that have no Ministers but such as are uncapable either through notorious Ignorance or Heresie or utter Insufficiency as to the Essentials of their Office or by disclaiming themselves any Essential part of the Pastoral Office or by notorious Preaching against Godliness and opposing the Churches necessary good are indeed no true Churches of Christ but only are Analogically or Equivocally so called As you may call a Community of Christians that have no Pastor or Church which is no Organized or Political Society 72. But yet I think it not simply unlawful to joyn at any time with such an Assembly For I may joyn with a Christian Family or occasional Assembly though not as with a Church 73. We hold that all the Christians in the World in particular Churches or out do make up one Catholick or Universal Church which is Mystical and Invisible in that 1. the Faith of Mens minds is Invisible 2. and Christ is Invisible to us Mortals now he is in Heaven But it is also Visible 1. In respect of the Members and their outward Baptism and Profession 2. and because that Christ the Head was once Visible on Earth and is still Visible in Heaven to the Glorified part as the King is to his Courtiers when the rest of the Kingdom seeth him not and will Visibly appear again to all 74. We hold that this Universal Church is One in Christ alone and that it hath no other King or Head That he hath Instituted no Vicarious Head either Pope or General Council Nor is any mortal man or men capable of such an Office 75. We hold therefore that the Roman Pope and General Councils if they claim such an Headship is an Usurper of part of Christ's Prerogative which having usurped he hath used against Christ and his interest against the Soveraignty of Princes and against the true Unity Concord Peace and Holiness of the Churches 76. And we hold that it was the modelling of the Church to the Policy of the Roman Empire which gave the Pope the advantage for this usurpation And that the Roman Catholick Papal Church is a meeâ— Humane Form and an Imperial Church as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury as Superiour to the rest of England is of Man and that Body so united is a National Church And that the General Councils were never truly General as to all the Churches in the World but only as to the Roman Imperial Church None considerable ever coming to such Councils but those that were or had been in the Roman Empire or some very few that closely bordered on them Nor had the Roman Emperour who usually called or gave his Warrant for such Councils or Governed them any power over the Clergy of all the rest of the Christian World in Ethiopia the outer Armenia Persia India c. Nor did the Imperial Pope then exercise any power over them And we are perswaded that the power of the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch Jerusalem Constantinople and of the Metropolitaâ—â— Primates c. stood on the same foundation with the Primacy of the Pope and that one is no more of Divine right than the other But that the Papacy is the far more wicked Usurpation as pretending to more of Christ's Prerogative 77. We hold therefore that the Roman Church as such that is as pretending to be the Church-Catholick Headed by an Usurping Universal Bishop is no true Church of Christ but a Humane and traiterous Usurpation and conspiracy therefore by Protestants called Antichristian Though those that are true Christians among them are Parts of Christ's Catholick Church and those that are true Pastors among them may be the Guides of true particular Churches 78. We hold therefore that no Power on Earth Popes Council or Prince hath power to make Universal Laws to bind the whole Church of Christ on Earth because there is no Universal Head or
contrary that needeth a Reply Cap. 5. he would prove the Angels to be Archbishops which if done would not touch our Cause who meddle not with Archbishops but onely prove that the full Pastoral or Episcopal Office or power of the Keys as over the Flock should be found in every particular Church that hath unum Altaere To prove Metropolitans again he tells us how that in Provinces we find Churches mentioned in the Plural number and in Cities onely a Church singularly not perceiving how hereby he overthrows his Cause when he can never prove that in Scripture many particular Churches are called A Church Diocesane or Metropolitan as united in one Bishop as our Diooesane and Metropolitan Churches now are Nay indeed though the Society be specified by the Government yet the Name sticketh in their teeth here in England and they seldom use the Title of the Church of Canterbury and York for the whole Province and they use to say the Diocese of Lincoln London Winchester Worcester Coventry and Litchfield c. rather than the Church of Lincoln London Coventry and Litchfield c. lest the Hearers would so hardly he seduced from the proper sense of the word Church as not to understand them His Proofs of the Civil or Jewish distinction of Metropolitans § 4 5 c. let them mind that think it pertinent But § 9. we have a great word that It may be proved by many examples that after this Image the Apostles took care every where to dispose of the Churches and constituted a subordination and dependence of the lesser on the more eminent Cities in all their Plantations Answ This is to some purpose if it be made good The first Instance is Acts 14. 