A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 5 (1 of 3)

A Treatise of Episcopacy · Part 1 · Chapter 5 (1 of 3)

p. 44CHAP. V. Concerning the Writers of this Controverſie; With a Summary Anſwer to the Chief that write againſt the Cauſe which I defend.

I Have not been altogether negligent to read the Controverſies on this Subject, nor I hope partial in Reading them; If I have, it hath been becauſe I had rather have found Conformity to the Prelacy to be lawful; for then I had not above **Now 18 years, this being written 9 years ago.nine years been ſilenced, and denied not only all Church maintenance, but leave to preach Chriſt's Goſpel, nor had I been expoſed as I have been to ſo much wrath and malice, expreſſed in ſo many ſcurrilous lying invectives and libells, beſides other ways. Even when I doubted of the uſe of the tranſient Image of the Croſs, I was of opinion that Prelacy was lawful, and ſo was likely to continue, if the Prelates would have given me leave: But in 1640, they put a New Oath upon us, Never to Conſent to the Alteration of the preſent frame of Prelacy, as under Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Deans, Archdeacons, &c. and that it ought ſo to ſtand. And I thought it was then time, when I was put to ſuch a ſolemn Oath, to ſearch more throughly into all the matter before I ſware. And in ſearching, I found in general that almoſt all Writers for Epiſcopacy, either confound Dioceſan Prelacy, ſuch as ours, with the Epiſcopacy of a ſingle Church, or at leaſt all their proof extendeth to no more than I have here granted. When they p. 45offer us the definition of a Biſhop (which few of them do) it is ſuch as neither ſuppoſeth any more Churches than one to be his Charge, nor any Presbyters under him at all; but only a Power of Ordaining Presbyters, and ruling them when he hath them, whether in one Church or more.

And I find that they are ſo far from proving that ever the Apoſtles appointed a diſtinct Office of Presbyters which had not the power of the Keys over the People, in foro interiore & exteriore (as they call them) but had only power to Teach and Worſhip, under Biſhops as a ſuperior Office or Order, as that they prove not any ſuch to have ever been under the Apoſtles themſelves; and ſome of themſelves do plainly deny it: Nor do they prove that long after the Presbyters were any more ſubject to the Biſhops, than the Deacons are now to the Archdeacon, or the Biſhops to the Archbiſhop, who are of the ſame Order. So that whoever elſe they ſpeak to, they ſay nothing to me, and ſeem not to know where the Controverſie lyeth, viz. 1. Whether a Biſhop of the loweſt rank (being no Archbiſhop, or having no Biſhops under him) over many Churches, (or Societies of Chriſtians ſtated under their proper Paſtors, or Presbyters, for ordinary perſonal Communion in all God's publick Worſhip,) be of Divine, or Lawful Humane, Inſtitution? 2. Whether an Order or Office of Presbyters that have not the power of the Keys even in foro exteriore, be of Divine, or Lawful Humane Inſtitution? (whom for brevity I ſhall hereafter call half-Presbyters.) So that the Queſtion is not, whether one Man was after ſometime called peculiarly the Biſhop, and in the ſame Church ſate over Presbyters of the ſame Office, as Archpresbyters, or as Archdeacons over Deacons, or Archbiſhops over Biſhops; Nor yet whether there were or ſhould be a General ſort of Biſhops (or Archbiſhops) over the Biſhops of particular Churches? But whether any ſtated Body of Worſhiping Chriſtians, as afore deſcribed (like our Pariſh Churches that have unum altare) ſhould be without a Biſhop of their own, or without a Paſtor that hath the threefold power before deſcribed, of Leading the People in Doctrine Worſhip and Diſcipline, called the power of the Keys? And whether he be a true Presbyter or Miniſter of Chriſt that wants this power? And whether they that depoſe the Pariſh Miniſters of this power, do not degrade the Presbyters, nullifie the Churches under them, and depoſe the ancient ſort of Epiſcopacy quantum in ſe? and ſet up another Humane ſort of Churches called Dioceſan, and of Archbiſhops turned into Biſhops, infimi gradus, in their ſtead, together with a new Species of halfPresbyters?

1. How far Whitgift's Diſputations againſt Cartwright are guilty of thisWhitgift. overlooking the true Queſtion, I leave to the Reader: Only I muſt ſay for him, that when his Adverſarie ſtandeth moſt upon the denial of all ſuperior Epiſcopacy, it was his part to prove what was denied. And I need ſay no more than that Whitgift oft profeſſeth (as Dr. Stillingfleet hath collected out of him,) that God hath in Scripture preſcribed no one ſort p. 46of Church-Government: And therefore not the Prelatical.

2. I do not expect that ever this Controverſie ſhould be handled by…a…avia. two more judicious Adverſaries than Saravia and Beza were. And as Beza proteſteth againſt a Parity, and pleadeth for a Proſtaſie, deſireth that which he calleth Divine Epiſcopacy, tolerating and ſubmitting to that which he calleth Humane Epiſcopacy, and flatly oppoſing only that, which he calleth Satanical Epiſcopacy; So Saravia profeſſeth, p. 1, 2. & p. Defenſ. 4, 5. that the General nature of the Evangelical Miniſtry, common both to Biſhops and Presbyters, containeth theſe three things, 1. The Preaching of the Goſpel. 2. The Communication of the Sacraments, 3. The Authority of Church-Government: And only pleadeth that in this laſt, the Power of Biſhops and Presbyters is not equal, but the Biſhops power is principal in Government. Which granteth the main Queſtion which we Nonconformiſt now contend for. And I confes that Saravia's Writings were the firſt and chief that brought me to ſuſpect that the Apoſtles have Succeſſors in the point of Government, as being but an ordinary and durable part of their Office: which Argument he hath better managed than any man elſe that I have ſeen. And p. 12. ib. He granteth that the 70 Diſciples were not under the Government of the 12 Apoſtles. He granteth that choſen Seniors of the Laity may be great Aſſiſtants in the Government: Yea, Def. 1. 8. p. 83. He ſaith, that inVid. & p. 104. & 110, 111. 120, 121. the abſence of Paul and his Aſſiſtants, the Churches of Crete were wholly ruled, till Titus Ordained them Paſtors, by ſuch Elders. [A ſenioribus quos ratio & natura in quavis Societate dat, non Ordinatio: quales ſunt natu majores, & quotquot aliqua virtute in populo excellunt: quibus deferre natura omnes gentes docuit: quibus addo eos quos tunc temporis paſſim, dona Sp. ſancti venia excitabant, ſed nulli loco alligabant.] And no wonder, for he affirmeth, that in times of publick corruption of Doctrine, any man that is learned and able and fit, muſt propugne and defend the truth, as he hath ability and opportunity; or elſe be judged for hiding his talents as the unprofitable ſervant, pag. 23. cap. 2. Yet doth he moſt improbably imagine that Rome and Corinth had no proper Paſtors, when Paul wrote his Epiſtles to them. When as Paul had dwelt a year and half at Corinth, when it was the practice of the Apoſtles to Ordain Elders in every Church, and when among the Corinthians there were ſo many Prophets, Inſtructers, Speakers of Languages, Interpreters, &c. that Paul is fain to regulate and reſtrain them in their Church-meetings, that they might not over-do, and hinder one another. And yet were theſe People without any proper Paſtor? Without a Prelate? it's like they were. Yea, when Paul directeth them to deliver the inceſtuous man to Satan, and to exerciſe Church-diſcipline upon others that were ſcandalous, doth not this intimate that they had among them ſuch as were impowred to do it? If only tranſiently and occaſionally, they could Worſhip God publickly and deliver Sacraments, and Govern the Church but tranſiently and rarely: How did they ſpend the Lords days, when thoſe tranſient guides were p. 47abſent? Did the major part of the people, who Saravia thinketh were to exerciſe the foreſaid Diſcipline, alſo Conſecrate and Adminiſter the1 Cor. 16. 1, 2.1 Cor 16:11 Cor 16:2 Sacrament, or publickly pray and worſhip God without a Paſtor? Were they every Lords day to depoſit their Collections, and have no Paſtors, and ſo no Church-Aſſemblies? Had they ſo many Sects and falſe Teachers to trouble them, and yet no Paſtors? When Clem. Rom. ſo ſhortly after writeth ſo much to reconcile the Paſtors and People that diſagreed. And when Paul tells the Romans and Corinthians what Officers God ſetteth in the Church, is it like there was none fixed among them?

