Five Disputations of Church Government, Section 4

Five Disputations of Church Government · Section 4

p. 63BUt yet, though the proof lye on their part, who affirm the Apostles to have had such Intentions, that Pastors of single Congregations should afterward become the Pastors of many, I shall ex super abundanti give them some Reasons for the Negative.

1. And first we are most certain that the holyest Pastors of the Church, had so much Pride and Ambition, Reason 1.that might possibly make them guilty of such a mistake as tended to the …ncrease of their own power and rule. Conqu…ritur jam olim Socrates Episcopatus quosdam suis temporibus extra sacerdotii sines …gressos & foreign ▪ esse delapsos: Conqueritur apud Pelusiotam Hierax lenitatis & m…nsuetudinis dignitatem in Tyrannidem tran…sse: conqueritur de Episcoporum ambitione Nazianzenus; & propterea si non Episcopatum, c…rte civi…atum … perpetuum in retinenda Epis…opali dignitate mutatum velle… ▪ He addeth yet more such, and concludeth, that Ecclesiastical Ambition never made such progress from the Apo…tles daies to those, as it hath done since to ours, almost …ncurably. Grotius de imperio pag. 360▪ 361.We find even the twelve Apostles contending in Christs own presence for the Primacy, till he is put sharp…ly to rebuke them, and tell them the Necessity of humility, and teach them better the state of his Kingdom. Paul met with many that contended against him for a preheminence, and put him upon all those defences of the dignity of his Apostleship… which we find him using. Peter found it necessary to warn the Pastors p. 64that they should not Lord it over Gods Heritage. And Iohn did meet with a Lording Diotrephes, that loved to have the preheminence. While they lay under the Cross, the Bishops were aspiring, and usurping authority over one another; or else Victor of Rome had not presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops for not conforming to his opinion: What abundance of unworthy contentions did the Bishops of the first ages fill the Churches with? and much about superiority, who should be greatest; what should be the priviledges of their several Seas; &c. Their pride no doubt was a great cause of their contention; and those contentions necessitated the interposition of Emperors to reconcile them that could not agree of themselves. If the Emperors called a Council to that end, even the Council it self would fall to pieces, and make all worse, if the Magistrate did not moderate them. Had not Constantine burnt the Nicene Schedules, and done much to maintain an Union among them, the success of that Council might have been such as would have been no great encouragement to succeeding ages to seek for more. What bitter quarrels are there between the most eminent of all the Fathers and Bishops of the Church? between Chrysostom and Epiphanius; Chrysostom and Theophilus Alexandrinus; Hierom and Iohn of Ierusalem; Ierome and Ruffinus; besides his quarrels with Chrysostom and Augustine. I open not the concealed nakedness of the Saints; but mention those publike doleful tragedies which made the Church an amazement to it self, and a scorn to the Heathens that lived about them; witness the well known censure of Ammianus Marcellinus: when so many people shall be murdered at once in contention for a Bishoprick as were at the choice of Damasus; ambition was too predominant. The mentioning of the contentions of those most excellent Bishops, and the first four general Councils, makes Luther break out into so many admiring exclamations, in his Treatise de Conciliis, that ever such men should so ambitiously quarrel about toyes and trifles, and childish things, and that even to the disturbing of all the Churches, and setting the Christian world on a flame. Of the two Churches of Rome and Constantinople he saith, Ita hae …uae Ecclesiae ambitiose r…atae sunt, de re nihili, vanissimis & nugacissimis naeniis, done… …ndem utraque horribiliter vastata & deleta est. pag. 175. This p. 65caused Nazianzen (who complaineth so much himself of the …dium or displeasure of his fellow Bishops) to profess himself to be so affected, that he would avoid all Assemblies of Bishops, because he had never seen a good end of any Synod, and which did not rather increase the evils than remove them; and his reason is not as B…llarmine feigneth, only because they were all Arrians; but because, The desire of contending, and of preheminency or principality, and their emulation, did overcome reason, (which Luther mentioning ib. pag. 225. wondereth that for these words he was not excommunicated as an arrant heretick) Who knoweth not, that knoweth any thing of Church history, how the Church hath been torn in pieces in all ages except the first, by the dissention of the Bishops, till the Pope drew part of them to unite in him? And who knoweth not, that knoweth any thing of the present state of the Christian world, into how many fractions it is broken at this day, and almost all through the Division of these Guides? If therefore we shall imagine that the Pastors of the Church could not be tainted with so much ambition as to inlarge their own Diocesses, and gather the new Chuches under themselves, when they should have formed them into the same order and freedom as were the first, we shall shut our eyes against the most full experience of the Christian world▪ especially when the change was made by degrees.

2. The second Reason that perswadeth me to stick to the sole practised Government in Scripture times,Reason 2. and not to alter it upon pretended Intentions of the Apostles, is this: Nothing that intimateth temerity, or mutability, is to be charged upon the Holy Ghost but to institute one frame or species of Church-government for Scripture times, and to change it presently into another species to all succeeding ages, doth intimate temerity or mutability; or at least, is so like it, that therefore without good proof it is not to be charged on the Holy Ghost. That they are two distinct species of Government is plain: one is the Government of a Particular Congregation, without any other Congregations or Elders under that Government: the other is the Governing of many Elders and Churches by one supereminent Prelate: and if these be not two differing sorts of Government, then let the Prelates confess that the Government which we would continue p. 66is of the same sort with theirs: for ours is of the first sort; and if theirs be of the same, we are both agreed.

And that the Lord Jesus Christ should settle one kind of Government de facto during Scripture time, and change it for ever after, is most improbable: 1. Because it intimateth levity, or mutability in a Law-giver, so suddenly to change his Laws and form of Government; either something that he is supposed not to have foreseen, or some imperfection is intimated as the cause. Or if they say, that it was the change of the state of the body Governed, viz. the Church: I answer, 2. There was no change of the state of the Church to necessitate a change of the kind of Officers and Government: for (as I shall shew anon) there was need of more Elders then one in Scripture times▪ and the increase of the Church might require an increase of Officers for Number, but not for Kind. There was as much need of assisting Presbyters, as of Deacons. I may well conclude therefore, that he that will affirm a Change of the Government so suddenly, must be sure to prove it; and the rather, because this is the Bishops own great and most considerable Argument on the other side, when they p…ead that the Apostles themselves were Rulers of Presbyters, therefore Rulers over Presbyters (and many Churches) should continue as Gods Ordinance: many on the other side answer them, (though so do not I) that this Ordinance was temporary, during the Apostles times, who had no Successors in Gove…nment: to wh…ch the Prelates reply, that its not …agi…ab…e that Christ should settle one sort of Church-Governme…t for the first age, and another ever after, abolishing that first so soon: and tha… they who affirm this, must prove it. For my part, I am overcome by this Argument, to allow all that the Apostolical pattern can prove, laying aside that which depended on their extraordinary gifts and priviledges; but then I see no reason but they should acknowled…e the …o…ce of their own Medi…m: and conclude its not im…ginable that, if God set…led …ixed Bishops only over particular Congregations, without any such order as subject Pre…byters, in the first age, he should change this, and set up subject Presbyters and many Churches under one man for ever after.

If they say, that this is not a change of the spe…ies, but a growing up of the Church from Infancy to Maturity: I answer▪ p. 67It is a plain change of the Species of Government, when one Congregation is turned into Many, and when a new order of Officers, viz. subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Jurisdiction, is introduced, and the Bishops made Governours of Pastors, that before were but Governours of the People, this is plainly a new Species. Else I say again, let them not blame us for being against the right Species.

