church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in divers places may make one church If many churches which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery may so make one they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory and so make one But the 24. churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery and so make one For so farre as two meete in a thâ—rd they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If city churches onely and not the churches of Villages and counâ—ry Townes had bishopâ— Presbyters and Deaâ—ons placed in them then were those city churchâ—s Diocesan churches But city churâ—hes onely had thâ—se Ergo city churches were Diocesan distinguâ—shed from Paâ—â—shiâ—nall churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripâ—ure Tâ—tus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secâ—ndly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Stoâ—y Thâ—y who are gâ—ven to lâ—bour the convertion of the Regions raâ—her then tenâ— those alreâ—â—y converted they were not given to a Parishionall church But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so Ergo. They who were set in a church before Parishes were could not be given to a Parishionall church But such were the Presbyters of the Apostlâ—s institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages from the first division that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery and a bishop but Presbyters onely Nay it was ever by councels condemned and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden that in Townes or Villages any but a Presbyter should be planted 3. This is also proved by reason for it was no more possible to have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish then to have a Maior and Aldermen such as we have in London â—n every Towne 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselves with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city Ergo there was then a Dâ—ocesan church having government of others Presbyters could not ordaine sede vacante though thâ—y did at first as in the church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches allowing onely such churches to bee instituted of Christ which may meet in one congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assemble Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a church as may to holy puâ—poses ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitâ—ly and signifieth no more Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum 2. The Scripture speaketh of the churches in a Kingdome or Province alwaies in the plurall number without any note of diffâ—rence â—s â—quall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nâ—tionâ—ll or Diocesan churches Let a reason be given why it should never speake in the singular number had they beene a singulâ—r church Secâ—ndly let us come to exâ—mples the churches the Apostles plâ—â—â—ed were suâ—h 〈◊〉 niâ—hâ— and did congregate Fiâ—sâ— that of Hâ—â—rusalem though there were in it toward 500. â—â—nogogues yet the christâ—â—n church was but one and such as did congreâ—ate â—nâ—o one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000. to it Act 2.46 5.12 6.1 15.25 21.22 25.22 For their ordinary meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericâ—ll meeting Againe if they might meete Synodically why might they not meete then in daily course though the universall meeting of a church is not so fitly called Synodicall And though they are said to be millions of beleevers yet that was by accident of a circumstance happily the Passeover We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations They had not a setled state there by which they did get the right of being set members Yea it is likely they were and continued but one congregation For forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude but that Pella like to the Zâ—har of Lot a little Towne could receive them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church Acts 14.27 they are said to have gathered the Church together Object That is the Ministers or representative Church Ans. 1. For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Acts 11. Peter gâ—ve account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly the Church of Corinth was one congregation which did for the service of God or exercise of Discipline meet together 1 Cor. 5.4 1 Cor. 14.25 vers 26. 1 Cor. 11.17 vers 23. in uno eodem loco That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth could not be a Diocesan Church neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming together ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly Fourthly the Church of Ephesus was but one flocke First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Secondly it was but one flocke that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Bâ—shop If Presbyters onely then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus There may be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholly meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5.2 calleth all those he writeth to one flocke but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flocke is but one congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added but a greater number of â—ister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Colosse There might be many churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches Examples Ecclesiasticall 1. Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians though numberlesse to meete together often
the ordinances of worship But a Diocesan Church cannot ordinarily assemble Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the Sabboth is for man he will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and impossible as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude If any distinguish the assumption and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts or as she is a torum standing of her parts now collected together and say she may and doth meet and communicate and edifie her selfe in the first respect I answer This is nothing and doth prove her to be nothing as she is a Diocesan Church quia quid quid est â—git secundum quoâ—est If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church she must have the effect of such a Church to wit assembling as she is Diocesan The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth but were no Nationall Church in this regard that is to say as it is a Nationall Church it had her Nationall reall meetings I reason thirdly from the subject 3 That Church which doth per se essentially require locall bounds of place that must have locall limits set forth of God But a Diocesan Church doth so Ergo. Whence I thus inferre He who institutes a Diocesan Church must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church But God hath not set out any locall bounds of the Church in the New Testament Ergo. He hath not instituted any Diocesan Church The