And I muſt note how great a charge he layeth on the Biſhops, when, Reſp. ad N. p. 10. Art. 12. He ſaith that [the Biſhop is aequè imo magis proprius ſingularum Eccleſiarum ſua Dioceſeos Paſtor, illis qui ibi praeſunt & reſident, utpote ad quem cura praecipua illorum locorum pertineat: The Biſhop hath more Charge or Care of all the Pariſhes in his Dioceſs than the preſent Paſtors have: (O dreadful undertaking.) Ad quem prima & praecipua Cura omnium incumbet: ita ut, ipſe ſuum agnoſcit gregem, & ſingulis quibus manus imponit, &c. How many hundred thouſand individuals then hath the Biſhop of London this particular Charge of, whoſe names he never heard, and whoſe faces he never ſaw? Oportet enim Epiſcopum omnes quantum fieri poteſt, qui ipſius curae commiſſi ſunt, noſſe. The Biſhop muſt know all his Flock, if poſſible; And muſt he have a Flock then which he cannot poſſibly know, nor never ſaw one of a hundred or thouſand of them, with any particular knowledge at leaſt?

And Cont. quaeſt. & Reſp. Beza, p. 103. He approveth of Zanchy's judgment [that Ceremonies and things indifferent be left free] [and the Churches free in them.]

And Defenſ. p. 286. He ſaith, [Primum Epiſcoporum omnium & Presbyterorum unum eſſe Ordinem Conſtituo.] I maintain that there is one Order of all Biſhops and Presbyters.] Therefore they cannot differ but Gradu, as a Deacon and Archdeacon. And again, ib. p. 286. Miniſterii autem Evangelici unitas, probatur ab horum unitate; & ut ita loquar, identitate: Eandem enim veritatis doctrinam, omnes Orthodoxi docent, eadem Sacramenta Miniſtrant, eandem cenſuram exercent; tantum Provinciarum eſt inaequalitas & graduum diverſitas.] [The Unity of the Goſpel Miniſtry is proved from the Unity, or as I may ſay, Identity of theſe: All (that are Orthodox) teach the ſame true Doctrine, Adminiſter the ſame Sacraments, exerciſe the ſame Cenſures; Only there is an inequality of Provinces, and a diverſity of degrees.] Thus the moſt Learned and rational Defender of Prelacy giveth away their Cauſe.

3. Biſhop Bilſon, a moſt Learned and judicious man alſo, ſaith moreBilſon for Epiſcopacy than any of our late Writers; and in my judgment ſaith more againſt the Office of Eccleſiaſtical Elders diſtinct from Paſtors, than can be anſwered. But to our two main Queſtions before-mentioned, p. 48(of a Biſhop over many Churches without Biſhops under him, and of half-Presbyters) how little he ſaith the Reader will ſoon ſee (yea how much on our ſide.)

4. As for Hooker, till his 7th Book came lately out, we had nothing inHooker anſwered as far as our cauſe requireth. him conſiderable of this ſubject: And in that Book it ſelf, ſo little to the purpoſe, as to our foreſaid two Controverſies, as is next to nothing, nor worthy a Reply. In his §. 2. p. 4. He attempts (that which few do) to give us the definition of a Biſhop, which is [A Biſhop is a Miniſter of God, unto whom with permanent continuance, there is given not only Remember alſo that Hooker's third Book is written to prove that no one Form is commanded in Scripture: Therefore not the Prelatical.power of Adminiſtring the Word and Sacraments, which power other Presbyters have, but alſo a further power to Ordain Eccleſiaſtical perſons, and a power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay men, a power to be by way of Juriſdiction a Paſtor even to Paſtors themſelves.] And then he diſtinguiſheth of Biſhops at large or indefinite, and Biſhops with reſtraint, and ſaith he meaneth the later. And ſo you have what muſt be expected from Mr. Hooker for the information of you, what Epiſcopacy he pleads for: Where it is obvious how fraudulently (through overſight or partiality I know not) he dealeth: For whereas he durſt put no more into the definition of Epiſcopacy about Juriſdiction but [a power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Lay-men.] yet would not tell us, whether Government of Lay-men, (under the Biſhop) belong to the Presbyters or not: His words ſeem plainly to imply it; what uſe elſe is there for his [Chiefly] and [as well as Lay-men.] And yet twice over he would name nothing but, Teaching and Sacraments which belong to the Paſtor as a Paſtor in general; leaving it as a thing which he would neither affirm nor deny, whether Paſtors Governed their Flocks. Yet all that Decantate Book turneth on the Hinges of this lame Definition (which hath other defects which I paſs by;) And without this we cannot know what Subject he diſputeth of. Whereas Saravia well noted and acknowledged three Eſſential parts of the Miniſtry in General, Mr. Hooker who leaveth out one of them, and yet durſt not deny it, ſhould have told us, whether he include it or not; ſeeing it is the matter of moſt of our difference; and we take him for no Paſtor or Presbyter that is without the power of Government, nor that to be a true Church (in ſenſu politico) that hath no other Paſtor.

2. And when as one part of his Adverſaries deny not (at leaſt) the Lawfulneſs of one Biſhops ſuperiority in a ſingle Church, as far as his deſcription ſpeaketh, but only in many Churches; no, nor one Archbiſhops power over many Churches that have their own Biſhops, but only his power to depoſe all the Biſhops of particular Churches and turn them all into one Dioceſan Church; his Definition viſibly reacheth to no other ſort of Biſhops, but ſuch as we oppoſe not; and ſo he ſaith nothing at all againſt us, to any purpoſe through all his Book: For where after he confidently tells us that the extent of his Juriſdiction alters not p. 49the Species, it is but barely ſaid, and by his leave I ſhall fully prove the contrary anon. And pag. 4. l. 7. He confeſſeth that de facto. [Many things are in the ſtate of Biſhops, which the times have changed, Many a Parſonage at this day is larger than ſome ancient Biſhopricks were.] It's well confeſt: And I ſhall try among other things, whether the Name of a Biſhoprick will make a Parſonage and a Dioceſs to be ejuſdem ſpeciei, and whether magnitude do not make a ſpecifick difference, between the Sea and a Rivulet or a glaſs of water, or between a Ship and a Nut-ſhel.

And whereas page 6. He undertaketh to prove a Coercive Power in Biſhops, either he ſpeaketh according to the common uſe of men, or not: If not, he would not be underſtood: & Qui non v…lt intelligi, debet negligi: If he do, then by Coercive he muſt mean, by Outward force upon the body; which is falſe, and is proper to the Magiſtrate, Parents or Maſters; and is diſclaimed by all ſober Proteſtant Divines, yea by Papiſts, as not at all belonging to the Paſtoral Office. Though we eaſily grant that Paſtors may Coercere by nord (and ſo may Presbyters ſure,) yet no otherwiſe but by word. For Excommunication and Degradation as far as belongs to them, are but words (and an after forbearing of their own acts of Communion.) But this is not the common uſe of the word Coercive as applyed to Government by way of diſtinction. How much wiſelier doth the (more Learned and judicious) Biſhop Bilſon ſtill diſtinguiſh by the Power of the Word, as differing from the Magiſtrates Coercive or by the Sword?

Yet note that page 8. §. 5. l. 7. He is brought to acknowledge [that All Churches by the Apoſtles erected received from them the ſame Faith, the ſame Sacraments, the ſame Form of publick Regiment: The Form of Regiment by them eſtabliſhed at firſt was, that the Laity be ſubject to a College of Eccleſiaſtical perſons, which were in every ſuch City appointed for that purpoſe: Theſe in their writings they term ſometime Presbyters and ſometime Biſhops▪ To take one Church out of a number for a pattern, what the reſt were, the Presbyters of Epheſus, as it is in the Hiſtory of their departure from the Apoſtle Paul at Miletum, are ſaid to have wept abundantly all; which ſpeech doth ſhew them to have been many: And by the Apoſtles exhortation it may appear, that they How little doth this agree with Dr. Hammond.had not each his ſeveral Flock to feed, but were in common appointed to feed that one Flock the Church of Epheſus, for which cauſe the phraſe of his ſpeech is this Attendite gregi, Look to all that one Flock over which the Holy Ghoſt hath made you Biſhops: Theſe perſons Eccleſiaſtical being termed then Presbyters and Biſhops both, &c.

And page 9. he ſaith, [The outward being of a Church conſiſteth in the having of a Biſhop.] Then the Browniſts muſt carry it, that our Pariſhes are no true Churches (but parts of a Church) becauſe they have no Biſhop: Only a Dioceſan Church hath a Biſhop: Therefore only a Dioceſan is a true Church; (which anon ſhall be proved to be but Humane.)

p. 50And page 12. He thus expoundeth Hierome, as holding Epiſcopacy alterable☞ And yet muſt I ſweat never to conſent to any alteration. [The Church hath power by Univerſal conſent upon urgent cauſe to take it away; if thereunto ſhe be conſtrained through the proud tyrannical and unreformable dealing of her Biſhop—Wherefore leſt Biſhops forget themſelves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their ſtates, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of cuſtome than any ſuch true heavenly law can be ſhewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear, that the Lord himſelf hath appointed Presbyters for ever to be under the Regiment of Biſhops in what ſort ſoever they behave themſelves. Let this conſideration be a bridle to them; Let it teach them not to diſdain the advice of their Preſbyters, but to uſe their Authority with ſo much the greater humility and moderation, as a Sword which the Church hath power to take from them.] This is Mr. Hooker.