3. The third Rea…on is this:Reason 3. They that affirm a change (not of the Governours, but also) of the very nature or kind of a particular Governed or Political Church, from what it was in Scripture times, do affirm a thing so improbable▪ as is … without very clear proof to be credited. But such are they that affirm that Congregational Bishops were turned to Diocesan: therefore, &c.

The Church that was the object of the Government of a fixed Bishop in Scripture times, was, [A competent Number of persons in Covenant with Christ (or of Christians) co-habiting, A particular Church, what.by the app…intment of Christ and their mutual expressed consent, united (or associated) under Christs Ministerial Teachers and Guides for the right worshipping of God in publick and the Edification of the Body in Knowledge and Holiness, and the maintaining of obedience to Christ among them▪ for the strength, beauty and safety of the whole and each part, and thereby the Pleasing and Glorifying God the Redeemer, and Creator,] I… would be too long, rather then difficult to stand to prove all the parts of this Definition, of the first particular Political Church. That part which most concerneth our present purpose, is the Ends, which in Relations must enter the Definition: which in one word is, The Communion of Saints personally, as Associated Churches consisting of many particular Churches, are for the Communion of Saints by officers and Delegates. And therefore this communion of Saints is put in our Creed, next to the Catholick Church, as the end of the combination. I shall have occasion to prove this by particular Texts of Scripture anon. A Diocesan Church is not capable of these Ends. What personal communion can they have that know not nor see not one aonther? that live not together, nor worship God together? There is no more personal communion of Saints among most of the people of this Diocess, then is between us and the inhabitants of France or Germany: For we know not so much as the names or faces of each other, nor ever come together to p. 68any holy uses. So that to turn a Congregation into a Diocesan Church, is to change the very subject of Government.

Obj. This is meer independency, to make a single Congregation, the subject of the Government. Answ. 1. I am not deterred from any truth by Names. I have formerly said, that its my opinion that the truth about Church-Government, is parcelled out into the hands of each party, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independents, and Erastian: And in this point in Question the Independents are most right. Yet I do dot affirm (nor I think they) that this one Congregation may not accidentally be necessitated to meet in several places at once, either in case of persecution, or the age and weakness of some members, or the smalness of the room: But I say only that the Church should contain no more then can hold communion when they have opportunity of place and liberty; and should not have either several settled Societies or Congregations, nor more in one such Society then may consist with the Ends. And that these Assemblies are bound to Associate with other Assemblies, and hold communion with them by the mediation of their Officers; this, as I make no doubt of, so I think the Congregational will confess. And whereas the common evasion is by distinguishing between a Worshipping Church and a Governed Chuch, I desire them to give us any Scripture proof that a Worshipping Church and a Governed Church were not all one, supposing that we speak of a settled society or combination. I find no such distinction of Churches in Scripture. A family I know may perform some worship, and accordingly have some Government: And an occasional meeting of Christians without any Minister, may perform some Worship without Government among them. But where was there ever a Society that ordinarily assembled for publick worship, such as was performed by the Churches on the Lords dayes, and held communion ordinarily in worship, and yet had not a Governing Pastor of their own? Without a Presbyter they could have no Sacraments and other publike Worship▪ And where was there ever a Presbyter that was not a Chu…ch Governour? Certainly if subject Presbyters were not till after Scripture times, nor any settled Worshipping Church without a Presbyter (unless the people preached and administred the Sacraments,) then there could be no Worshipping Church that had not their own p. 69proper Governour, nor any such Governour (fixed) that had more Churches then one.

Reason 4. The contrary opinion feigneth the Apostles to have allotted to each Bishop a space of ground for his Diocess, Reason 4.and to have measured Churches by such spaces, and not by the number of souls: But this is unproved, & absurd. 1. Unproved, For there is no place in Scripture that giveth the Bishop charge of all that space of ground, or of all the Christians that shall be in that space during his time. Indeed they placed a Bishop in each City, when there was but a Church in each City: But they never said▪ there shall be but one Church in a City, or but one Bishop in a City; much less in all the Country region. 2. And its absurd: For its the number of souls that a Church must be measured by, and not a space of ground, (so they do but co-habite:) For if in the same space of Ground, there should be twenty or an hundred times as many Christians, it would make the number so great as would be uncapable of personal communion, and of obtaining Church Ends. If a Schoolmaster have a School in the chief City or Town of this County, and there come as many from many miles compass as one School can hold, and there be no more there: so long all that space may belong to his School, not for the space sake, but the number of Schollars: For if there be afterward an hundred times as many in that space to be taught, they must set up more Schools, and it were no wise part in the old Schoolmaster to maintain that all that Country pertaine…h to his School, because that it was so when there were fewer. So that to measure our the matter of Churches by space of ground, and not by number of souls, is plainly against the Reason of the Relation.

Reason 5.Reason 5. The opposed opinion doth imply that God more regardeth Cities then Country Villages, or that Churches are to be measured according to the number and greatness of Cities rather then according to the number of souls. For they suppose that every City should have a Bishop if there be but twenty, or fourty, or an hundred Christians in it: but if there be five hund…ed Country Parishes, that have some of them many thousand souls in them, these shall have no Bishops of their own, but be all ruled by the Bishop of the City. Now how unreasonable this is, methinks should not be hard to discern. For, 1. What is a p. 70City to God any more then a Village, that for it he should make so partial an institution? Doth he regard Rome any more then Eugubium, or Alexandria more then Tanis, for their worldly splendor or priviledges? No doubtless it is for the multitude of inhabitants. And if so, its manifest that an equal number of inhabitants elsewhere, should have the same kind of Government. 2. Is it probable that God would have twenty thousand or an hundred thousand people in a Diocess (and in some a Million) to have but one Church-Ruler, and yet would have every small congregation in a City to have one, though there be none else under him? What proportion is there in this way of Government, that an hundred or fifty men shall have as many Governours as a Million? as if ten thousand or an hundred thousand Schollars ou… of a City shall have no more Rulers, then an hundred in a …; and all because one part are in a City, and the other not? Or a Physitian shall have but an hundred Patients to look to in a City, and if there be a Million in that City and Country, he shall also upon pain of Gods everlasting wrath undertake the care of them all? Let them that strive for such a charge look to it; I profess I admire at them, what they think 1. Of the needs of men souls: 2. Of the terrours of Gods wrath. 3. And of their own sufficiency for such a work? Were it my case, if I know my own he…rt at all▪ I should fear that this were but to strive to damn thousands, and to be damned with them, by undertaking on that penalty to be their Physitian (under Christ) when I am sure I cannot look to the hundreth man of them, and I had rather strive to be a gally-slave to the Turks, or to be preferred to rid Cha…els, or the basest office all my dayes.

Reason 6. According to the oppos…d opinion, it is in the power of a King to make Bishops to be either Congregational or Diocesan, Reason 6.to make a Bish…p to ha…e a Million of souls or a whole Nation in charge, or to have but a… few. For if a King will but dissolve the Priviledge and title, and make that no City wh…ch was a City, though he diminish not the number of souls; and if he will do thus by all the Cities, save one in his dominion, then must there be but one Bishop in his dominion. And if he will but make every countrey Town, that hath four or five hundred or a thousand inhabitants to be incorporate, and honour it with the title and priviledges of a City, th…n shall they have a Bishop. Moreover, thus every Prince may de jure banish Episcopacy out of p. 71his Dominions, without diminishing the number of Christians, if he do but defranchise the Cities, and be of the mind as I have heard some men have been, that Cities are against the Princes interest, by strengthening the people, and advantaging them to rebellions. Also if there be any Indian Nations so barbarous as to have no Cities, though they were converted, yet must they have no Bishops: Also it would be in the Princes power de jure to depose any of those Bishops that the Ap…stles or their Successors are supposed to set up: For the R…man Emperour might have proclaimed Antioch, Alexandria, or any of the rest to be no Cities, and then they must have no longer have had any Bishops. And what Bish…ps shall Antioch have at this day?