proposition is certaine for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church as also of a Nationall And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Jewes did as in a map set forth the limits of that Nation So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provinciall Churches he would have appointed locall bounds if not particularly described yet knowne and certaine But God hath not done this For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places it being so with the power of teaching and the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that it doth respicere subditos onely perse not terminos locales Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily the subjects on it in the second place As for that commandement of appointing Presbyters Citie by Citie it is too weake a sparre for this building Againe that Church which may be said to be in a Citie is not Diocesan But the Churches which the Apostles planted are said to be in Cities Ergo. If one say to the proposition they may because the head Church is in the Citie Answer The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiasticall But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie Ergo. The soule may be said to be in the head though it be in other parts and God in heaven God because of his most infinite and indivisible nature And so the soule because it is indivisible and is as all of it in every part not as a thing placed in a place containing it but as a forme in that which is informed by it But in things which have quantity and are part out of another there is not the like reason 4 From the adjuncts That Church which hath no time set wherein to assemble is no Church I suppose the ground above that nothing but union of a Diocesse in worship can make a Diocesan Church But this Church hath no time Ordinary it cannot have extraordinary solemnities God hath not commanded Ergo there is no such Church For if it be a reall Dâ—ocesan Church it must have a reall action according to that nature of which it is The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship Of a Nationall Church is to meet nationally and communicate in 〈◊〉 If then it must meet it must have some time set downe ordinary or extraordinary But God hath done neither The Churcheâ— which the Apostles planted were in their times most perfect and flourishing But Diocesan Churches were not for in those times they were but in seminali infolded not explicated as the adversaries confesse 4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers is absurd But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times when now they had but one congregation and give ordinary gifts onely when now they had 800. churches under them is absurd But this doth the Diocesan frame Ergo. 5 The churches throughout which a Presbyter might doe the office of a teaching Presbyter and a Deacon the office of a Deacon were not Diocesan But every Presbyter might minister in the Word and Sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church whereof he was a Deacon Ergo these were not Diocesan The reason of the proposition is No Pesbyter can through many congregations performe ordinary ministery In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches cap. 10. quaest 3. Vna plures Ecclesiae vni nâ—quaquam committantur Pesbyterâ— quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere nec rebus carum necessariam curam impendere 6 If God had planted Diocesan churches that is ordeined that all within citie suburbs and regions should make but one Dâ—ocesan Church then may not two Diocesses be united into one Church or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Dâ—ocesan Church But neither of these are so The judgement of the African fathers shew the one and the Canon law doth shew the other pag. 2. cap. 16.41 Ergo 7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church oâ—hers united in subjection then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop requiring a number of Presbyters and Deacons to minister unto them there may be the perfection of a church But in some one congregation may be such a multitude Ergo 8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops are such churches as God instituted But churches in Townes populous Villages have had and may have their Bishops Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Towne such as our market townes and others yeâ— by a synudâ—cht villages for there they taught as well as in Cities There were Synogogues in Villages as well as in Cities They excepted against them afterward in unconformity to Law The testimony of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congregations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth And the fathers of Africa did not require that a Dâ—ocesan multitude but a sufficient multitude not through eveâ—y part for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onely had served the turne should have their Bishop If
alone but propounded made request for them confessing that further then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them they had the right of suffrage no lesse then himselfe as by these epistles may â—ppeare lib. 1. â—pist 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom though grandilâ— quenâ— sometimes did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet he would have these as the seventy Againe Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall Et nos senâ—cum habemus coetum Presbyteroâ—â—m sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam licet â— ut Romani habuerunt senâ—tum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius sâ—ith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsâ—fficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For Colleges supply Churches yet have they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we â—iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bâ—shop had such a jurisdiction as concerâ—ing the Church so farre as it was in society with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not prove them dependant on him For bishops have their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence Thus in Cyprians judgement bishops themselves delinquent turning wolves as Samosatenus Liberius c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries to be deposed and relinquished by them As for those that were part of his clerks it is true they were in greater measure subject to him absolutely in a manner for their direction but for his corrective power he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow bishops do any thing The bishop indeed is onely named many times but it is a common Synecdoche familiar to the Fathers who put the primary member of the church for the representative church as Austine saith Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclâ—siae gâ—ssisse See concil Sardicen cap. 17. conc Carth 4. cap. 2.3 Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3 Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Châ—ysostomes fact is not to be justified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which he was inclined though in regard of his end and unworthinesse of his Presbyters it may be excused yet it is not to be imitated As for those headlesse Clerkes it mâ—keâ—h nothing for the Bâ—shops majority of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them For first it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop a collegâ—at life together Eode refectorio dormitori utehantur Canonice viventes ab Episcopo instruâ—bontur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master it is no wonder if thâ—y be called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyâ—ers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clâ—rkes say it were yet will it not follow â—hat those who were under some were subject to his authority of rule For there is a head in regard of presidency of order as well as of power Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe bishop of their Province and to associate themselves with him So bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbishâ—ps as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes diâ— lâ—ve under some jurisdiction of the bishops but such as did permit them coerâ—ive power in their owne Churches such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity and not of any power whereby he might swâ—y all at his pleasure Thirdly if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny it is better to be without such heads then to have them as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome then if he still were head over us To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had because neitheir Presbyters alone had it nor with assistents I answer they had as well the power of government as of teaching and though they had not such assistants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church yet they might have some as a deacon or other person sufficient in such small Churches When the Apostles planted a bishop and Deacon onely how did this bishop excommunicate When the fathers of Africa did give a bishop unto those now multiplied who had enjoyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepiscopi who yet had government of their Churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrary of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others Ergo the contrary is truth Answer To the proposition we deny that it must needs be presently true the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie As the representative catholicke Church may propound an error so she mâ—y condemne a particular truth and yet remaine a catholicke church To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority but that onely which Aerius runne into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom deny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainely 2. Hee did not deny the fact that bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration hâ— could not be so mad If he had all that a bishop had actually how could he have affected to be a bishop as a further honouâ— Deniall of superiority such as consisteth in a further power of ordâ—r then a Pâ—eâ—byter hath and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule this denyall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be â—rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church What then was condemned in him A deniall of all superiority in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignity and secondly the deâ—ying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsâ—kâ— communion with the Church wherein it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should bee read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
wher he might have liberty as his weakenesse of body would suffer and spent the rest of his time in reading meditating praying and writing saving that upon occasion hee did instruct or comfort those which came to him in private wherin he had a heavenly gift He was indeed all his life after beside the weakenes of his body pressed with want no having as he often complained to his friends a place to rest his head in which me thought was an upbraidâ—ng of the age and place where he lived with base regardlesnes of piety learning yet he never so much as consulted with himselfe of denying his sinceritie by pleasing the Bishops of whom and their courses he was wont to say They are a generation of the earth earthly and savour not the waies of God Which saying of his they and some Doctors of Cambridge have since made good in that they could not indure that the place from whence they thrust him should be supplied by othâ—r honest men though they were coÌ„formable but with absolute authority at length forbad it alledging that Puritanes were made by that lecture wheras the truth is that one lecture hath done more good to the Church of God in England then all the doctors of Cambridge though I doe not deny but some of them have wrought a good work By this one instance of which kind I would there were not a 100 in our land it may easily appeare to the understanding Reader that here is as much agreement betwixt our Bishâ—ps in their managing of Religion except some 2 or 3 which went out of their elements when they ventered on those places those powerful Preachers who have bin the chief means of revealing Gods arme unto salvation as there is betwixt the light which commeth down from hâ—aven that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit But wee need not seeke for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchie from this opposition look but at the fruits of it wher it hath alâ— fulnes of consent as Cathedrall Pallaces or Parishes of Bishops and Archbishops residence sucâ— as Lambeth is where all their canons are in force aâ—d have their full sway without contradiction nay come neerer unto them and take a view of their families even to them that wait in their chambers and see what godlinesse there is to be found Have there not more of God and his Kingdome appeared in some one Congregation of those Ministers which they have silenced for unconformity then in all the Bishops families that are now in England Was there ever any of them that could endure such a Parish as Lambeth is if they had such power of reforming it as the Archbishops haue To returne therfore unto our Authour whilst he lived a private life being thus strucken with the Bishops Planet he had time to apply his able wit and judgement unto the discussing of many questions which if the Prelates had not forced such leasure upon him it may be he would have passed by with others And among the rest by Gods providence he was directed to these Ecclesiastical Controversies which concerne our Diocesan state in England wherin as in all other questions which he dealt in he hath shewed such distinct and piercing understanding together with evidence of truth