And page 14. He confeſſeth that according to the Cuſtom of England, and a Council at Carthage, Presbyters may impoſe hands in Ordination with the Biſhop, though not without him: So that by this they have the the power of Ordination to, though he have a Negative Voice in it. And indeed if all Ordination muſt be done by one of a Superiour Order, who ſhall Ordain Biſhops, or Archbiſhops, or Patriarchs, or the Pope?

And page 18. He ſaith, [Moſt certain truth it is that Churches Cathedral and the Biſhops of them are as glaſſes, wherein the face and countenance of Apoſtolical antiquity remaineth even as yet to be ſeen—] Which is it that we alſo affirm, every City or Church having a Biſhop and Presbytery of their own.

And whereas page 19. He ſaith, [If we prove that Biſhops have lawfully of old ruled over other Miniſters, it is enough, how few ſoever thoſe Miniſters have been, how ſmall ſoever the circuit of place which hath contained them.] If this be ſo, we grant you enough, when we grant Parochial Biſhops.

But no where doth he more palpably yield our Cauſe, than page 21, 22. where to Cartwright's Objection, that [the Biſhop that Cyprian ſpeaketh of is nothing elſe but ſuch as we call Paſtor, or as the common name is Parſons, and his Church whereof he is Biſhop is neither Dioceſs nor Province, but a Congregation which met together in one place to be taught by one man.] He hath no better anſwer to this, than to tell us, that If it were true, it is impertinent; and that it is not true, becauſe Cyprian had many Presbyters under him, ſo as they might have every day change for performance of their duty: And he never once attempteth to prove that Cyprian had more Churches, yea, or Aſſemblies than One; but only that he was over the Presbyters in one Church or Aſſembly; and as an Archbiſhop was over Biſhops. The ſame thing which I ſubmit to; but nothing againſt the things that I aſſert againſt him. A Parſon may have divers Curates under him, and not divers Churches, much loſs a thouſand that have no other Biſhop?

p. 51And whereas page 33. It is objected that many things are innovated in our Diſcipline, as impoſing Miniſters on the People without their conſent, Biſhops Excommunicating alone, Impriſoning, &c. His anſwer is, that the Church may change her cuſtomes; And on that ground alloweth the Ordination of Presbyters alone, becauſe the Church can give them power: For he goeth in Church-matters as he doth in point of Civil Government, on his falſe ſuppoſition, that all Power is Originally in the whole Body, ſaying, page 37. [The whole Church viſible being the true Original ſubject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other, than Biſhops alone to Ordain. Howbeit as the ordinary courſe is ordinarily in all things to be obſerved, ſo it may be in ſome caſes not unneceſſary that we decline from the ordinary ways.] (What is more contrary than Saravia (Tract. de Obedient.) and Hooker in their Principles of Government?) From hence alſo, page 38. He inferreth the no neceſſity of continued Succeſſion of Biſhops in every effectual Ordination. And it is very obſervable which he granteth (for it cannot be denied.) [The Power of Orders I may lawfully receive without the asking conſent of any multitude: but the power I cannot exerciſe upon any certain People againſt their wills.]

And page 38. He cannot deny but the ancient uſe was for the Biſhops to excommunicate with the College of his Aſſiſtant Presbyters; but he taunteth Beza for thinking that this may not be changed. Theſe are the men that build upon Antiquity, and the Cuſtom of the Univerſal Church.

And page 69. when the Canons for Biſhops ſpare courſe of living are objected, he ſaith, that thoſe Canons were made when Biſhops lived of the ſame Purſe which ſerved as well for a number of others as for them, and yet all at their diſpoſing; Intimating the old Courſe, when every Church had its Biſhop and inferiour Clergy. But Innovation is lawful for our Prelacy.

And now he that can find any thing in Hooker againſt the points which I defend, or for that Prelacy which I oppoſe, any more worth the anſwering than this that I have recited, let him rejoyce in the perfection of his eye-ſight. And if thus much be worthy to be confuted, or ſuch as this, let them do it that have nothing elſe to do. So ridiculous is the Challenge of one that glorieth to write a Book with the ſame Title [of Ecoleſ. Policy,] who inſultingly provoketh us to write a full Confutation of Hooker, who ſaith ſo little to the main point in Controverſie, our Dioceſan Form of Prelacy, and writeth his whole Book in a tedious Preaching ſtile, where you may read many leaves for ſo much Argumentation, as one Syllogiſm may contain; that I think I might as wiſely have challenged himſelf to con…ue Mr. F…x's Book of Martyrs, or Baronius his Annals, almoſt, or at leaſt may ſay as Dr. John Burges doth of Mr. Parker (another ſort of Parker) his Book of the Croſs, which Dr. Ames ſaith was never anſwered, that if any will reduce that gawdy Treatiſe into Argument (it being indeed almoſt all made up of the p. 52fruits of Reading, Hiſtory, Sentences, &c. of purpoſe to confute them that ſaid the Nonconformiſts were no Schollars) he ſhould quickly have an Anſwer to it. So if any will reduce all that is in Mr. Hooker's 8 Books (in tedious Diſcourſes into Syllogiſm, (which is againſt what I maintain,) I believe it will not all fill up one half or quarter of a page; and it ſhall, God-willing, be ſoon anſwered. In the mean time the popular Principles of his Firſt and Eighth Book, ſubverting all true Government, I have already confuted elſewhere (in my Chriſtian Directory.)

5. Biſhop Downame hath ſaid much more to the main Points, in the defenceBiſhop Downame Anſwered. of his Conſecration Sermon, and as much as I can expect to find in any. But, 1. as to the mode he is ſo contrary to Hooker, that (being a very expert Logician) he waſteth ſo much of his Book about the Forms of Arguments and Anſwers, that he obſcureth the matter by it, and enſnarethHe fell after under the frowns of Biſhop Laud himſelf, his Book of perſeverance being prohibited. thoſe Readers, who do not carefully diſtinguiſh between Matter and Words, and between the force of the reaſon, and the form of a Syllogiſm. And he ſo adorneth (or defileth) his Style with taunts, inſulting ſcorns, and contemptuous reproaches, that it is more ſutable to the Scold sat Billings-gate than ſo learned and godly a Divine, and occaſioneth his Adverſaries to ſay, You have here a taſte of the Prelatical Spirit.

2. As to the matter of his firſt Book, I am of his mind (againſt meer ruling Elders) He and Bilſon have evinced what they hold in that. But as to the points in which we differ he indeed ſaith much to little purpoſe, and finally giveth away his Cauſe, or as he merrily telleth his Adverſary, pag. 62. l. 3. 6. 47. he uſeth it as Sir Chriſtopher Blunt's head was uſed, after his apprenſion, firſt healed, and then cut off. For, 1. in his lib. 3. Where he ſpeaketh of the power of Ordination, he not only confeſſeth that it is in Presbyters with the Biſhops, and that the Biſhops have but a ſuperiority of power therein, but is angry with his Adverſary for ſuppoſing the contrary, ſaying ch. 3. p. 68. [But where good Sir, do I ſay, they muſt have the ſole power in Ordination, which you have ſo oft objected, and now again repeat? make you no conſcience of publiſhing untruths? Cannot Biſhops be ſuperiour to other Miniſters in the power of Ordination and Juriſdiction, which is the thing which I maintain, unleſs they have the ſole power? ſo p. 64, &c. Therefore he granteth, that extraordinarily in caſe of neceſſity Presbyters may Ordain (that is without a Biſhop.) page 69. and page 108. he giveth this reaſon for the validity of their Ordination; Becauſe Impoſition of hands in Confirmation of the Baptized and Reconciliation of Penitents, were reſerved to Biſhops as well as Ordination, and yet in the abſence of Biſhops may be done by Presbyters.**Ambroſe in Eph. 4. Aug. qu. in vet. & N. Teſt. q. 101. Cypr. l. 3. ep. 17. Concil. Carth. Graec. c. 43. Carth. 2. c. 4. Conc. Arauſic. c. ….Eph 4 And that the Papiſts themſelves grant that the Pope may licenſe a Presbyter to Ordain Presbyters: [If therefore (ſaith he) by the Popes licenſe a Presbyter may Ordain Presbyters, much better may a Company of Presbyters, to whom in the want of a Biſhop the Charge of the Church is divolved, be authorized thereto by neceſſity.] And if p. 53all this be ſo, no doubt but the Power of Ordination is in Presbyters, as ſuch, though they are not to exerciſe it alone, nor without or againſt the Biſhop (And ſo formerly they were not to Preach, or Baptize, nor Congregate the Church without him.) For why cannot a Lay-man Ordain with the Biſhop but becauſe he hath no ſuch authority?