Now how absurd all this is, I need not manifest: that whole Contre…e… sh…ll have no Government for want of …, that Kings shall so alter Church Officers at their ple…sure …hen they intend it not, meerly by altering the Civil Priviledg…s of their people; that a King may make one Diocess to become an hundred, and an hundred become one, by such means. And yet all this doth unden…ably follow, if the Law be that every City and only every City shall be a Bishops Sea where there are Christians to be governed.

Reason 7. There is no sufficient Reason given, R…ason 7.why subject P…s…byters should not have been set up in the Scripture times▪ as well as after, if it had been the Apostles intent that such should be instituted. The Necessity pretended, was no necessi…y, and the Nonnecessity is but pre…ended. First it is pre…e…ed that there were so few fit men that there was a Necessity of forb…arance. But this is not so: For, 1. The Church had larger gifts of the Spirit then, then now, and therefore proportionable to the flocks they might have had competent men, then as well as now. 2. They had men enough to make Deacons of, even s…ven in a …: And who will believe then that they could find none to make such Elders of? Was not Stephen or Philip sufficiently qualified to have been a subject Elder? 3. They had many that prophesied, and interpreted, and spake with tongues in one Assembly, as appears, 1 Cor. 14. And therefore its man…f…st that there were enough to have made Ruled Elders: At least sure the Church at Ierusalem, where there were so many thousands, p. 72would have afforded them one such, if it had been requisite.

But secondly, its pretended not to have been Necessary, because of the fewness of the people. But I answer, 1. The same persons say that in Ignatius his time all Churches had such Presbyters: And its manifest that many Churches in the Scripture times, were more populous or large, then many or most beside them were in Ignatius time. 2. Did the numerous Church at Ierusalem ordinarily meet on the Lords dayes for holy communion, or not? If they did, then it was but a Church of one Congregation (which is by most denyed) If not, then the several Assemblies must have several Presbyters (for several Bishops they will not hear of,) Doubtless they did not celebrate the holy communion of the Church and Ordinances of God, by meer Laymen alone. 3. What man that knows the burden of Pastoral Oversight, can say that such Churches of thousands, as Ierusalem, Rome, Alexandria, &c. had need of no more than one man, to Teach them, and do all the Pastoral work? and so that assisting Ruled Presbyters were then needless? If they were needless to such numerous Churches then; let us even take them for needless still, and set up no new orders which were not seen in Scripture times.

Reas. 8. The Apostles left it not to the Beshops whom they established to make new Church-offices and orders quoad speciem,Reason 8. but only to ordain men to succeed others in the offices and orders that themselves had (by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) appointed, or else Christ before them. A Bishop might make a Bishop or a Deacon perhaps, because these were quoad speciem made before, and they were but to put others into the places before appointed. But if there were no such creature in Scripture times as a subject Presbyter, that had no power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, then if the Bishops afterward should make such, they must make a new office, as well as a new officer. So that either this new Presbyter is of the institution of Christ by his Apostles, or of Episcopal humane institution. If the former, and yet not institututed in Scripture times, then Scripture is not the sufficient rule and discoverer of Divine Institutions and Church Ordinances: and if we once forsake that Rule, we know not where to fix, but must wander in that Romane uncertainty. If the latter, then we p. 73must expect some better proof then hitherto we have seen, of the Episcopall (or any humane) power to make new Offices in the Church of Christ, and that of universal and standing necessity. Till then we shall think they ought to have made but such Presbyters as themselves.

Reason 9.Reason 9. If there be not so much as the name of a Ruled Presbyter without power of Ordination, or Iurisdiction, in all the Scripture, much less then is there any description of his Office, or any Directions for his ordination, or the qualifications prerequisit in him, and the performance of his office when he is in it: And if there be no such Directory concerning Presbyters, then was it not the Apostles intent that ever any such should be ordained. The reason of the consequence is, 1. Because the Scripture was written not only for that age then in being, but for the Church of all ages to the end of the world: And therefore it must be a sufficient directory for all. The second Epistle to Timothy was written but a little before Pauls death. Surely if the Churches in Ignatius daies were all in need of Presbyters under Bishops, Paul might well have seen some need in his time, or have foreseen the need that was so neer, and so have given directions for that office. 2. And the rather is this consequence firm, because Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus doth give such full and punctual Directions concerning the other Church-officers, not only the Bishops, but also the Deacons, describing their prerequisite qualifications, their office, and directing for their Ordination, and conversation: Yea he condescendeth to give such large Directions concerning Widows themselves, that were serviceable to the Church. Now is it probable that a perfect Directory written for the Church to the worlds End, & largely describing the qualifications and office of Deacons, which is the inferiour, would not give one word of direction concerning subject Presbyters without power of Ordination or Rule, if any such had been then intended for the …hurch? No nor once so much as name them? I dare not accuse Pauls Epistles written to that very purpose, and the whole Scripture, so much of insufficiency, as to think they wholly omit a necessary office, and so exactly mention the inferiour and commonly less necessary, as they do.

Reason 10.Reason 10. The new Episcopal Divines do yield that all the p. 74texts in Timothy, Titus, and the rest of the New Testament, that mentitn Gospel Bishops or Presbyters, do mean only such as have power of Ordination and Iurisdiction, without the concurrence of any superiour Bishop. The common Inerpretation of the Fathers, and the old Episcopal Divines of all ages, of most or many of those texts, is, that they speak of the office of such as now are called Presbyters. Lay both together, and if one of them be not mistaken, they afford us this conclusion, that the Presbyters that now are, have by these texts of Scripture, the power of Ordination and Iurisdiction without the concurrence of others. And if so, then was it never the Apostles intent, to leave it to the Bishops to ordain a sort of Presbyters of another order, that should have no such power of Ordination or Jurisdiction, without the Bishops Negative.

Reason 11. We find in Church History that it was first in some few great Cities (especially Rome and Alexandria) that a Bishop ruled many settled worshipping Congregations with their Presbyters;Reason 11. when no such thing at that time can be proved by other Churches: therefore we may well conceive that it was no Ordinance of the Apostles, but was occasioned afterwards, by the multiplying of Christians in the same compass of ground where the old Church did inhabite; and the adjacent parts, together with the humane frailty of the Bishops, who gathered as many as they could under their own Government when they should have erected new Churches as free as their own.

Reason 12. If the Description of the Bishops settled in the New Testament, Reason 12.and the work affixed to them, be such as cannot agree to our Diocesan Bishops▪ but to the Pastors of a single Church, then was it never the mind of the Holy Ghost that those Bishops should degenerate afterwards into Diocesan Bishops: But the Antecedent is certain? therefore so is the Consequent.

I here still suppose with Learned Dr. H Annot. in Act. 11. & passim, that the name Presbyter in Scripture signifieth a Bishop, there being no Evidence that in Scripture time any of that Second Order, (viz. subject Presbyters) were then instituted. Though I am far from thinking that there was but one of these Bishops in a Church at least as to many Churches. Now as we are agreed de facto that it was but a single Church that then was under a Bishop and not many such Churches (for that follows p. 75undenyably upon the denying of the existence of subject Presbyters; seeing no such Churches can be, nor the worshipping Assemblies held without a Bishop or Presbyter;) so that it was the mind of the Apostles that it should so continue, is proveed by the Desciption and work of those Scripture Bishops.

Argument 1. From Acts 20.28, 29, 31. The Bishops instituted and fixed by the Holy Ghost were and are to take heed to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseeers, to feed the Church of God, and to watch against Wolves, and to warn every one night and day] But this cannot be done by Diocesan Bishops, nor any that have more then one Church: Therefore Diocesan Bishops are not the Bishops that the Holy Ghost hath so fixed and instituted, such as Paul describeth were to continue: and thats such as can do that work.