as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light He might indeed have chosen other particular corruptions to have written on if it had bene his purpose either to have taught men what they daily see and feel or to have laboured about the branches and leave the root untouched But it was no delight unto him for to prove that which no man doubted of as that the common course and practise of our Prelates their courts their urging of sâ—bscriptions with human superstitious ceremonies are presumptuous insolencies against God and his Church or preposterously to beginne at the end of the streame for to cleanse the water He chose rather to search the fountain of all that foulnes wherwith our Churâ—he are soiled which he judged to be found in the constituâ—ions here in this Treatise examined And if these few questions be wel considered it will appear that a multitude of pernitious abuses doe depend on those positions which in them are confuted One fundamentall abuse in our Ecclesiasticall oppression in the disposing of charges our placing of Ministers over Congregations it is called usually bestowing of BeÌ„efices or Livings in an earthy phrase which â—avoureth of the base corruption commonly practised For Congregations ought not to be bestowed on Ministers but Ministers on Congregations the benefit or benefice of the Minister is not so much to be regarded as of the Congregation It is the calling and charge which every Minister should looke at not his living and benefice Now these Benefiâ—es are bestowed ordinarily by the PatroÌ„ whether Popish prophane or religious all is one the Bishop without any regard of the peoples call or consent so as no lawful mariage is made no servant placed against all Scripture Councels and antient examples Wherby it commeth ordinarily to passe that Lawyers must determine of Ministers callings after long sutes and great charges as if Congregations and Farms were held by one title and right And sometime it is found that the Minister is a continuall plague unto his people living in contention spiâ—e hatred with them as many law-suits do too too plainly witnes What is the reason Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches that ever were ordained by Christ or received any power and priviledges from him but as mans creatures and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him Another practice of like nature with the former is that the minister being called to one Congregation becommeth a Pluralist by taking another or more livings in spite of that Congregation to which he was first and is still personally tied And after this he may be a nonresident abiding or Preaching at none of his many livings Nay he may chop and change sell and buy like a marchant so he do it closely which is such an abomination as Rome and Trent condemneth and hell it selfe will scarse defend What is the ground Because forsooth Christ hath not appointed Parishes their officeâ—s offices and therfore no man is bound further in this kinde then mens Laws canons customes and injunctions do prescribe unto them For a grave Doctor of Cambridge answered one that questioned him for his grosse non-residencie viz. that Parishes were divided by a Pope insinuating as it seemeth that he accounted it a point of Poperie for to tie Ministers unto their particular charges A third grosse corruption is that the officers in Congregations Ministers Church-wardens c. are made servants to the Bishops Chancellours Archdeacons c. being as it were their promotors informers and executioners in all matters of jurisdiction and government for to bring in mony into their purses for performance also of which service to them the Church-wardens
Diocesan churches and Provinciall churches be Gods frame then we had no Churches in Britaine of Gods frame before that Austin was sent by Gregorie the great But here were churches from before Tertullian after the frame God requireth at least in their judgements Ergo. Now to come to open the termes and lay downe conclusions whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were at the first constitute First the word Church we understand here not figuratively taken Metonymically for the place Synâ—ed for Ministers administring ordinances but pâ—operly for a body politick standing of people to be taught and governed and of teachers and governours Secondly it may be asked What is meant by a Diocesan church Answ. Such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church as partaking in holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church for all the other within such or such a circuit These phrases of a Diocesse a Diocesan Bâ—shop or Church are all since the time of Constantine yea the two last much later A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have beene taken up in the Church from what time Bishops had Territories ample demaines and some degree of civill jurisdiction annexed to them For a Diocesse by the Lawyers is a circuit of Provinces such as the Romans Praesidents had or active an administration of those Provinces with jurisdiction L. unica c. ut omnes sudicet And in the Canon law sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously Dist. 50. cap. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory or Countrey circuit opposed to the Citie Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesanae Ecclesiae cont tur câ—p 8. Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra distinguished to Parishionall These had every one a Diocesse and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani these Churches had a moity of houses dwelling in neighbourhood thâ—t belonged to them but at length by a Synecdoche the whole Church was called a Diocesse though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called seeing the Diocesse is the meaner part by much in comparison of the Citie and should not give the denomination to the whole So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had beene called Ecclesia civitatis matrix nutrix Cathedralis grew to be called Diocesan But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union and communion in some sacred things Now a Diocesan Church may be put objectivè that is for a Churâ—h in which are ministers and ministery for the good of the whole Diocesse though they should never assemble as the worship in the Church of Jerusalem was for all Judea and profited though absent Or it may be put formally for a body politicke a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse with the ministers of the same having some reall union and communion in sacred things We deny any such Church A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally Mâ—â—erially as it is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other This God instituted not for it is accidentall to the Church may abesse and adesse a Church remaining one If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell as the Dutch doe one farre enough from the other while the same beleevers were united with the same