upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâ—iers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâ—d upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâ—en that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâ—ment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâ—an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâ—r English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ— they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâ—fe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hâ—nd not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and â—hird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâ—ite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrons of our Hierarchy Ierome saith ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordinatiâ—n which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimony D. Downan avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be over long to declare all the use which may be made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prâ—lixity in the Preface If the Author had lived to have accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would have left all so clear that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observationâ— are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader W. Ames THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsive conclusions and answer the objâ—ctions made against that part we take to be the truth Thâ—se who affirme the frâ—â—e of Diocesan Churches vouâ—h their Arguments pâ—râ—ly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finâ—lly from the congruity it hâ—â—h with reason thâ—t so thâ—y should be constitute The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders City by City They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a City with the Suburbs and â—egions about it should make but one Church they ordained a Diocesan Church But â—he Apostles who use these phrases as aequâ—pollent To ordaine Presbyâ—ers in every City and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a city with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Dâ—ocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a City with the suburbes villages and countries about it â—â—uld not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleare for these phrases are used as ad aequaâ—e and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities suburbs and regions into one church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitive times and from Patternes in our owne times yea even from such churches as we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the church of the Jewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which maâ—y particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common-wealâ—h and had all but one profeâ—siâ—n that mâ—y many christian churâ—hes now bee upon the lâ—ke grounds But thâ—y then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdome and had all but one profession were all one nationall church Ergo upon like grounds many churchâ—s with us in a nation or city may be one nationall or Diocesan church Secondly the church of Jerusalem in the New Testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head church to all Christians in Judea that was a Diocesan church But this they did by the church of Jerusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionâ—lly was no Parishional but Diocesan church But that church was such First by growing to 3000. then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to have millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocâ—san church Thirdly the church of Corinth is objected to have beene a Metropolitan church He who writing to the church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that church But thâ—s doth Paul 1 Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with prâ—heminence before the rest of Achâ—ia doth imply thâ—t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Achaâ—a was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother city of all Macedonia the church in that city must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan church But Philippi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the churâ—hes of Asia which are thus proved at least to have beene Diocesan 1. Those seven churches which contained all other churches in Asia strictly tâ—ken whether in city or countâ—â—y those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocâ—san churches But those seven did containe all other in Asâ—â— Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia writeth by name but to thâ—se seven he doth impâ—y that all the rest were contâ—ined in these Buâ— Christ writing to the seven writeth to all churches in Asia not to name that five of these were Metropolitan cities viz. Philadelphia and Peâ—gâ—mus two Diocesan at least 3. He who makâ—th the singular church he writeth to to â—e a multitude of churches not one onely as the body is not one member onely hee doth make that one church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every church which he had spoken to in singular doth speake of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath eares beare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo. Thus leaving sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancienâ— churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For â—f the multitude of christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one congregation how much more likely is it that christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200. yeares that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further coâ—firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed churchâ—s these prove a Diocesan church That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congregâ—tion But maâ—y distincâ— congregations gathered in one city may make wee say one
many Parishionall churches within one Diocesan church To the proofes which prevent as it were an objection shewing that the church Mat. 18.17 may be put for one chiefe Governour The proposition is denyed If that Peter one Governour may be in type and figure the Church to whâ—m the jurisdiction is premised then the Church receiving and execucing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the church typified by Peter is properly and really a church not figuratively and improperly for then Peter should have beene a figure or type of a type or figurative church The figure therefore and type being of the church which is properly taken and the church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Matth. 18.17 the church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratively and improperly a church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the church Matth. 18. Ergo that church Matth. 18. is not a virtuall church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastour and people by mutuall love which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocent the third that the Bishop was counted the church or this dreame of a virtuall church once imagined The Clerkes of the church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carry the name of the church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up above generall councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall churches As for a Kingdome I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratively but the church typified by Peter must needs be a church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power whereby the whole Kingdome is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Coriâ—th who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I have 〈◊〉 or jâ—dged leaving nothing to the Church but ouâ— of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith Foâ— this 〈◊〉 I have writtâ—â— to you that I may proove whether you will in all things 〈◊〉 obedient What Argumentâ— are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated hee leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing hee leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to give sentence The truth is the Apostle might have judged him to be excommunicate and an Evangelist if present might have judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles have and the same man should bee excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans. Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante Without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as shee cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example shee is provoked Yes where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him hee should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had beene just and the peoples favour had beene unjust Ionathan had beene under condemnation but execution had beene prevented by the peoples heâ—dstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans. As though one may not exercise power of government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superior Touching the place in the Thessaloniâ—ns those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greeke Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to bee avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Pauls excommunicating 〈◊〉 and Alexaâ—der It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but aâ— he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his 〈◊〉 â— Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbytery joyned 1 Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath beene sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a University having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authority of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his owne order this is the fittest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeeres expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this deprivation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessityof one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by joynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular
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