Argument 2. The Bishops that the Holy-Ghost settled and would have continue, (and had the Power of Ordination given them,) were such as were to be Ordained in every City and every Church, Acts 14.23. Tit. 1.3, 4, 5. See Dr. Hammonds Annotat. But it is not Diocesan Bishops that are such (for they are over many Churches and Cities) therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that were settled by the Holy Ghost, nor meant in those texts.

Ar. 3. The Bishops which were instituted by the Holy Ghost, and are meant in Scripture, were to watch for their peoples souls as those that must give account, Ruling over them, and to be obeyed by all, and speaking to them the word of God, Heb. 13.7, 17, 24. But this cannot be done by a Bishop to a whole Diocess, (nor will they be willing of such an account if they be wise:) therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops that are meant in Scripture.

Argument 4. The Bishops settled for continuance in Scripture were such as all the people were to know as labouring among them, and over them in the Lord, and admonishing them, and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work sake, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. But this cannot be meant of our Diocesan Bishop, (whom the hundreth part of the flock shall never see, hear, nor be admonished by:) therefore it is not such that were settled for continuance in the Church.

Argument 5. The Bishops settled by the Holy Ghost, must by any that are sick be sent for, to pray over them. But this a Diocesan p. 76Bishop cannot do, to the hundreth or thousandth person in some places; therefore it is not Diocesan Bishops (but the Bishops of a single Church that are capable of these works that are meant by the Holy Ghost, to continue in the Church, and consequently to whom the power of Ordaining was committed. If any question whether the Texts alleadged do speak of subject-Presbyters, or Bishops, I refer them to the foresaid Reverend Doctor, with whom I am agreed, that there were no subject-Presbyters instituted in Scripture times.

Reason 13. It was not one or two or all Churches for a year or two or more in their meer fieri or infancy before they were well formed, Reason. 13.that consisted only of one settled worshipping Assembly and its guides; See Grotius de …mperio. p. 351. Proving that the Christian Church-Government was not fitted to that of the Temple, but that of the Synagogues, and endeavouring to prove Bishops, he doth it thence, that they are such as the foreign. Let them then hold to such a Congregational Episcopacy.but it was the formed and stablished state of the particular Churches.

To prove this I shall briefly do these three things. 1. I shall shew it in respect to the Jewish Synagogues. 2. As to the Churches in the Apostles dayes after many years growth; even of every Church thats mentioned in the New Testament, as a particular Political Church. 3. As to some of the Churches after the Apostles dayes, mentioned by the ancients.

1. It is apparent that the Jews Synagogues were particular Congregational Churches, having each one their several Rulers, and as many Learned men suppose, they had an Ecclesiastical Judicature of Elders, belonging to each of them, where fit men could be found, and this distinct from the Civil Judicature: Or as others think, they had a Sanhedrim which had power to judge in both Causes, and one of these was in every City, that is, in Places of Cohabitation. For in every City of Israel which had one hundred and twenty families (or free persons say others) they placed the Sanhedrim of twenty three. And in every City which had not one hundred and twenty men in it, they set the smallest Judicature of three Judges, so be it there were but two wise men among them, fit to teach the Law and resolve doubts. See A…nsworth on Numb. 11.16. citing Talmud. Bab. & Maimonides, more at large. And doubtless many of our Country Villages, and almost all our Parishes have more then 120. and every Country Village may come in, in the lesser number below 120. which are to have three Elders: and that say some, was every place where were ten men. And that these were under the great Sanhedrim at Ierusalem, is nothing to p. 77the matter; For so we confess that such particular Churches as we mention, have some such General officers over them de jure, as the Apostolical men were in the Primitive Church; but not that any of these Synagogues were under other Synagogues; though one were in a great City, and the other but in a small Town. And that these Synagogues were of Divine institution, is plain in divers texts, particularly in Lev. 23.1, 2, 3. where a convocation of holiness, or a holy Convocation is commanded to be on every Sabboth in all their dwellings, which most plainly could be neither the meeting at Ierusalem at the Temple, nor yet in single families: and therefore it is not to much purpose that many trouble themselves to conjecture when Synagogues began, and some imagine it was about the Captivity: For as their controversie can be but about the form of the meeting place, or the name, so its certain that some place there must be for such meetings; and that the meetings themselves were in the Law commanded by God: and that not to be tumultuary confused ungoverned Assemblies. If the scourging in the Synagogues prove not this power (which is much disputed,) Mat. 10.17. and 23.34. Luke 6.22. and 12.11. and 21.12. Acts 22.19. and 26 11. Yet at least, excluding men their Synagogue Communion, may Iohn 9.22, 34. and 12.42. and 16.2. But because this argument leads us into many Controversies about the Jewish customes, lest it obscure the truth by occasion in quarrels, I shall pass it by.

2. I find no particular Political Church in the New Testament, consisting of several Congregations, ordinarily meeting for communion in Gods Worship; (unless as the forementioned accidents might hinder the meeting of one Congregation in one place,) nor having half so many members as some of our Parishes.

When there is mention made of a Country, as Iudea, Galile, Samaria, Galatia, the word [Churches] in the plural number is used, Gal. 1.2. Acts 15.41. and 9.31. 2 Cor. 8.1. But they'l say, These were only in Cities: But further consid…r, there is express mention of the Church at Cenchrea, which was no City; and they that say that this was a Parish subject to Corinth ▪ give us but their words for it, without any proof that ever I could see: and so they may as well determine the whole p. 78cause by bare affirmation, and prevent disputes. The Apostle intimateth no such distinction, Rom. 16.1. 1 Cor. 11.18, 20, 22.16. [When ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be divisions among you. — When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords Supper.] — 16. [We have no such Custome, nor the Churches of God] Here the Church of Corinth is said to come together into one place: And for them that say, This is per partes, and so that one place is many to the whole; I answer, the Apostle saith not to a part, but to the whole Church, that they come together in one place, and therefore the plain obvious sence must stand, till it be disproved. And withall he calls the Christian Assemblies in the plural number [Churches:] for its plain that it is of Assembly Customes that he there speaks. So 1 Cor. 14. there is plainly expressed that it was a particular Assembly that was called the Church, and that this Assembly had it in many Prophets, Interpreters, & others that might speak. Verse 4. [He that Prophesieth, Edifieth the Church] that is, Only that Congregation that heard. And Verse 5. [Except he interpret that the Church may receive Edifying] And Verse 12. [Seek that ye may excell to the Edifying of the Church.] Verse 19. [In the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also. —] And Verse 23. [If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues—] One would think this is as plain as can be spoken, to assure us that the whole Churches then were such as might, and usually did come together for holy communion into one place. So Verse 28. [If there be no Interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church:] And which is more, lest you think that this was some one small Church that Paul speaks of, he denominateth all other particular Congregations, even Ordered Governed Congregations, [Churches] too. Verse 33. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints.] So that all the Congregations for Christian Worship, are called, All the Churches of the Saints. And it seems all as well as this, so stored with Prophets and gifted men that they need not take up with one Bishop only for want of matter to have made subject Elders of: And Verse 34. [Let your women keep silence in the Church] for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the Church.] So that so many Assemblies, so many Churches.

p. 79Obj. But it seems there were among the Corinthians more then one Congregation by the plural [Churches.] Answ. 1. Many particular seasons of Assembling, may be called many Assemblies or Churches, though the peoole be the same. 2. The Epistle was a Directory to other Churches, though first written to the Corinthians. 3. Those that say, it was to Corinth, and other City-Churches that Paul wrote, need no further answer: It seems then each City had but a Congregation, if that were so. 4 Cenchrea was a Church neer to Corinth, to whom Paul might well know his Epistle would be communicated: and more such there might be as well as that, and yet all be entire free Churches.