governours the Church were not changed though the place were altered Secondly it is put formally for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate such Churches and such onely we say God erected Now for some Conclusions what we agree in then what severs us Conclus 1. Churches of Cities Provinces Kingdomes may be called Diocesan Provinciall Nationall Churches as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall yea haply not without warrant of Scripture As 1 Pet. 1.1 writing to all those dispersed Churches speaking of them singularly as of one flocke 1 Pet. 5.2 The reason is things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves but according to some respect of reason under which we may apprehend them Conclus 2. That â—here may be a reall Diocesan Nationall or head Church wherewith others should be bound to communicate more solemnly in Word and Sacraments and in some more reserved cases concerning their government This was done in the Church of Judea Our men are too shie that feare to come to this proposition de posse I am sure our adversaries will grant us that our Parishionall frame might have beene so constituted Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church but by Gods institution No Ministers can take this honour but they must as Aaron be called to it When nothing in nature can have further dâ—gree of perfection then the author of nature putteth into it how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall depend on God We may reason from the Church of Judea as à pari to prove That there cannot be such a Church but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things which may make them one Churâ—h Thus there would not have beene a Church Nationall of the Jewes but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship The men onely went up so the male onely were circumcised but the female representatively went up in them Object It is enough if the communion be in government which all our opposites grant necessary Answ. This maketh then rather one in tertio quodam separabili then one Church government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaining a Churcâ— The fiâ—st Churches of Bâ—shops when now they were divided did keep all other who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called and the people also in some communion with the head Church for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither See decret dist 3. dist 38. Conclus 4. We agree in this thâ—t Churches were in their first planting either not actually Diocesan being one congregation without any other subordinate or if they had any yet were they imperfect wanting many parts or members of particular Churches which belonged to them That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Jewes and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church and Parishionall for that hath in it
of bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their origâ—nall to have beene in thâ— Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall councell For long before the first generall councell we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no councell of after times but the Apostles themselves did ordaine bishops for even since those contentions wherein some said I am Pauls others I am Apollos they were set up by generall decree whâ—ch could not bee made but by the Apostles themselves And in Psal. 44. hee maketh David to prophecy of bishops who should be set up as the Apostles Successors Answer First we deny the proposition For first this doth presuppose such an assistance of Gods Spirit with the Church that she cannot generally take up any custome or opinion but what hath Apostolicall warrant whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Churches before any councell enacted it yet was no Apostolicall tradition Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc ut dies festi observentur sed homines ipsi suu quique lâ—cis ex more quodem introduxerant Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on Wednesday and Saturday fasting â—n some fashion before Eâ—ster ceremonies in baptising the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any councell established 2. It doth presuppose that the Church cannot generally conspire in taking up any custome if she be not led into it by some generall proponent as a generall representative councell or the Apostles who wert Oecumenicall Doctors but I see no reason for such a presumption 3. Thâ—â— doth presuppose that something may be which is of Aposâ—licall authâ—â—ity which neither directly nor consequently is included in thâ— woâ—â—d written For when there are some customes which have beene generall which yet canot be grounded in the word written it is necessary by this proposition that some things may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall as being delivered by word unwritten For they cannot have warrant from the Apostles but by word written or unwritten To the proofe we answer That of Tertullian maketh not to the purpose for hee speaketh of that which was in Churches Apostolicall as they were now planted by them which the sentence at large set downe wâ—ll make cleare Si cor stat id bonum quod pâ—ius id prius quod estaâ— initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariterutique constabil id â—sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would aâ—ke what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creâ—itur If thâ—y say his meaning is that such a thing cannot but in their writings be delivered they doe pervert his meaning as is apparent by that Cont. Don. lib. 2.27 Confuetudinem ex Apostoloâ—em traditions venâ—entem siâ—ut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum tamen quia custodiuntâ— per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsit tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what â—hey say is contained in it If thâ—y yeeld he doth meane as he doth of nowritten tradition we hope thâ—y will not justifie him in this we will take that liberty in him which himselfe doth in all others and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings Now count him in thâ—s to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelâ—sly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the lâ—titude of all traditions yâ—t wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begunne by Councells an argument of Divine and Apostolicall authority yet dealing against Donatists Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee saith he will not use this argument because it was but humane and uncertaine ne videâ—r humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certu documentâ— Wee answer to the assumption two things First it canot bee proved that unâ—versâ—lly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church and some Parochiall Churches Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters and that but one congregation they could not be like our Diocesan