And Cap. 5. as to the power of Jurisdiction he ſaith the ſame, p. 110. 111. [I deny not Presbyters (which have charge of ſouls) to have Juriſdiction; both ſeverally in their Pariſhes, and jointly in Provincial Synods. And I have confeſſed before, that Presbyters have with and under the Biſhops exerciſed ſome Juriſdiction. I grant that Godly Biſhops, before they had the countenance and aſſiſtance of Chriſtian Magiſtracy **The Prelates pretence for innovation: All the cauſe is laid on Magiſtrates.and direction of Chriſtian Laws; uſed in all matters of moment, to conſult with their Clergy. This was practiſed by Cyprian, Ambroſe alſo (in 1 Tim. 5. 1.) teacheth, that there was a time when nothing was done without the advice of the Presbyters; which therefore by Ignatius are called the Counſellors and Co-aſſeſſors of the Biſhops: Which courſe if it were uſed ſtill, as it would eaſe the Biſhops burden very much, ſo would it nothing detract from their ſuperiority in Governing.—

And page 115. [The thing which I was to prove, if it had been needful, was, that whereas Presbyters did Govern each one the People of a Pariſh, and that privately, ††Doth a publick Church Paſtor govern but privately? what meaneth he by that which can be good ſence? A private man may rule privately, that is, by Counſell: Judicium publicum is the Officers judgment.the Biſhop Governeth the People of the whole Dioceſs and that publickly.

So that both Ordination and Juriſdiction belong to the Presbyters Office; though in the exerciſe of it they muſt be governed themſelves. Is not this the very ſum of Archbiſhop Uſher's Model of Primitive Epiſcopacy, which we offered his Majeſty and the Biſhops at firſt, for Concord, and the Biſhops would not once take it into their Conſideration, nor ſo much as vouchſafe to talk of it, or bring it under any deliberation? When, alas, we poor undertrodden Perſons, not only deſired to be low our ſelves, but yielded to ſubmit to all their heights, their Lordſhips, Parliament dignities, grandure, and to let them alone with their (real) ſole▪Ordination and Juriſdiction over us poor Presbyters, and to have taken as much care of the People as they would, ſo we could but have obtained any tolerable degree of Government to be ſetled in each particular Church, either in all the Presbyters or in one Biſhop, and not have had all the particular Churches deprived of Biſhops and all the Paſtoral Juriſdiction.

But our great Controverſie is handled by Biſhop Downame in his ſecond Book, wherein he laboureth to prove that the Biſhops Church, or rather Charge, was not a Pariſh, but a Dioceſs. And firſt, page 4. he giveth us a ſcheme of the Scripture acception of the word [Church] as preparatory to his deſign: In which there are many Texts cited, not only without any ſhew of proof, that they ſpeak of what he affirmeth them to ſpeak, but contrary to the plain ſcope of the places. And he tells us that the word [Church] is used in Scripture for the Church Militant Congregated in an Univerſal or Occumenical Synod: And offereth us not one Text for inſtance, p. 54which he doth though injuriouſly, for all the reſt: Nor is there any that ſo ſpeaketh.

He tells us that the word is uſed particularly to ſignifie the Church of a Nation in the ſingular number; but could name no ſuch place as to any Church ſince Chriſt, but only the Jewiſh Church, Acts 7. 38.

And he ſaith, it is uſed to ſignifie, particularly and definitely the Church of a Nation in the plural number. And is not this a ſtrange kind of Allegation? The Scripture ſpeaketh of [the Churches in a Nation.] Therefore it uſeth the word for the Church of a Nation, in the plural number. Is one Church and many all one with him: Would he have applauded that man that would have ſaid, that ſuch an Author uſeth the word [College] (for the College of an Univerſity in the plural number,) because he named the College in an Univerſity? and this to prove that an Univerſity is one College? Had it not been better ſaid, The New Teſtament never uſeth the word Church for all the Churches in one Nation (ſince Chriſt) definitely, but ever calleth them plurally Churches: Therefore to call them all One (National) Church is not to imitate the Scripture.

His firſt Inſtance is, Rom. 6. 4. All the Churches of the Gentiles. A ſad proof of a National Church! What Nation is it that the word [Gentiles] ſignifieth? No doubt the Gentile Churches were in Gentile Nations: But that doth not prove that the Chriſtians in any Nation are ever called in Scripture (ſince the Jews Nation) One Church but Churches.

His next inſtance is, 1 Cor. 16. 1. The Churches of Galatia: And the reſt are all ſuch, v. 19. 2 Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 22. The Churches of Aſia, Macedonia, Judaea: But I hope he intended no more than to tell you that the Chriſtians of ſeveral Nations, are never called a Church, but Churches, as having any ſort of Union than National.

He giveth many inſtances when the word [Church] is uſed definitely to ſignifie the Church of a City and Country adjoyning: But to prove it uſed to ſignifie ſeveral Churches in City and Country adjoyning, but one only.

Two Texts he alledgeth to prove that the word [Church] is uſed definitely to ſignifie theſe Churches Congregate into a Synod or Conſiſtory: But I believe his word of neither place. One is Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church, &c. If I ſay that [tell the Church] ſignifieth [tell the Society containing Paſtors and Chriſtians] though it is the Paſtors that you muſt immediately ſpeak to and the offender muſt hear, I give as good proof of my expoſition as he doth of his. If I ſpeak to a man, and hear a man, though it be only his ears that hear me, and his tongue that ſpeaketh to me, yet by the word [man] I mean not only ears and tongue. If the King ſend a Command to a Corporation to expel a ſeditious member, though the Mayor or Aldermen only do it Authoritatively, and the People but executively, yet the word [Corporation] doth not therefore ſignifie the Officers only. The other Text is, Act. 15. 22. But I will not believe him that [the whole Church] ſignifieth the Synod only: For though they only decreed it, I think the reſt p. 55conſented and approved it, and are meant in the word [the whole Church.]

I grant him that (Rom. 16. 1.) the word ſignifieth the Church of a Village or Town; But he will never prove that it is not meant of a Church of the ſame Species as City Churches were. And as to the Houſe or Family Churches which he mentioneth, Rom. 16. 5. 1 Cor. 16. 19. Col. 4. 15. Phil. 2. Dr. Hammond▪ expoundeth, Col. 4▪ 15. of the Church that did meet in his houſe, and ſo ſome do all the reſt: But that we ſtand not for, nor doth it concern us.

But when he addeth a multitude of Texts, as uſing the word Church indefinitely, not defining the place, Society of a Nation or City, quantity, &c. moſt of the inſtances brought are of Churches definite, as to place, and of the ſame Species as the Apoſtles Inſtituted; though when the Church of ſuch a place is ſaid to do a thing, it's no determination what number of the members did it. His firſt inſtance is Acts 4. 31. and next Acts 15. 3, 9, &c. The Churches had reſt through all Judaea, and Gallile, and Samaria: Acts 15. 3. Speaks of the Church of Antioch, which v. 27. it's ſaid they gathered together: v. 4. mentioneth the Church at Jeruſalem, v. 11. mentioneth the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Acts 18. 22. Speaketh of the Church at Caeſarea. Rom. 16. 16. Speaks of the Churches where Paul lately travelled. v. 23. Gaius was the Hoſt of a definite whole Church, at Corinth. And when 1 Cor. 4. 17. he ſpeaketh of his teaching in every Church, it is an Univerſal enunciation, but of Churches of a certain or definite ſpecies, and ſo of the reſt.

Then p. 5. he telleth us what is truly and properly a Church on Earth; and ſaith, Every company of men profeſſing the true faith of Chriſt is both truly a Church and a true Church. Ans. Yes, As Canis caeleſtis is truly a Dog, and a true Dog: but not properly, but equivocally: A Church in its moſt famous ſignification is a Society conſtituted of the Paſtor and Flock, as a School of the Schoolmaſter and Schollars: And an accidental meeting of Chriſtians in a Market or Ship, is no more properly called a Church, than School-boys meeting in ſuch places are a School: No nor occaſionally praying together neither.