So in Col. 4.16. [And when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea.] This Church was such as an Epistle might be read in, which doubtless was an Assembly. The whole matter seems plain in the case of the famous Church at Antioch, Acts 11.26. A whole year they assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people] Here is mention but of One Assembly, which is called the Church; where the people, it seems, were taught. And its plain that there were many Elders in this one Church; for Acts 13.1. it said [There were in the Church that was at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers] And five of them are named, who are said to Minister there to the Lord ▪ And though I do not conclude that they were all the fixed Elders of that particular Church, yet while they were there they had no less power then if they had been such. In the third Epistle of Iohn, where there is oft mention of that particular Church, it appeareth Verse 6. that it was such a Church as before which the …rethren and strangers could bear witness of Gaius Charity: And its most probable that was one Assembly; but utterly improbable that they travailed from Congregation to Congregation to bear this witness. And Vers. 9, 10. it was such a Church as Iohn wrote an Epistle to, and which Diotrephes cast men out of: which is most likely to be a Congregation, which might at once hear that Epistle, and out of which Diotrephes mig…t …asilier reject strangers, and reject the Apostles letters, then out of many such Congregations, Gal. 1.22. When Paul saith, he was Vnknown by face to the Churches of Iudea, it is most likely that they were Churches which were p. 80capable of seeing and knowing his face not only by parts, but as Churches. And its likely those Churches that praised Luke, and sent him with Paul as their chosen messenger, were such as could meet to choose him, and not such as our Diocesses are, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Paul gives order both to the Church of Corinth, and the Churches of Galatia, that upon the Lords day at the Assembly (as it is ordinarily expounded) they should give in their part for the relief of the Churches of Iudea. So that it seems most likely that he makes [Churches] and such Assemblies to be all one, Acts 14.23. They ordained them Elders, Church by Church, or in every Church. Here it is confessed by those we plead against, that Elders signifie not any subject Elders having no power of Ordination or Government: And to say that by Elders in each Church is meant only one Elder in each Church, is to forsake the letter of the text without any proved Necessity: We suppose it therefore safer to believe according to the first sence of the words, that it was Elders in every Church, that is, more then one in every Church that were ordained. And what sort of Churches these were, appears in the following verses, where even of the famous Church of Antioch its said, Verse 27. when they were come, and had gathered the Church together, they rehearsed all that God had done by them— So that its plain that this Church was a Congregation to whom they might make such rehearsal. And Chap. 15.3. Its said that they were brought on their way by the Church: And if it be not meant of all, but a part of the Church, yet it intimateth what is aforesaid.

To conclude, though many of these texts may be thought to speak doubtfully, yet consider 1. That some do most certainly declare that it was particular stated Assemblies that were then called Churches, even Governed Churches, having their Officers present. 2. That there is no certain proof of any one particular Political Church that consisted of many such stated Assemblies. 3. That therefore the Texts that will bear an exposition either way, must be expounded by the certain, and not by the uncertain texts; so that I may argue thus.

If in all the New Testament, the word [Church] do often signifie stated worshipping single Assemblies, and often is used so as may admit that interpretation; and is never once used certainly to signifie many particular stated worshipping Assemblies ruled by p. 81one fixed Bishop, then we have any just cause to suppose that the particular Political Churches in Scripture times consisted but of one such stated Congregation. But the Antecedent is true, therefore so is the Consequent.

As for the New Episcopal Divines that say There were no subject Presby…ers in Scripture times: I suppose according to their principles, they w…ll grant me all this, as is aforesaid And for others, the Instances that they bring to the contrary should be briefly considered. The great swaying Instance of all (which did sometime prevail with me to be my self of another mind) is the Numerous Church at Ierusalem: Of which its said that three thousand were converted at once, and five thousand at another time, and the word mightily grew and prevailed, and daily such were added to the Church as should be saved: to wh…ch some add the mention of the Miriades of believing Jews yet zealous of the Law, which the brethren mentioned to Paul, Acts 21.20. And the instance of Ephesus and Rome come next. But I remember how largely this business is debated between the late Assembly at Westminster and the Dissenting Brethren, that I think it unmeet to interpose in it any further then to annex these few considerations following.

1. That all that is said on that side, doth not prove certainly that that one Church at Ierusalem was the eighth part so big as Giles Cripple-gate Parish, or the fifth part so big as Stepney or Sepulchres, nor neer so big as Plimoth or some other Country Parishes. 2. That it is past doubt that the magnitude of that Body of Believers then at Ierusalem, was partly acccidental, and the members cannot at all be proved settled cohabitants, nor that Church as in its first unordered Mass be the proved to be the fittest pattern for imitation.Heb. 13.17. proveth that Churches should be no bigger then that the Ruler may watch for all their souls as one that must give account of all. On which text Dr. Ier. Taylor in his late Book of Repentance, Pref. saith [I am sure we cannot give account of souls of which we have no Notice] And so presseth to personal conduct. Let them then be Bishops of no bigger a Diocess then they can take such personal notice and conduct of, lest they judge themselves.Heb 13:17 3. That Christ hath not punctually determined how many members shall be in a particular Church. 4. But the ends (being personal holy communion) are the Rule by which humane prudence must determine it. 5. That its fitter one Church instance give way to many in point of our imitation, then of many to that one, caeteris paribus. 6. That its known among us that p. 82more then are proved to have been members of that Church, may hear one man preach at the same time. I have none of the loudest voices, and yet when I have preached to a Congregation judged by judicious men to be at least ten thousand, those farthest off said they could well hear (as I was certainly informed.) 7. That its certain by many passages historicall in …cripture that men did then speak to greater multitudes, and were heard at far greater distance then now they can orderly be: which I conjecture was because their voices were louder, as in most dryer bodies (which dryer Countreys have) is commonly seen, when moister bodies have of…er hoarser voices; and other reasons might concur. 8. That it is confessed or yielded that the Church at Ierusalem might all hear at once, though not all receive the Lords Supper together. And if so, then they were no more then might at once have personal communion in some holy Ordinances, and that the Teachers might at once make known their minds to. 9. And then the reason of receiving the Supper in several places seems to be but because they had not a room so fit to receive all in, as to hear in. And so we have now in many Parishes Assemblies subordinate to the chief Assembly: For divers families at once may meet at one house, and divers at another, for repetition, prayer or other duties; and some may be at Chappels of ease that cannot come to the full assembly. 10▪ They that are for Presby…erial Churches of many Congregations, do not say, that There must be many, to make the first political Church, but only that, There may be many? If then there be no Necessit… of it, 1. Should it not be forborn when it appeare…h to prudence most inconvenient (as frequently it will no doubt.) 2. And when it is Necessary for a peaceable Accommodation, be…ause others think it a sin, should not a May be give place to a Must not be, in pacificatory consultations, caeteris paribus? 11. It is granted also by them, that the Pastors of one Congregation have not a charge of Governing other neighbour Congregation in Consistory, (one rather then another, which they g…vern not, though perhaps as neer them) but b… con…ent. And therefore as there is but a licet, not an oportet ▪ of such consent pleaded for: so while no such consent is given, we have no such ch…ge of Governing neighbour Congregations; and none may force us to such consent. 12. And Lastly, that if a si…gle Congregation p. 83with it own Officer, or Officers, be not a true particular Political Church; then our ordinary Parish assemblies are none; and where the Presbyterian Government is not set up (which is up but in few places of England) it would then follow that we have no true Political Churches left among us (& perhaps never had:) which I meet yet with few so uncharitable as to affirm, except the Papists and the Separatists and a few of the new sort of Episcopal Divines, who think we have no Churches for want of …ishops, (except where Bishops yet are retained and acknowleged.)