bâ—shops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaristus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripaâ—titâ— story testâ—fieth that till the time of Sozomeh they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly those Bâ—shops which had no more but one Deacon â—o helpe them in their ministery toward their Churches they could not be Dâ—ocesan Bâ—shops But such in many parts the Apostles planted as Epiphanius doth testifie Ergo. Thirdly such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes could not have Diocesan bâ—shops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sâ—zom in his 7. booke cap. 10. testifieth Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so universally received Secondly bishops came to be common by a Councell saith Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dâ—cree pâ—ssing through the world toto orbe decretum est saith Ierom ad Evag. which is to bee considered not of one Oecumeniall Councell but distributively in that singular Churches did in their Presbyteries decree and that so that one for the most part followed another in it This interpretative though not formalitèr is a generall decree But to thinke this was a decree of Pauls is too too absurd For besides that the Scripture would not have omitted a decree of such importance as tended to the alteration of and consummation of the frame of Churches begun through all the world How could Ierom if this decree were the Apostles conclude that bishops were above Presbyters magii consuetudine Ecclesia then Dominicae dispositionis veritate If the Doct. do except that custome is here put for Apostolicall institution let him put in one for the other and see how well it will become the sense Let Bishops know they are greater theâ— Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle then by the truth of Christs disposition Is it not fine that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites facing Christ their Lord And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thâ—nke that decretum est imported no more then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world Which is elegantly said to be a decree because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis the force of a decree But Ambâ—ose his place is plain Prospiciente Concilio he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles For he maketh this provision by councell to have come in when now in Egypt Alexandria Presbyters according to the custome of that Church were not found fit to
bishops had so Ergo c. The Assumption is manifest Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this that he should be the governour of the Presbytery and whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psalme call them the Prâ—nces of the Church by whom she is governed The assumption is proved particularly Those who had directive power above others and corrective they had majority of rule But Bâ—shops had Ergo. The assumption proved First for directive power the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them Igâ—a ad Mag. ad Smyr They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bâ—shop Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob Tert. lib. de â—â—pt Can. Apost 38 Can. Carthâ—g 4.38 Con. Câ—r 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5. Secondly that they had corrective power it is proved Apâ—c 2 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles and is commended for it the Angel of Thiatira is reproved for suffering the like Therefore they had power over other ministers Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 9. telleth Regaâ—ian he had power to have censured his Deacon Ierom. adversus Vigilantium marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantiâ—s was did not breake the unprofitable vessell Epiphaniuâ— saith Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves they the people The Presbyters affixed to places and Churches were subject to the Bishops for when they were vacant the bishop did supply them Againe the Presbyters had their power from him and therefore were under him and they were subject to the censure of the bishop Those of his Clergie were under him for he might promote them they might not goe from one Diocesse to another without him nor travell to the citie but by his leave The bishop was their judge and might excommunicate them Cyprâ—li 1. Epist 3. Concil Carth. 4. â—ap 59. Conc. Chal. cap. 9. conc Nice cap. 4. conc Ant. cap. 4. ibid. cap. 6. cap. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. conc Afric cap. 29. conc Ephes. cap. 5. conc Chal. cap. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrisostome prove this All Presbyters were counted acepheli headlesse that lived not in subjection to a bishop The Pastors of parishes were either subject to bishops or they had associates in Parishes joyned with them or they ruled alone But they had not associates neither did they rule alone Ergo they were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop Answer The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must be thus framed Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves without the concurrence of other Presbyters as fellow judges they were greater in majority of rule Thus bishops had not jurisdiction True it is they were called governours and Princes of their Churches because they were more eminent ministers though they had not Monarchiall power in Churches but Consull-like authority and therefore when they affected this Monarchy what said Ierome Noverint se saterdotes esse non dominos noverint se non ad Principâ—tum vocatos ad servitium totius Ecclâ—siae Sic Origen in Esa. hom 7. To the proofe of the Assumption Wee deny that they had this directive power over all Presbyters Secondly that thâ—y had it over any by humane constitution infallible Presbyters were in great difference Those who are called propry sacerdotes Rectores Seniores Minorâ—m Ecclesiarum praepositi the Bâ—shop had not not challenged not that directive power over them which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Cleriâ—kes who were helpes to him in the Liturgy in Chapells and parishâ—s which did depend on him as their proper teacher though they could not so ordinarily goe out to him The first had power within their Churches to teach administer excommunicate were counted brethren to the bâ—shops and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Ancient But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy they had â—his directive power over them the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same But I take these latter to have beene but a corruption of governing Presbyters who came to bee made a humane ministery 1. by having singular acts permitted 2. by being consecrate to this and so doing ex officio what they were imployed in by the bishop But sure these are but helpes to liturgy according to the Canons Preaching did not agree to them further then it could bee delegated or permitted Finally wee read that by law it was permitted them that it was taken away from them againe by the bishops that it was stinted and limited sometimes as to the opening of the Lords Praier the Creed and ten Commandements as it is plaine to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient Secondly let us account them as Ministers of the word given by God to hâ—s Church then I say they could not have any direction but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists and this pâ—wer is gâ—ven to the bishops onely by canon swerving from the first ordinance of Christ for it maketh a Minister of the word become as a cypher without power of his consecration as Ierom speaketh being so interpreted by Pilson himselfe These decrees were as justifiâ—ble as thâ—t which forbiddeth any to baptise who hath not gotten chrisme from the bishop Con. Carth. 