So p. 5. He concludeth that the Chriſtian People of one City, and Country adjoyning, whether Province or Dioceſs are one Church; yea of any Nation or part of the World, not becauſe under one Spiritual Government or Prieſt-hood, but becauſe one People or Commonwealth ruled by the ſame Laws, profeſſing the ſame Religion. All this is de nomine only. But are we not likely to diſpute well, when we never agree of the Subject, or terms of the Queſtion? We have no mind to contend about Names: Let him call the World, or a Corporation, or Kingdom, or Eccleſiam Malignantium by the name of a Church if he will, ſo that we firſt agree what Church we diſpute of. We talk not of any accidental meeting or Community, but a Society before defined, conſtituted of the pars gubernans and pars ſubdita. And of this ſort we know of Divine Inſtitution, p. 56an Univerſal Church Headed by Chriſt, and particular Churches headed under him by their Biſhops or Paſtors: A Church without a Head, (in Fair, Ship, or Temple) we talk not of: Nor yet of a Church that hath but an Accidental, Extrinſick, and not an Eſſential Conſtitutive Head, to them, as they are Churches of Chriſt's Inſtitution: Whether it be the Emperour of Germany, or of Conſtantinople, Mahometan, Chriſtian, Papiſt, or Proteſtant, we believe that every Soveraign is ſo the Head, that is the Ruler of the Church, that is, of the Chriſtians in his Dominions. We denominate â formâ: Biſhop Downame may denominate whence he pleaſe, à materiâ or ab accidente, &c. and ſay, They are one Church that are under one Prince, Law, of one Religion. Do with your Equivocals what you will; But forget not that it is a Pastoral particular Church of the Holy Ghoſt's Inſtitution that we Diſpute about. Otherwiſe I deny not Dioceſan, or Patriarchal Churches, nor deny that the Papal Kingdom is a Church of a certain ſpecies right or wrong.

And forget not his Conceſſion p. 6. and we need no more, [Indeed at the very firſt converſion of Cities, the whole number of the People converted (being ſometimes not much greater than the number of the Presbyters placed among them) were able to make but a ſmall Congregation. But thoſe Churches were in Conſtituting, they were not fully Conſtituted, till their number being increaſed they had their Biſhop or Paſtor, their Presbyters and Deacons, without which, Ignatius ſaith, there was no Church, &c.] Of w…h after.

He next, Cap. 1. laboureth much to prove that the words Eccleſia, Paraecia, and Diocaeſis, of old were of the ſ…e ſignification; About words we have no mind to ſtrive: But all the proofs that he brings of the extent of a Church to more than one Congregation or Altar, are fetcht from later times, when indeed Churches were transformed into Societies much different from thoſe before them.

He citeth Concil. Carth. 2. c. 5. & 3. 42, 43, &c. that places that had no Biſhops before ſhould not receive Biſhops without the conſent of the Biſhop whom they were before under. Indeed by theſe Canons we ſee much of the ſtate of the Church in thoſe times, and partly how the Caſe was altered. Every Church had a Biſhop of its own: Thoſe Churches were almoſt all firſt planted in Cities: The multitudes were Heathens: but the City Chriſtians with thoſe in the Country near them, were enow to make a Church or Congregation. In time ſo many were Converted in the Country Villages, that they were allowed Aſſemblies like our Chappels at home: And ſome of them had Country Biſhops ſet over them: And in many places greater Towns (which they then called Cities) were anew converted. The Presbyters that were abroad among theſe new Converts or ſcatered Chriſtians, made them know that every Church ſhould have a Biſhop, and that they might chooſe one of their own: And few Presbyters being then Learned able men in Compariſon of the Biſhops, by this advantage of preſence among them, many raw and ſchiſmatical Presbyters crept into the Peoples affections, and perſwaded them to chooſe p. 57them for their Biſhops: when they were choſen and ordained, they encroached on the reſt of the old Biſhops Dioceſs, and alſo refuſed to come to the Synods, leſt their failings ſhould be known, pretending that they muſt ſtay with their own People. Now the Biſhops that complained of this, did not alledge, 1. That no Biſhop ſhould be made but in a City, 2. Nor that when Chriſtians multiplyed, they muſt not multiply Biſhops accordingly, but all be under their firſt Biſhop only, 3. Nor that a new Congregation had not as good right to have and chuſe a Biſhop of their own, as the firſt City Congregation had. But only to keep ignorant Schiſmatical Presbyters from deceiving the People for their own exaltation, and from hindering Synodical Concord, they Decreed that none in their Dioceſſes ſhould have Biſhops, without the firſt Biſhops conſent; And that being ſo Conſecrated they ſhould frequent Synods, and ſhould be Biſhops only of that People that firſt choſe them, and not encroach on the reſt of the Dioceſs. And whereas he hence gathereth that the Country Churches [ever from the beginning belonged to the City Biſhops.] There were no ſuch things as Appendant Country Churches from the beginning of the City Churches: But it's true, that from the beginning of the Country Peoples Converſion, when they were not enow to make Churches themſelves, they belonged to the City Churches as Members (Even as now the Anabaptiſts and Independent Churches conſiſt of the People of Market-Towns, and the adjoyning Country Aſſociated into one Aſſembly.) After that the Country Meetings were but as Oratories or Chappels: And when they came to be enow to make dinſtinct Churches of, ſome good Biſhops had the Wit and Grace to help them to Chorepiſcopi, Biſhops of their own; but moſt did chooſe rather to enlarge their own Poſſeſſions or Powers, and ſet Subject Presbyters only over the People.

And that theſe new Biſhopricks muſt be by the old Biſhops conſent, is apparently a point of Order to avoid inconveniences (if not of Uſurpation:) For what power had the old Biſhop to keep any Church of Chriſt without a Biſhop of their own, when it was for there good?

That he hath ſome countenance from Leo, for the New Church-Form (without Biſhops) I wonder not, when Leo was one of the hotteſt that betimes maintained the Roman Primacy, if not Univerſal Soveraignty.

And as the Care againſt placing Biſhops in ſmall places, ne vileſcat nomen Epiſcopi, came in late, ſo 1. It intimateth that it was otherwiſe done, at leaſt by ſome before, 2. And it is but the Prelatical grandure which Conſtantine had pufft up, which is then alledged as the Reaſon of this Reſtraint.

His Argument is, [That which was judged unlawful by the Canons of approved Councils, and Decrees of Godly Biſhops, was never lawfully, regularly and ordinarily practiſed: But, &c. I deny the Major. Kneeling at Prayer or Sacrament on the Lords day, the Marriage of Prieſts, the Reading of the Heathens Writings, and abundance ſuch-like, were forbidden by ſuch approved Councils; eſpecially a multitude of things depending on the new p. 58Imperial ſhape of the Churches, which are now lawful, and were lawful, and ordinarily practiſed before: Paul Kneeled and Prayed on the Lord's day, Acts 20. &c. Therefore the placing of Biſhops in Country Pariſhes was not unlawful before, becauſe the Councils of Biſhops afterward forbad it, nor was it ever unlawful by Gods Law. Methinks a Biſhop that ſubſcribeth to the 39 Articles of the Church of England, which mentioneth General Councils erring, even in matters of Faith, ſhould never have aſſerted that they cannot erre in matter of Government, nor retract and alter that which was well practiſed before them.

His next Argument is this, If there were any Pariſh Biſhops then, they were the Chorepiſcopi, But the Chorepiſcopi were not ſuch.

Anſ. 1. I deny the Major: There were then many City Biſhops that were but Pariſh Biſhops, or had but one Church, as ſhall be further proved. 2. Yet as to a great number it is granted that their Dioceſſes had many Churches, at the time of Concil. Eliber. Sardic. &c. which he mentioneth. But it followeth not that therefore it was ſo with any in the time of Ignatius, or with many in Cyprian's time. 3. If it were all granted de facto, it will not follow, that de jure, it was well done, and that the old Form was not ſinfully changed. 4. The Chorepiſcopi themſelves might have many Congregations under them, like our Chapels, and yet be Pariſh Biſhops; And it's moſt probable that at firſt they had no more than one of our Country Pariſhes, though afterwards they had many Churches under them, as City Biſhops had.

His next Argument is, [Churches endued with Power Eccleſiaſtical, ſufficient for the Government of themſelves, having alſo a Biſhop and Presbytery, had the power of Ordination: But Country Pariſhes had not the Power of Ordination: Ergo, &c.

Anſ. 1. Government is Inferiour or Superiour: They might have ſufficient Inferiour power of Government, though they had none of the Superiour power, ſuch as belongeth to Archbiſhops, to whom Appeals were made: As a Corporation that hath a Mayor and Aſſiſtants hath ſufficient Inferiour power, but not Regal, nor ſuch as Judges, Lord Lieutenants, &c. have. And if it were proved, (as ſome hold) that only General, or unfixed Miniſters, like the Apoſtles, and Evangeliſts, or Archbiſhops that were over many Churches, had the power of Ordination, and not the Inferiour Biſhops of ſingle Churches, it would not follow that theſe Inferiour Biſhops had not the power of Governing their own Churches with aſſiſting Presbyters: And if he will prove for us, that every fixed Biſhop hath the power of Ordination, who hath but the Inferiour power of Governing his ſingle Church, by Admonitions, Excommunications, and Abſolutions, he will but do our work for us.