For my part I would not lay too great a stress upon any forms or modes which may be altered or diversified. Let the Church have but such a Number of souls as may be consistent with the ends and so the essence of a particular Church, that they may held personal holy communion, and then I will not quarrel about the name of one or two Congregations, nor whether they must needs all meet together for all ordinances, nor the like. Yea I think a full number (so they be not so full or distant, as to be uncap…ble of that communion) are desireable, for the strength and beauty of the Church; and too smal Churches, if it may be, to be avoided. So that all the premises being considered, out difference appears to be but small in these matters between the Congregational and Presbyterian way, among them that are moderate.

I shall not presume more particularly to enter into that debate, which hath been so far proceeded in already by such Reverend men, but shall return to the rest of the task before promised against the Diocesan Churches as the supposed subject of the Bishops Government.

As for Scripture times and the next succeeding together, I shall before I look into other testimonies, propound these two Arguments. 1. From the Bishops office, which was before mentioned. If the office of a Bishop in those times, was to do so much work as could not be done by him for a Church any greater than our Parishes, then were the Churches of those times no greater then our Parishes: But the Antecedent is true; therefore so is the consequent. The works are before mentioned, Preaching, Praying, administring the Lords Supper, visiting the sick, reducing hereticks, reproving, censuring, absolving: to which they quickly added too much more of their p. 84own. The impossibility of a faithful performance of this to more is so undenyable, that I cannot suppose any other answer but this that they might ordain Presbyters to assist them in the work, and so do much of it by others. But 1. I before desired to see it proved by what authority they might do this. 2. Their office and work are so inseparable that they cannot depute others to do their work (their proper work) without deputing them also to their office. For what is an office but the state of one Obliged and Authorized to do such or such a work? A Presbyter may not authorize another to preach as the Teacher of a Congregation, and to administer the Sacraments, without making him a Presbyter also: Nor can a Bishop authorize any to do the work of a Bishop in whole or by halves without making him a Presbyter or half a Bishop. And he is not authorized either to make new officers in the Church, or to do his work by deputies or substitutes.

2. I argue also from the Identity of that Church to wh…ch the Bishops and Deacons were appointed for ministration. It was not a Church of many stated Congregations, or any larger than our Parishes for number of souls that the Deacons were made Ministers to: therefore it was no other or bigger which the Bishops were set ove…. The consequence is good: because where ever Deacons are mentioned in Scripture or any Writer that I remember neer to Scripture times, they are still mentioned with the Bishops or Presbyters as Ministers to the same Church with them, as is apparent b…th in the seven chosen for the Church at Ierusalem, and in Phil. 1.1, 2. and in the Direction of Paul to Timothy for ordaining them. And the Antecedent is proved from the nature of their work: For they being to attend on the tables at the Love feasts and the Lords Supper, and to look to the poor, they could not do this for any greater number of people then we mention; Whether they had those feasts in one house or many at once, I determine not; but for the number of people, it was as much as a Deacon could do at the utmost to attend a thousand people.

I shall proceed a little further towards the times next following; and first I shall take in my way the confession of one or two learned men that are for Prelacy.

Grotius in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 5.17. saith [Sed notandum p. 85est in una Vrbe magna sicut plures Synagogas, See the same thing proved at large by Grotius de Imperio page 355, 356, 357▪ Yet I think as Bloudell that he mistook Epiphanius de Alex. Eccl.ita & plures fuisse Ecclesias, id est, conventus Christianorum. Et cui que Ecclesiae fuisse suum praesidem, qui populum alloqueretur, & Presbyteros ordinaret. Alexandriae tantum eum fuisse morem, ut unus esset in tota urbe praeses qui ad docendum Presbyteros per urbem distribueret, docet nos Sozomenus 1.14. & Epiphanius, ubi de Ario agit, dicit que Alexandriae nunquam duos fuisse foreign voce …a sumpta foreign, ita ut significat jus illud quod habebat foreign.] So that Grotius affirmeth that Bishops had not then so much as all the converted persons of a great City under their care, but the Churches and Assemblies were the same, and each Assembly had a Prelate, and in the great Cities there were many of these Churches and Prelates, and that only the City of Alexandria had the custom of having but one such Bishop in the whole City.

2. Those learned men also must grant this cause who maintain that Peter and Paul were both of them Bishops of Rome at once, there being two Churches, one of the Circumcision under Peter, the other of the uncircumcision under Paul: and that one of them had Linus, and the other Cletus for his Successor, and that this Church was first united under Clemens: and the like they say of two Churches also at Antioch, and elswhere. If this be so, then there is no Law of God that Bishops should be numbred by Cities, but more Bishops then one may be in one City, and were, even when Christians comparatively were a small part of them.

3. Also Mr. Thorndike and others affirm that it was then the custome for the Bishops and Presbyters to sit in a semicircle, and the Bishop highest in a Chair, and the Deacons to stand behind them: This he gathereth from the Apost. Constitut. Ignatius, Dionysius Arcop. and the Jews Constitutions, (in his Apost. form page 71. and Right of the Church, &c. p. 93.94, 95.) And if this were so, it seems that Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons were all the Officers of one such stated Congregation, and had not many such Congregations under them: For the Bishop could be but in one place at once, and therefore this could be the custome but of one Church in his Diocess, if he had many, whereas it is made the form of the ordinary Christian Assemblies.

The same learned man (Right of Church p. 65.) saith that p. 86[About Saint Cyprians time, and not af…re, he finds men…ion of setled Congregations in the Country] By which it may be well conjectured what a small addition the Bishops had out of the Countreys to their City Chu…ches, and how many Congregations they Governed in the Apostle dayes and after.

He affirmeth also that [the power of the Keyes belongeth to the Presbyters, and that its convertible with the power of celebrating the Eucharist, and thats the Reason Why it belongs to them, page 98. ibid. and that [the Power of the Keys, that is, the whole power of the Church whereof that power is the root and sourse, is common to B…shops and Presbyters] page 128 and that to this all sides agree, page 106. and that by their Grant Deacons and others may preach, but not Rule or administer the Lords Supper: see page 118.123. And he is far from being of their mind that think in Scripture times there was but one single Bishop without other Presbyters in a Diocesan Church: For he supposed many in a Congregation. Page 126 he saith [You see by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14. that one Assembly whereof he speaks there, furnished with a great number of Prophets, whether Presbyters, or over and above them. In the Records of the Church, we find divers times a whole Bench of Presbyters presiding at one Assembly.] And before he had shewed how they sate about the Bishop, and the congregation stood before them. And page 127. he saith that [Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Corinthians to compose a difference among the Presbyters of that Church partly about the celebration of the Eucharist, adviseth them to agree and take their turns in it.] I confess I knnw not whence he hath this (doubtless not in the true approved Epistle of Clement;) but it shews in his judgement, 1. That there were then many Presbyters in the Church of Corinth 2. And that that Church was but one Congregation, or not very many: Else what need the Presbyters take their turns, when they might have done it at once? 3. That the word Presbyter in Clemens signifieth not a Prelate. 4. And it seems this intimateth there was then no Bishop in Corinth: else no question but Clemens would have charged these disagreeing Presbyters to obey their Bishop, and used some of Ignatius language: 5. Nay if Bishops had been then known in the world, is it not likely that he would have charged them to get a Bishop if they had not, to Govern such a disagreeing Presbytery? p. 87And page 129, 130, 131. he shews that [the condemning of Marcion at Rome, and of Noelus at Ephesus, are expresty said by Epiphanius, Haeres. 42. num. 1. & 2. Haeres. 57 num. 1. to have been done and passed by the Act of the Presbyters of those Churches — And which is of later date, the Excommunication of Andronicus in S…nesius 57. Epist. I find reported to have passed in the same sort, and all this agreeable to the practice recorded in Scripture] alledging, 1. Tim. 5.19. Acts 21.18. citing Cyprian Ep. 46. and the Apost. Constit. and saith, Bloudell in this might have spared his exact diligence, it being granted, &c. Mr. Thorndike also tells us pag. 62. of the words of Ninius, that [in Ireland alone, Saint Patrick at the first plantation of Christianity founded three hundred and threescore and five Bishopricks] And can any man believe that all these had Cities or more then one of our Parish Churches, when all Ireland to this day hath not seven Cities? and when all this was done at the first plantation of the Gospel? I think we had this sort of Episcopacy. Even since the Reformation there is reckoned in Ireland but four Arch-bishops, nineteen Bishops. What think you then were 365. Bishops at the first plantation of the Gospel?