4. cap. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onely a precedence of order in the bâ—shop above Presbyters requiring presence and assent as of a fellow and chiefe member not otherwise To the proof of the second part of the former assumption 1. we deny this majority of corrective power to have beene in the Apostles themselves they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Christs corrective power imposed Secondly we deny that this ministeriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evangelist where Churches were constituted Neither is the writing to one above others an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others To that of Cyprian against Râ—gatian we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the consent of Bishops neighbouring but that he might in regular manner have beene bold to have done it because he might be sure quod noâ— coâ—legae tui â—mnesid ratum haberemus Cyprian was of judgement that he hâ—mselfe might doe nothing without the consent of his Presbyters unlesse he should violate his duty by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren It was not modesty in him but due observancy such as he did owe unto his brethren Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarily any thing alone He received some the people and the brethren contradicting lib. 1. epist. 3. but not till he had perswaded them and brought them to be willing Thou seest saith he what paines I have to perswade the brethren to patience So againe I hardly perswade the people yea even wring it from them that such should be received Neither did he take upon him to ordaine Presbyters
1. Let this be the first No Minister of the Word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church Power is naturall or morall Morall is Civill or Ecclesiasticall Civill is either Lord-like and ruling or ministeriall and servile So Ecclesiasticall taken largely for all power subjectively in or objectively about the Church is either Lord-like and Regall such as is in Christ or it is ministeriall and servile such as is in the Church and the principall members of it The power therefore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service as doth make the ministers having it so servants that they are no way Lords Many ministers one Lord we preach Christ our selves your servants for Iesus sake S. Paul maketh his power steward-like not regall Now as that is regall power which doth any thing from the authority one hath in himselfe or from ones pleasure so that is ministeriall power which doth nothing but eying the will and power of him that is priâ—cipall a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ix merâ— alâ—erium obsequiâ— Conclus 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or quality inherent in the soule but a relative respect founded on this that I am called by God to this or that actuall administration in his Church For it is not a power simply whereby a man is made able to doe some supernatural act which he could not before in any manner performe but it is respectively said a power in as much as it doth inable him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully and ex officio with which before he might not intermeddle The power of a Deacon Pastor Evangelist Apostle belong to one predicament in regard of that which is the genus or common nature of them the power of the Church cannot be other Naturall and civill power doth with vertue and efficacy reach those effects and ends to which they are designed because they are proportioned to them and exceed not their activity but Ecclesiasticall power cannot thus concur to the end and effects for which it is ordained because they are such as the omnipotenty of God onely can produce asthe converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner to which no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall though instrumentary efficacy conduce any thing Conclus 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any which himselfe is not personally to discharge nor in further plenitude then that by himselfe it may be performed The reason is because God cannot give one the charge of doing more then a mans proper industry can atchieve but he must withall put it in a mans power to take others and to impart with them power of teaching and governing so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone He that will have the end will have that without which the end cannot be attained If God would have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the world he must needs allow him power to substitute Pastors here and there deriving unto them power both to teach and governe so far as may supply his absence in the Pastorall cure If I will have one keepe my flockes which goe in twenty sheepe-gates if I commit them to one I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under shepheards to him Thus if God give a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Parishionall Churches through a Diocesse he must needs together allow him this power of being a head of internall influence even a head virtually communicating with others part of pastorall power whether teaching or government Thus should none but Bishopâ— be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God all others should be immediately and formally servants to the bishop and doe every thing in the name of the bishop being immediately onely and in a remote sense the servants of God as in the former comparison of one servant receiving from his master the care of all the â—tockes he is the masters servant to whom the master committeth the trust from whom he onely looketh to see it performed but those whom this shepheard taketh to himselfe for his aid they come under his dominion and are servants to him If it be said that God doth not thus make the bishop Pastor but that he wil likewise that there be parish Pastors under him and helps of government To this I answer If God will have them then either after his owne deâ—ignement or else leaving it to the bishops arbitrement if he leave it to the bishops arbitrement then the objection before is in force