26. 16. 4. and 15. 2 3 22 23 30. Not a word else out of Scripture And what 's here Why Paul and Barnabas are sent to Jerusalem from Antioch to the Apostles and Elders about the Question and were brought on their way by the Church and passed thorow Phenice and Samaria Chosen men are sent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas Judas and Silas with Letters from the Apostles Elders and Brethren even to the Brethren of the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia And when they came to Antioch they delivered the Letters and Paul and Timothy as they went thorow the Cities delivered them the Decrees to keep that were ordained by the Apostles and Elders that were at Jerusalem Doth not the Reader wonder where is the Proof And wonder he may for me unless this be it The Apostles and Elders were at Jerusalem when they wrote this Letter and thence sent it to Antioch Syria and Cilicia Ergo They established the Bishop of Jerusalem to be the Governour and Metropolitan of Antioch Syria and Cilicia The Apostle Paul went from Antioch to other Cities and delivered them these Decrees Ergo Antioch is the governing Metropolis of those Cities I think the major Propositions are Every City from which Apostles send their Letters to other Cities and every City from which an Apostle carrieth such Letters or Decrees to other Cities is by those Apostles made the Governing Metropolis of those other Cities What dull Heads are the Puritans to question such a Proposition as this But it is not given to all Men to be wise And we ignorant Persons are left in doubt Q. 1. Whether the Universal Headship or Papacy of the Bishop of Jerusalem be not of Apostolical Institution and that more than by one Apostle even by all of them that were then at Jerusalem Q. 2. Whether the Apostles did not this as they did other parts of Church-settlement by the Spirit of God and so whether it be not jure Divino yea by a more eminent Authority than the Scriptures which were written by parts by several single Men some Apostles and some Evangelists when this is said to be done by all together Q. 3. Whether Christ's Life Death Resurrection Ascension and sending the Apostles thence into all the World and not into the Roman Empire onely do not incomparably more evidently make Jerusalem the Universal Metropolis of the Earth and so set it above Rome which is but the Metropolis of one Empire Q. 4. Whether then an Universal Head of the Church or Vicar of Christ be not jure Divino and so a Jerusalem Papacy be not essential to the true Church and Religion Q. 5. Whether then all the Emperours Bishops and Churches that did set up Rome Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople above Jerusalem were not Traytors against the Universal Sovereign of the Church and guilty of Usurpation and gross Schism Q. 6. To what parpose this Sovereignty was given to Jerusalem which was never possess'd and exercised Q. 7. Whether Peter's being at Rome could alter this Church-Constitution and one Apostle could undo what all together had done Q. 8. Whether the Apostles carried this Metropolitical Prerogative with them from place to place where-ever they came And whether it did belong to the Men or the Place And whether to the Place whence they first set out or to every place where they came or to the place where they dyed Judge what is the proof of any of these Q. 9. When they were scattered which of their Seats was the Metropolitan to the rest or were they all equal Q. 10. If the Power followed the Civil Power of the Metropolitane Rulers whether Caesar did not more in constituting the Church-Order and giving power comparatively to the Metropolitanes than Christ and his Apostles Q. 11. Whether it was not in Caesar's power to unmake all the Church Metropolitans and Bishops at his pleasure by dissolving the Priviledges and Charters of Cities Q. 12. If it please any King or be the Custom of any Kingdom as it is in many parts of America that the Kingdom have no Cities or Metropolis whether it must have any Churches Bishops or Metropolitane Q. 13. Whether when Paul wrote his Letters from Corinth to Rome he thereby made the Bishop of Corinth the Governour of the Bishop and Diocess of Rome And whether little Cenchrea was over them also because Phoebe carried the Letter And did his writing from Philippi to Corinth subject Corinth to the Bishop of Philippi And did his writing from Rome to Galatia Ephesus Philippi the Colossians and from Athens to the Thessalonians and from Laodicea and Rome to Timothy and from Nicopolis to Titus and John's writing from Patmos to the Asian Metropolitanes produce the same effect Q. 14. If Paul's carrying the Letters from Antioch to other Cities proved Antioch the Governour of the rest whether when he returned from the other to Antioch again he made not the other the Governours of Antioch I am ashamed to prosecute this Fiction any further His following Citations from the Fathers I think unworthy of an Answer till it be proved 1. That these Fathers took the Metropolitane Order as such to be of Apostolical Institution and not in complyance with the Roman Government by meer humane