2. I deny his Minor Propoſ. If by [Country Pariſhes] he mean [the Biſhops of Country Pariſhes] they had the Power of Ordination: And all that he ſaith againſt it, is only to prove, that de facto, they had not the Exerciſe of it in the times he mentioneth, and that de jure humano, it was p. 59not allowed them by Canons. But, 3. We grant ſo much of the Concluſion, as that de facto, few Country Pariſhes had a Biſhop and Presbytery: Becauſe there were but few Country Pariſhes in the World, till the third Century, that were really Chriſtian Churches, or fixed Societies of Chriſtians that had ordinary Church-communion together in the Sacrament, or had an Altar. But our Caſe is, About ſingle Churches, now called Pariſh Churches, and not about [Country Churches.] For they might be but ſingle Pariſh Churches, though they were in Cities only, and the Country Members joyned with them in the Cities.

And his own Confeſſion is, page 35. that beſides Rome and Alexandria, that had many Churches in the City, there is not the like evidence for multitude of Pariſhes in other Cities, imediately after the Apoſtles times.] I ſuppoſe by his Citations, he meaneth till the third Century. And if this be granted us of all the great Cities of the World, that they cannot be proved to have many Churches, we have no great reaſon to look for many in the Country Villages.

His next Argument is, [Churches containing within their Circuit, not only Cities with their Suburbs, but alſo whole Countries ſubject to them, were Dioceſſes. But the Churches, ſubject to the ancient Biſhops in the Primitive Church, contained, &c. Therefore they were Dioceſſes.

Anſ. Either this is his Deſcription of a Dioceſs, or we have none from him that I can find: And let who will Diſpute about the Names of Dioceſs and Pariſh, for I will not. And if by a Dioceſs he meaneth a Church conſiſting of all the Chriſtians in City and Country aſſociated for Perſonal holy Communion, having One Altar and One Biſhop, this is that which we call a ſingle Church, or ſome a Pariſh-Church, and if he call it a Dioceſs he may pleaſe himſelf.

But if he mean that in theſe Cities and whole Countries were ſeveral ſuch Churches, that had each an Altar, and were fixed Societies for perſonal holy Communion, not having any proper Biſhop of their own, but one Biſhop in Common, with whoſe Cathedral Church, they did not, and could not Communicate, (through Number or diſtance) I deny his Minor propoſed in this ſenſe, as to the two firſt Centuries; though not as to the following Ages. But if by [Cities, Suburbs, and whole Countries ſubject] he mean all the unconverted Infidels of that ſpace (for doubtleſs he calls not the ſoil or place, the Church) I deny the very ſubject; There were no ſuch Churches: Infidels and Heathens make not Churches, (Though Hereticks made ſomewhat like them, ſicut veſpa faciunt …avos, as Tertullian ſpeaketh.) If the Dioceſan Churches Diſputed for, be Churches of Pagans and Infidels, we know no ſuch things.

But if he mean that all the Heathens in that Circuit are the Biſhops Charge in order to Converſion, I anſwer, 1. That maketh them no parts of the Church: Therefore the Church is of never the larger extent for the ſoil or Infidel Inhabitants. 2. The Apoſtles, and other General Preachers (like the Jeſuits in the Indies) may divide their Labourers by Provinces p. 60for the Peoples Convetſion, before there be any Churches at all. 3. This diſtribution is a meer prudential Ordering of an accident or circumſtance; and therefore not the Divine Inſtitution of a Church Form or Species. 4. Neither Scripture nor prudence ſo diſtributeth Circuits or Provinces to Preachers, in order to converſion of Infidels, as that other Preachers may not come and Preach there, as freely as one that claimeth it as his Province. For, 1. Chriſt ſent out his Apoſtles by two and two at firſt. 2. Paul had Barnabas or ſome other Evangeliſt or General Preacher uſually with him. And Peter and Paul are both ſaid to be at Rome, at Antioch, and other places: And many Apoſtles were long together at Jeruſalem, even many years after Chriſt's Reſurrection. Chriſt that bid them go into all the World, never commanded that one ſhould not come where another was, nor have power to Preach to Infidels in that Dioceſs.

And what is the Epiſcopal power over Infidels, which is claimed? It is not a power to Ordain, or to Excommunicate them. It can be no other than a power to Preach to them, and Baptize them when converted. And this is confeſſed to belong to Presbyters. If the Biſhops would divide the World into Dioceſſes, and be the only Preachers in thoſe Dioceſſes, it would be no wonder if the World be unconverted. It is not Biſhops that are ſent by the Papiſts themſelves to convert the Indians.

But perhaps you may ſay that the Biſhops rule thoſe Presbyters that do it. I anſwer, 1. It's an imperfect kind of Government, which a Biſhop in England can exerciſe over Presbyters that daily Preach, as Mr. Eliat his helpers to the Natives in a Wilderneſs many thouſand Miles from them. 2. But if they do rule the Preachers, that maketh not the Soil nor the Heathens to be any parts of their Church, but the Preachers only. Therefore a Dioceſs with them, and a Church, muſt be different things.

His firſt Reaſon therefore, page 36. from the Circuit is vain. His ſecond, page 37. that the City Biſhops had a right from the beginning over many Churches, (that had no other Biſhops) and did not after uſurp it, he proveth not at all: For the words of Men three or four hundred years after Chriſt, alledging ancient cuſtome are no proof: When the 25 Can. Trull. cited by himſelf, maketh thirty years poſſeſſion enough againſt all that would queſtion their Title. And abundance of things had Cuſtome and Antiquity alledged for them ſo long after, that were known Innovations.

His third Reaſon is from the Chorepiſcopi, as the Biſhops ſuffragan, which ſheweth no more, but that the City Biſhops (whether juſtly or by uſurpation) were at laſt really Archbiſhops, or Rulers of Biſhops: But of this before.

His fourth Reaſon, from Succeſſion will be good, when he that affirmeth that no Church was governed by the Pariſh Diſcipline, hath proved that all, many, yea, or any Biſhops from the Apoſtles days, had many Churches under them that had no Biſhops of their own. Till then he ſaith nothing.

p. 61As to his inſtance of the Scythians having but one Biſhop, the Reaſon was, becauſe it was but little of their Country at firſt that were made Chriſtians, or that were at all in the Roman Empire: So that the Biſhop was ſetled at Tomis, in the borders of the Empire (in the Maritine part of the Euxine Sea,) that thence he might have an influence on the reſt of the Scythians over whom the Romans had no power, and where there were many Cities indeed, but few Chriſtians: as may be ſeen in Theodoret, Tripart. Nicephor. and many others. Of his other three or four inſtances, I ſhall after ſpeak.

Chap. 3. lib. 2. He pretends to prove that the ſeven Aſian Churches were Dioceſan, and not Parochial, and never defineth a Dioceſs and Pariſh; which is loſt labour.

His firſt Argument is, [Churches, whoſe Circuit contained Cities and Countries adjoining, were Dioceſſes. But, &c.

This is before anſwered: Our Queſtion is, Whether they were as our Dioceſan Churches, ſuch as had in theſe Cities and Countries many Altars and Churches without Biſhops under them: Trees, and Houſes, and Fields, and Heathen People, make not Churches, nor yet ſcattered Chriſtians, that were Members only of the City Church.

His proof of the Minor is, 1. Theſe Churches comprized all the Churches of Aſia.

Anſ. If he mean that all the reſt of the Churches of Aſia had no Biſhops but Pariſh Presbyters under theſe ſeven Biſhops he ſhould prove it, (and confute Dr. Hammond that is ſo contrary to him, (had he then lived:) Till then we take it as a contemptible incredible aſſertion, that Aſia had but ſeven Biſhops, and yet a multitude of Churches: If he mean only that theſe ſeven were Archbiſhops, his impertinency is too palbable.

Particularly, he ſaith, The Church of Epheſus, Smyrna, &c. Contained a great City, and the Country belonging to it, &c.

Anſ. We talk of Churches under Churches, and he talketh only of Cities and Countries; Again, I ſay, Let him take his Dioceſs of Infidels, Houſes and Ground, we know no ſuch Churches.

Page 46. He ſaith [Cenchrea was ſubject to the Church of Corinth, and never had a Biſhop of their own.] But not a ſyllable of proof: It is not a Family Church, which we ſpeak of, therefore he need not here have mentioned that: But a Church aſſociated for ordinary Communion in God's publick worſhip, which cannot be celebrated without a Paſtor. Let him prove that Cenchrea was ſuch a Church and yet had no Biſhop.

In §. 6. p. 49. He would prove that the Circuit of a Church was in the Intention of the Apoſtles, or firſt Founders, the ſame from the beginning, befor… the diviſion of Churches as after: Which I ſhall in due place diſprove: His reaſons are, 1. Becauſe the whole Church ſince the Apoſtles days hath ſo underſtood the intention of the Apoſtles.

Anſ. 1. This is not proved. 2. I ſhall anone prove the contrary; that the Apoſtles had no intention that Churches ſhould be defined by the limits p. 62of the place and Country: nor did they themſelves ever appoint any ſuch bounds to any one Church, and ſay ſo far it ſhall extend: Nor did they ever take any but Chriſtians in any Circuits for Members of the Church. And I ſhall prove that all Churches were but ſuch as I deſcribed, ſingle Churches with their Biſhops at the firſt, and that ſome Villages had Biſhops four or five hundred years after: And his own Reaſon that Churches followed the Civil Form, proveth the mutability of their bounds, ſeeing the Civil Forms were mutable.