God will looke for the cure from him onely he shal take according to his judgment such as may helpe him If God will have them after his owne designment then he giveth the bishop no more Pastorall power then he can discharge himselfe others having their right in all the bishop cannot execute as well as the bishop and as immediatly from Christ. Some write as if the Apostles had the plenitude of all Pastorall power that from them it might be derived to the Church it being seene through nature that inferiour things receive influence from the superiour But they misconceive the matter they had onely a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apoâ—tleship The Pastorall power of Evangelists or of ordinary Paâ—tours and teachers they never had For as Christ gave the one order so the two other also for the gathering of the Saints and exaedifying of the body of Christ and no person in any ranke had any power to do this or that in the Church further then himselfe might performe in person The steward in a house hath full power of a steward but not the power of all other officers as Clark of the kitchin Bâ—tler Chamberlaine c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house his Church If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall câ—re they should then have ordained others Evangelists and Pastors not onely by ministeriall mediation of their persons calling them but also by mediation of vertue Conclus 4. One ministeriall power may be in degree of dignity above another For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another or in the same kinde the power of one may be more extended and the power of another more contracted Thus the Deacons had for the object of their power and care not so excellent a thing as that of Pastors Evangelistâ— and Apostles Thus the power of ordinary Pastors was not so univerâ—all as the Apostles even as in the orders of servants domesticall some are implied about lesser some about greater and more honorable subjects Coâ—cl 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of â—â—â—â—ctive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order oâ— Ministery
governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestive is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one inspiring him with his spirit and not be present with many who are in his name and with his warrant assembled As for those comparisons they hold not in all they hold in that which the Consull doth in calling the assembly propounding things c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Senators nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate To the fift argument to the proposition by distinction if they have all power both of ministeriall application and instituting others out of vertue and authority then Pastours derive But this is denyed She hath no power but of Ministery and no plenitude but so farre as they in their owne persons can discharge It presupposeth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not But to let the proposition passe because of some derivation it is true If she have but all power of Ministeriall application then Bishops 〈◊〉 fâ—om 〈◊〉 But â—hey doe not We say they doe And whereâ—â— it i◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— which the Church neâ—er had she cannot conve◠〈…〉 which the Church never had she cannot virtually convey it but she may aâ— ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving iâ— Nothing can give that which it hath not either formally or virtually unlesse it give it as an instrument to one who hath it A man not having a penny of his owne may give aâ— hundred pounds if the King make him his Almoner A Steward may give all offices in his masters house as ministerially exâ—cuting his masters pleasure Thus the Church deriveth as taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church This answereth to the last suggestion For if the Church did virtually and out of power make an officer it is true as we see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth But if she doe it in Steward-like manner ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house then is not he so taken in to doe in his name but in his masters name As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did confer it on him The last objection I answer That the particular Church may depose their Bishop What member soever in the Church is the offending person may be complained of to the Church The Church of Philippi if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop and so power of instituting him then of destituting also Instituere destituere ejusdem esâ—â—otestates But he is given the onely judge in Christs roome and though they elect him yet as you have said and truely they have not the power of thâ—t authority in them to which he is elected No more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the Imperiall dignity Answer We say therefore that as the Church hath onely ministeriall power of application that is as they cannot out of power call a Pastour but onely call one whom Christ pointeth out and to whom Christ out of power giâ—eth the place of Pastour So she cannot censure or depose but onely ministerially executing the censure of Christ who will have such a one turned ouâ— or otherwise censured But the Bishop never was sole judge though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may be said so Christ instituted â— Presbytery in which all had equall power of judgement Cyprian Ep. 68. in the case of Besâ—â—â—des and Martialis doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy so of refusing unworthy He speaketh of an ordinary power as by choosing is manifest not extraordinary and in case of necessitie And Mr. Field maintaineth that Lâ—â—erius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church Unlesse they will say with some Schoolmen Sotâ— viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the generall Church with whom in his calling the Church Oecumenicall hath nothing to doe To that which is objected touching Fathers Pastors the similitudes hold not in all things Naturall parents are no wayes children nor in state of subjection to their children but spirituall fathers are so fathers that in some respect they are children to the whole Church So shepherds are no way sheepe but ministers are in regard of the whole Church Secondly Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds be they good or evill but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves Besides are not civill Kings Parents and Pastors of their people yet if they be not absolute Monarches it was never esteemed as absurd to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them If their owne Churches have no power over them it will be hard to shew wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches But Lord Bishops must take state on them and not subject themselves unto any triall but by their Peeres onely which is by a Councell of Bishopâ— FINIS