To proceed to some further Evidence. 1. Its manifest in Clemens Rom. Epist. to the Corinthians there is mention of no more but two Orders; the one called sometime Bishops, sometime Presters, the other Deacons, page 54.55.57 **Pag. 54, he saith [foreign, &c.] i. e. [Per regiones igitur & U…bes praedicantes, constituerunt primitias eorum, approbantes in Spiritu, Episcopos & Diaco…os …orum qui Credituri erant.] I know that foreign is supposed by some to respect only the place of their preaching, and not of their settling Bishops: But the words according to the more obvious plain sence do seem to extend it to both, and make no such difference at all.and this he saith the Apo…les did as knowing that contention would arise about the name of Episcopacy, and that they so se…led the Ministerial Offices that others should succeed in them when some were deceased. For my part I cannot see the least reason to be of their mind that think Clemens here doth speak only of Prelates or supereminent Bishops, (of which I refer the Reader to Mr. Burtons notes in his English Translat…on of Clemen… ) But suppose it were so: If at that time the Churches had none but single Bishops, it is plain then that they were but single Congregations: For no other Congregations having communion in the…r-then-ordinary, publike worship, could be managed without a Bishop or Presbyter p. 88to do the work. But for them that sleight Mr. Burtons & other mens plain Reasons concerning the judgement of Clem. Romanus, and force his words to speak what they mean not, I desire them to observe the judgement of Grotius whom they profess so much to value: who in his Epistol. 162 ad▪ Bignon. gives this as one Reason to prove this Epistle of Clemens genuine [Quod nusquam meminit, exsortis illius Episcoporum autoritatis, quae Ecclesiae consuetudine post Marci mortem Alexandriae, at que eo exemplo alibi, introduci cepit, sed planè ut Paulus Apostolus ostendit Ecclesias communi Presbyterorum qui iidem omnes & Episcopi ipsi Paulo que dicuntur, consilio fuisse gubernatas. Nam quod foreign, & foreign nominat, omnia ista nomina non ad Ecclesiam sed ad Templum Hieros. pertinent: unde infert omnia recto ordine agenda, si Iudaeis, tanto magis Christianis] You see that Grotius (then,) and Clemens, in his judgement, were against Prelacy.

2. The very same I say of Prelacie, Epist. ad Philip. which mentioneth only two sorts, Presbyters and Deacons.

3. And though Ignatius oft mention three, it seems to me that they were all but the Governours or Ministers of one Congregation, or of no more people then one of our Parishes. In the Epist. ad Smyr…. he saith [foreign. i. e. Vbi Episcopus praesens fuerit, illuc & plebs Congregetur, sicuti & ubi Christus est omnis militia coelestis a…est] as the common interpreter translateth it, [ut vid. est in Edit. Perionii & Vsherii,] &c. [Vbi comparuerit Episcopus, ibi & Multitudo sit; quemadmodum ubi Christus, ibi omnis astat exercitus coelestis] as Hier. Vairlenius & Videlius translate it: Or, [Vbi uti que apparet Episcopus, illic multitudo sit; quemadmodum utiq, ubi est Christus Iesus, illic Catholica Ecclesia] as Vshers old Tranlation. And by the Context it appeareth that this pl…bs, or multitudo is the Church which he ruleth, and not only one Congregation among many that are under him: For this doth without distinction bind all the people one as well as another, to be where the Bishop is or appeareth, viz. in the publick Assembly for Communion in Worship. It is plain therefore there that were not then many such Assemblies under him: otherwise all save one must have necessarily disobeyed this command.

p. 89And in the Epistle to the Philadelphians he hath [foreign.] i. e. [Vna enim est caro Domini nostri Iesu Christi, & unus illius sanguis qui pro nobis effusus est, & unus calix qui pro omn…bus nobi… distributus est, unus panis qui omnibus fractus est, unum altare omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum presbyterorum Collegio & Diaconis conservis meis.]

Here it is manifest that the particular Church which in those dayes was governed by a Bishop, Presbytery and Deacons, was but one Congregation; for every such Church had but one Altar.

Object. But some Greek Copies leave out foreign. Answ. 1. The corrupt vulgar translation might occasion the change of the text, saith Bishop Vsher (Annot. in loc. page 40.) [intermedia illa, ex interpretatione hâc excidisse videantur.] 2. The old translation of Bishop Vsher which leaves it out, yet hath Vnum Altare & unus Episcopus, &c. and the sence is …he same if the other words were out. 3. Ignatius hath the like in other places, as we shall see anon; which forbiddeth such quarrels here.

Object. But saith the Learned and Godly Bishop Downame, (Def. li. 2. cap. 6. page 109.) the word Altar being expounded for the Communion table, is not likely, a…d too much savoureth of Popery: but by one Altar is meant Christ who sanctifieth all our Sacrifices and Oblations and maketh them acceptable to God; as Ignatius expoundeth himself in h…s Epistle to the Magnesians: All as one run together into the Temple of God unto one Iesus Christ as it were unto one Altar.]

To this I answer, that it is some confirmation to me, that the words are so express, that so learned a man hath no more to say by way of evasion. For doubtless this is too gross and palpable to satisfie the judicious impartial reader. 1. That the very text which he citeth of the Epistle to the Magnesians doth make fully against him▪ I shall shew anon. 2. That it is not Christ that is meant here by the foreign, is evident, 1. In that Christ his flesh and blood are before distinctly mentioned: p. 902. In that the word is put in order among the external Ordinances: 3. In that it is so usual with other ancient writers and Ignatius himself to use the word foreign in the sence as we now take it, that it will be plain violence to imagine that it is Christ that was meant by it. And for Popery, there is no such matter of danger, in using a word Metaphorically: Otherwise we we must make the Ancients commonly to be friends to Popery; for they ordinarily call the Lords Table and the place where it stood foreign: I say The Table and the Sacrarium or place of its standing: for this seems plainly the meaning of Ignatius: so saith Bishop Vsher Annot. in loc. ubi sup. [Altare apud Patres mensam Dominicam passim denotat apud Ignatium & Polycarpum; Sacrarium quo que . So H. Stephens Altarium Sacrarium. See what Learned Mr. Thorndike himself in his Right of the Church, &c. page 116. saith to this purpose more largely; where concerning Ignatius his use of the same word to the Ephesians he saith [Where it is manifest that the Church is called a Sanctuary or place of sacrificing: Mr. Mead in his Discourse of the name Altar page 14. sheweth that Ignatius by foreign means the Lords Table, and takes Videlius his concession, as of a thing that could not be denyed. In the Epistle of Ignatius (or whoever else) to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna he saith, Crebrius celebrantur conventus Synodi que Nominatim omnes inquire. Servos & ancillas ne fastidias (as Vairlenius translateth) or (as Bishop Vshers old Translation) Saepe Congregationes fi…nt. Ex nomine omnes quaere: Servos & ancillas ne despicias. —] Whether this were Ignatius or not, alls one to me, as long as I use it but historically to prove the matter of fact in those times. But surely no man should marvail if I hence gather that great Polycarp was Bishop but of one Congregation, when he must enquire or take notice of every one of his Congregation by name, even as much as servants and maids. I would every Parish Minister were so exactly acquainted with his flock!