His next Reaſon is becauſe [that diviſion of Churches which was 300 or 400 Years after Chriſt, with their Limits and Circuits, were ordinarily the ſame which had been from the beginning, as divers Councils teſtifie.

Anſ. Thoſe Councils mean no more, than that it had been an old or ſetled Cuſtome, (as many Learned men have proved.) And if they could be proved to mean that from the Apoſtolical plantations the bounds of all the Dioceſs were ſet, I marvel that any man could believe them. But they ſay no ſuch thing, as were it not tedious to the Reader, an examination of each particular would ſhew. Elſe no new Churches and Biſhops muſt be ſetled in the World, but thoſe that the Apoſtles converted in any Cities between or near them; For the unconverted Cities in the inter-ſpaces, were as much thoſe Biſhops Dioceſſes as the Villages of equal diſtance: And then the making of new Cities would have made one a Biſhop of many Cities, contrary to the Canons.

His third Reaſon is, that the Diſtribution of the Churches uſually followed the diviſion of the Common wealth.

Anſ. 1. If ſo (as is ſaid) they muſt be various and mutable. All the World was not divided juſt as the Roman Empire was: And the Imperial diviſions had great changes. 2. I think it loſt labour to diſpute with him that holdeth this aſſimilating the Church to the Civil Form, was of Divine Apoſtolical Inſtitution. If any can think ſo, let him give us his proof that the Church Conſtitution muſt vary as Monarchical, Ariſtocratical and Democratical States do; As Empires and free Cities do: And that from the King to the Conſtable, we muſt have a correſpondent Officer: And that the Papacy as Capital in the Roman Empire, was of Gods Inſtitution. And that an Emperour, King, or popular State may change the Form of the Churches, as oft as they may the Form of their ſubordinate Governments. Are not theſe ſmall Reaſons to prove, that when the Apoſtles planted Biſhops in all ſingle Churches, they intended that thoſe Biſhops ſhould be the ſole Biſhops of many hundred Churches, when they ſhould be raiſed in the Circuit of ground, which now is called their Dioceſſes. But more of this in due place.

But next he appealeth to mens conſciences, Whether it be not unlikely that there was but one Congregation belonging to theſe famous Cities towards the end of the Apoſtles days. Of which more afterward.

In Chap. 4. p. 69. He argueth, [The Presbyteries ordained by the Apoſtles, were appointed for Dioceſſes, and not to Pariſhes: Therefore the Churches endued p. 63with the power of Eccleſiaſtical Government were not Pariſhes but Dioceſſes.

Anſ. Our Queſtion is, Whether they were ſingle Churches as before defined, or only One Dioceſan Church made up of many ſuch ſingle Churches: 1. If by Presbyteries be meant many Presbyters, a College, or Conſeſſus, I deny the Conſequence; becauſe every Church that had Government had not ſuch a Presbytery; But one Biſhop or Paſtor did ſerve for ſome of the leſſer Churches, and yet that one had Governing power. 2. I deny the Major: It was ſingle Churches that had then many Elders ſet over them. 3. Reader, it ſeemeth to me no ſmall diſparagement to the Dioceſan Cauſe, that the grand Patrons of it ſo extreamly differ among themſelves. Dr. Hammond holdeth that in all the Scripture times, no one Church had any Presbyters at all, ſave only one ſingle Biſhop. This Biſhop Downame ſeemeth to hold, that every Governed Church had a Presbytery. And [no one] and [every one] extreamly differ: Yet either of them would have cenſure him that had gain-ſayed them.

His proof of the Antecedent is this. [They who were appointed to whole Cities and Countries to labour ſo far as they were able the converſion of all that belonged to God, were appointed to Dioceſſes, not to Pariſhes: But, &c.

Anſ. Is not here fruſtration inſtead of edification to the Reader, for want of defining a Dioceſs and a Pariſh. I thought we had talkt of a Dioceſan Church; and here is a Dioceſs deſcribed which may be a ſingle Church, or no Church at all as the Biſhop pleaſeth. Here is not ſo much as any Chriſtians, much leſs Congregations of them mentioned as the Biſhops Flock: But many an Apoſtle, Evangeliſt, and Converting Preacher, hath been ſet over Cities and Countries to labour mens Converſion, as far as they were able, before they had converted any, or at leaſt enow to make a Church; and after that, before they had converted more than one Aſſembly. The Jeſuits in the Indies thus laboured in ſeveral Provinces, before they were Biſhops of thoſe Provinces, or called them Provincial Churches. But now we perceive what he meaneth by a Dioceſs, even a ſpace of Ground containing Inhabitants to be converted if we can.

I will ſhorten my Anſwer to the reſt of his Reaſonings for ſuch Dioceſan Churches.

I will put a few Queſtions, more pertinent than his Queries p. 67. about the ſtate of ſuch Dioceſan Churches.

Q. 1. Whether the Apoſtles were not, by this deſcription, Biſhops of all the World as their Dioceſſes? And whether therefore it follow that there were no Biſhops under them in particular Churches?

Q. 2. Whether Apoſtles and Evangeliſts did not go from City to City, ſometime ſtaying ſome Months or Years at one, and then paſſing to another? And whether this made all the interjacent Countries their Dioceſſes, changing their Biſhops as oft as they thus changed their Habitations?

Q. 3. Whether more than one ſuch Apoſtle or Evangeliſt were not both at once, and ſucceſſively in the ſame place, to labour the converſion of all they could? And whether therefore there were many Biſhops to a Dioceſs?

p. 64Q. 4. Where we ſhall find the proof that the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts ſet the bounds of Dioceſſes? And whether this deſcription of his own do make Dioceſſes bounded by circuit or ſpace of Ground, or by the Abilities of the Biſhop to endeavour converſion?

Q. 5. When the Apoſtles forbad any other to labour mens converſion in their Cities or Countries where they or others had been before them? And did not one plant and another water, (and uſually more than one at once?)

Q. 6. Whether (Mat. 28. 19, 20.) Diſcipling or Preaching to convert men, and then baptizing them, be not the way of gathering Churches, and therefore proveth that before converſion they are no Churches? and are not Chriſtians only members of the Church? And are thoſe Dioceſan Churches that are no Churches?

Q. 7. If one be ſetled in a ſingle Congregation in the City, with a purpoſe to endeavour the converſion of the Country, is not a Dioceſan Church there the ſame as a ſingle Congregation, though the Dioceſs be larger?

Q. 8. If when Congregations multiplyed, Biſhops were not multiplyed, but one would keep many Churches under himſelf alone, doth it prove that this was well done becauſe it was done? and that God conſented to this change?

His next Reaſon is, becauſe Churches were not then divided into Pariſhes. Which in due place I ſhall prove to be a ſufficient Reaſon againſt him. Churches were Societies conſtituted of Paſtors and their Chriſtian Congregations, as afore defined: And his inference is vain, that [Presbyteries were not ſettled in Pariſhes, becauſe the Churches were not yet divided into Pariſhes. For they were Pariſhes, that is, ſingle Churches, without dividing. The ſpace of Ground called Pariſhes was not then marked out; Nor was a Dioceſan Church (like ours) that hath no ſubordinate Biſhops divided into Pariſhes; for there were no ſuch Dioceſan Churches to be ſo divided. But the Univerſal Church and the Apoſtolical Provinces were made up (or conſtituted) of Pariſhes, I mean of particular Churches, as greater numbers are of unites, and as Villages are of Houſes. But to ſay that Churches were not divided into Pariſhes, in the ſence in queſtion, is all one as to ſay, Churches were not divided into Churches.

Our Controverſie is like this, Whether all the Families in the Town ſhould have but One common Maſter? And he that affirmeth it, ſhould argue thus; Maſters were not at firſt appointed to Families but to Villages; For Villages were not at firſt divided into Families, (when there were none but ſingle Houſes erected.) True; but Families were Families before there were Villages to be divided. As Villages were not made before Houſes, and then divided into Houſes, nor Cities before Streets, and afterwards divided into Streets; nor Kingdoms before Cities and Corporations, and then divided into Corporations, (or inferiour Societies) Nor Academies before Colleges, and then divided into Colleges; ſo neither were Provincial, or Dioceſan Churches made before ſingle Churches, and after divided p. 65into them; but were made by the coalition of many ſingle Churches; which ſhould not have been changed for that uſe in ſpecie, by altering the ſpecies of their Paſtors, and depriving them of their Proper Biſhops.

In his 5th Chap. He pretendeth to confute the Aſſe…tion that for the firſt 200 years, the City Churches were but ſingle Congregations. Here we uſe to except only Alexandria and Rome in all the World: And we confidently extend the time to 150 years, and very probably to 200; and moreover ſay, that till the fourth Century, moſt or very many Churches were no other, if not long after in many Kingdoms.

All his talk, p. 80. againſt ſhallow giddy Heads, that ſee no further than their Noſe end, becauſe it was denied that Paſtors were ſet in ſingle Congregations to convert alſo the Infidels about, I have nothing to do with: For I aſſert that as all Miniſters are bound to endeavour the converſion of ſuch, if they have opportunity (not wanting power,) ſo thoſe are moſt bound to it that have beſt opportunity, which is the Neighbour Biſhops. But till men are converted they are no parts of the Church; no, nor of that particular Church, eo nomine, becauſe converted by that Biſhop (as ſhall be proved,) without ſome further conſent and ground. The reſt about the largeneſs of the Church of Jeruſalem, &c. ſhall be conſidered in due place.

In his Chap. 6. p. 104. I deſire it may be noted that he ſaith, [I do not deny but that at the firſt, and namely in the time of the Apoſtle Paul, the moſt of the Churches ſo ſoon after their converſion, did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous Congregation. And p. 114. that Metropolitans he thinks were intended by the Apoſtles, or at leaſt, ſuadente naturâ & neceſſitate flagitante, as Beza ſaith: And I ſuppoſe a Dioceſan Church will find no better ground than a Metropolitan, viz. Humane Prudence, or (I think intended.)

In chap. 7. He pretendeth to prove, that in the Apoſtles times Pariſhes began to be diſtinguiſhed under one only Biſhop, &c. But what's the proof? Rome and Alexandria are all the Inſtances. ††In my Treat. of the true way of Concord, I have alſo diſproved the Inſtances of Rome and Alexandria.But, 1. his proof that Evariſtus divided Pariſhes about An. 100 is worth nothing, as having no ſufficient evidence, but fabulous reports. 2. He allegeth Euſebius, l. 2. …. 15. ſaying of St. Mark, that he is ſaid firſt to have conſtituted the Churches of Alexandria. But this is no proof. 1. Becauſe Euſebius's following words out of Philo do make it moſt probable, that by [the Churches of Alexandria] he meant [the Churches in and about Alexandria,] which proveth not many in the City it ſelf. 2. If he had planted many Churches in the City, it is no proof that he varied from the practice of the other Apoſtles, who (as Act. 14. 23.) placed Elders (that is, ſaith Dr. Hammond, Biſhops) in every Church: Or that the Elders of each Church had not the true Paſtoral or Epiſcopal power of Governing the Flock, (which is all that we plead for.) And if it had been proved that Mark had been over them: it followeth not that he was not over them as an Archbiſhop, but as a meer Biſhop only. 3. Grotius and Dr. Hammond think they prove that p. 66Rome and other great Cities then had more Biſhops than one, by reaſon of the peoples diverſity in Languages, &c. As Peter of the Circumciſion, and Paul of the Uncircumciſion. 4. Euſebius mentioneth not this as a certainty, but with an [it's ſaid] which is the uſual note of his uncertain reports (of which he hath not a few, as is commonly confeſſed.) 5. Dr. Hammond is ſo far from believing this (that many Pariſhes were committed ſo early to Presbyters under one Biſhop) that he thinketh there is no proof that any ſuch Presbyters were in being in the Scripture times. And though we confeſs that Alexandria and Rome had divers Churches in them long before other places, there is no proof or probability that it was ſo in the Apoſtles days. And l. 3. c. 4. Euſebius expreſly ſaith, [But how many and what ſincere followers have governed the Churches planted by the Apoſtles, it cannot be affirmed, but ſo far as may be gathered from the words of Paul. And c. 19. he mentioneth in the ſingular number the Church (not the Churches) of Rome, Antioch, and Jeruſalem. And l. 4. c. 11. he ſaith Celadion ſucceeded Mark in the Church of Alexandria.

But he ſaith l. 5. c. 9. that Julianus was choſen Biſhop over the Churches of Alexandria: And c. 22. Demetrius came in his place. And l. 6. c. 1. Demetrius took upon him the overſight of the Congregations there. And c. 35. Dionyſius received the Biſhoprick of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria, &c.

Anſ. 1. So long after it is not denied, but that Alexandria had more Aſſemblies than one. 2. Yet it is moſt likely that by the Churches in and about Alexandria, Euſebius meant the Churches under the Archbiſhop of Alexandria, which had Biſhops of their own. 3. Before they had a Temple there might be ſeveral leſſer Meetings in the City, which were but as our Chapels, or the Independants Meeting in ſeveral Houſes at once, when yet the Church was but one, becauſe they were aſſociated for Perſonal Communion. 4. When the Pariſhes were divided to ſeveral Presbyters, yet then each Presbyter had the true Epiſcopal Office as to the People, though not the Name; and though they were under a ſuperiour Biſhop; that is, they had the whole Office of a Presbyter or Paſtor, to Govern the People as well as Teach them and Worſhip with them. And ſo there was then no Pariſh like ours, which is but part of a Dioceſan Church, and no Church of it ſelf (as the Biſhops Form it) becauſe it hath but a half Paſtor. 5. And is not the caſe of all other Churches in the World, that to this time were but ſingle Churches, more conſiderable than the caſe of Rome and Alexandria, which differed from all the reſt.

Obj. But all the reſt did the ſame, as ſoon as they had People enow to make many Churches?

Anſ. 1. I have told you Grotius and Dr. Hammond think that there were more Biſhops than one in a City for ſome time. 2. This multiplication was not till long after in the third Century, and with moſt in the fourth, when it was no wonder that the Church fell into the Imperial Form: And when they did ſo, the Roman Primacy aroſe with the reſt. 3. Yet even p. 67then the Presbyters were Epiſcopi gregis, and had the true, full, Paſtoral power as to their Flocks, as aforeſaid. So that there were no Biſhops that yet depoſed the Presbyters as now.

Page 125. He ſaith, [Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Biſhops of Alexandria, but common to others.—Ignatius was Biſhop not only of Antioch, but of Syria: Irenaeus, the Biſhop of Lyons, was Biſhop of the Churches in France, &c.

Anſ. 1. This openeth the former caſe: Theſe were not Dioceſanes, depoſing all the Epiſcopos gregis, and become ſole Biſhops, but Archbiſhops that had under them Biſhops in each particular Church. Yet note, that it is the French Synod of Biſhops which Euſeb. ib. l. 5. c. 23. Iren. is ſaid to overſee, as it's ſaid, ibid. that Palmas did ſo among the Biſhops of Pontus in their Synod, and that Victor was Preſident in the Biſhops Synod at Rome, and Theophilus of Caeſarea, and Narciſſus of Jeruſalem in the Paleſtine Synod: Which is nothing to our caſe.

It is further ſaid, that Optatus ſaith, that in Rome were 40 Churches, and that Theodoret had 800.

Anſ. 1. It is granted, that in Optatus's days Rome had 40, which is nothing to our caſe in hand. 2. In thoſe 40 ſo late, there were no half Presbyters, but as this Doctor confeſſeth, they had not only a joynt power in Governing the Flocks, but in Ordination too. 3. I confeſs Theodoret's caſe ſeemeth ſtrange, and though of late date is ſo incredible as contrary to the caſe of other Churches, that I do the rather for that clauſe believe that Epiſtle to Leo to be a forgery, or corrupted at leaſt. And beſides this Reaſon, I have theſe alſo for it. 1. Becauſe he himſelf ſaith, that Cyrus, where he was Biſhop, was but two days journey from Antioch, Hiſt. Sanct. Patr. de Juliano. And he that knoweth how great the Dioceſs of Antioch was, will not eaſily believe that a Town within two days journey (to Monks that went on foot) was like to have eight hundred Churches in it at that time. 2. And we know out of whoſe ſhop Theodoret's Epiſtles come. Nicephorus ſaith, he read above 500 of his Epiſtles. Baronius ſaith there is a Book in the Vaticane containing 150 of them: Metius tranſlated theſe into Latine. But ſaith Rivet. Crit. Sacr. l. 4. c. 21. p. 455. the Reader muſt remember that they have been kept all this while in the Adverſaries Cabinets, and by them are brought into light and into Latine, ſo that they have no authority, further than other Hiſtory confirmeth them. 3▪ Eſpecially ſeeing Leontius de Sectis ſaith, as Baronius confeſſeth, that Hereticks fained Epiſtles in Theodoret's name; And Bellarmine de ſcript. Eccl. mentioneth one that hath his name in Concil. Epheſ. that neither Theodoret nor any Chriſtian is to be charged with. 4. And that this one Epiſtle to Leo ſhould be cull'd out of all the reſt to be alone Printed after Theodoret's Works, ſheweth the deſign, and what credit is to be given to it. 5. And I ſhall anon cite much out of Theodoret himſelf, to ſhew the improbability that Dioceſſes had then ſo many Churches.