Another passage there is in Ignatius to the same purpose Epist. ad Magnes. [foreign,] i. e. Omnes adunati ad Templum Dei concurrite, sicut ad unum Altare▪ sicut ad unum Iesum Christum, as the vulgar translation. Or as Vairl…nius, [Omnes velut unus quispiam in templum Dei concurri…, velut p. 91ad utum Alnare; ad unum Iesum Christum] So the old Latine in Vsher to the same purpose. And in the words before going he bids them [Come all to one place for prayer] Here is no room for Bishop Downams conceit, that its Christ thats meant by foreign: For they are plainly put as distinct things: as if he should say, come all to one Altar, as to one Christ. i. e because it is but one Christ that is there to be partaked of. All this doth so evidently prove that in those dayes a Bishop with his Presbytery and Deacons, had but one Congregation meeting at one Altar for Church Communion in the Eucharist, that it caused Mr. Mead (in his Discourse of Churches pag. 48, 49, 50. Cent. 2.) to say as followeth, having cited these words of Ignatius [Loe here a Temple with an Altar in it, whether the Magnesians are exhorted to gather themselves together to pray: To come together in one place, &c. For it is to be observed that in these Primitive times they had but one Altar in a Church, as a Symbole, both that they worshipped but one God through one Mediator Iesus Christ, and also of the Vnity the Church ought to have in it self. Whence Ignatius not only here, but also in his Epistle to the Philadelphians urgeth the unity of the Altar for a motive to the Congregation to agree together in one: For unum Altare (sai…h he) omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio & Diaconis conservis meis. This custome of one Altar is still retained by the Greek Church: The contrary use is a transgression of the Latines, not only Symbolically implying, but really introducing a foreign, — &c. Nay more then this it should seem that in those first times, before Diocesses were divided into those lesser and sub…rdinate Churches, we ca…l now Parishes, and Presbyters assigned to them, they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum, but one Altar to a Church, taking Church for the company or Corporation of the faithfull, united under one Bishop or Pastor, and that was in the City or place where the Bishop had his See and Residence, like as the Iews had but one Altar and Temp…e for the whole Nation united under one high Priest. And yet as the Iews had their Synagogues, so perhaps might they have more Oratori…s then one, though their Altar were but one; there namely where the Bishop was. Die solis saith Justin Martyr, omnium qui vel in oppidis vel ruri degunt, in eundem locum conventus fit: Namely as he there tells us, to celebrate, and participate the holy p. 92Eucharist. Why was this, but because they had not many places to celeb…ate in? and unless this were so, whence came it else, that a Schismatical Bishop was said constituere or collocare aliud Altare? and that a Bishop and an Altar are made correlatives? See S. Cyprian Epist. 40.72, 73. de unit. Eccles. And thus perhaps is Ignatius to be understood in that forequoted passage of his foreign Unum Altare omni Ecclesiae, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyterio & Diaconis] So far Mr. Mead.

I hope upon the consent of so admirable a Critick and learned man, it will not be so much blame-worthy in me, if I speak somewhat the more confidently this way; and say, that I think that the main confusion and Tyranny that hath overspread the Churches, hath been very much from the changing the Apostolical frame of Churches, and setting up many Altars and Congregations under one Bishop in one (pretended particular) Church.

I had three or four passages ready to cite out of Ignatius, but these are so express, that I apprehend the rest the less necessary to be mentioned.

The next therefore that I shall mention shall be the forementioned words of Iustin Martyr Apol. 2, cited by Mr. Mead, and by others frequently to this purpose: In which I observe all these particulars full to the purpose. 1. That they had but one Assembly each Lords day for Church communion for one Church. 2. That this was for reading and prayer and the Eucharist. 3. That the President (who is commonly by those of the Episcopal judgement said to be here meant the B…shop) did preach and give thanks and administer the supper: so that it was administred but to one Congregation as under that Bishop of that Church, for he could not be in two places at once. 4. That to the Absent the Deacons carried their portion after the consecration: so that they had not another Meeting and Congregation by themselves for that end. This is all so plain that I shall think it needeth no Vindication. So that were there but these two Testimonies, I should not marvail if Bishop Downam had extended his confession a little further, when he acknowledgeth (D…f. li. 2. cap. 6. page 104. 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 ex…eed the proportion of a p. 93populous Congregation,] (And then we are not out in so interpreting the words of Paul and other writers of the holy Scripture.) The next that I shall mention (whoever was or when ever he lived) is Dionys. de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 4. where he tells us that the Praefect (who was the Bishop, if there were any) did Baptize those that were converted, and the Presbyters and Deacons did but assist him: And abundance of work he mentioneth wh…ch they had with all that they Baptized, and they called all the Congregation together who joyned in Prayers with the Bishop at the Baptism. All which shews that he was then the Bishop but of one particular Church, which ordinarily Assembled together for publick worship. For, 1. If he had many such Churches or Congregations under him, he could not be thus present to celebrate Baptism in them all. Nor would one only be mentioned as his charge. 2. Nor is it possible that one Bishop should with so long a way of Baptisme as is there described, be able to Baptize all the persons in a Diocess such as ours, or the twentieth part of them, much less in those times, when besides the Infants of Believers, the most eminent sort of Baptism, and greatest labour, was about the multitudes of Adult Converts, that by the Gospel were daily added to the Church.

Gregory Thaumaturgus was as by force made Bishop of Neocesarea: and yet his whole Diocess or City had but seventeen …hristians in it at his entrance, though when he died he found upon enquiry but seventeen Pagans, so great a change was made by the Gospel and by Miracles: But by this Diocess of seventeen souls we may conjecture what the Churches were in those times (though we should allow others to be an hundred times as great, they would not be so great as the tenth part of many Parishes in England.) See the truth of this passage in Greg. Nissen Oratio in Greg. Thaumatur. twice over he recites it. And Basil. Mag. l. de Spir. Sanc. c. 19. And Roman. Breviar. Die 15. Novemb. And the Menolog Graec. mentioned before Greg. Neocesar. works Printed ad Paris 1622. But I shall return to some before Gregory.

The next that I shall cite is Tertullian, that well known place in his Apolog. c. 39. [Corpus sumus de conscientia Religionis & Discipline unitate & spei federe. Coimus in coetum & Congregationem ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus p. 94orantes. — Cogimur ad div…narum literarum Commemorationem —Certè fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus, spem erigimus, fiduciam figimus, disciplinam praceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus: ibidem etiam exhortationes, Castigationes, & censura Divina: nam & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu; summum que futuri judicii praejudicium est siquis ita deliquerit, ut à communicatione Orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Praesident probati quiq, seniores, &c.] If I be able to understand Tertullian, it is here plain that each …hurch consisted of one Congregation, which assembled for Worship, and Discipline at once or in one place, and this Church was it that had Presidents or Seniors to guide them both in Worship and by Discipline. So that if there were any more of these Assemblies in one particular Political Church, then there were more Bishops then one, or else others besides Bishops exercised this Discipline: But indeed its here plainly intimated that Bishops were then the Guides of Congregations (single,) and not of Diocess…s consisting of many such.

I shall put Tertullians meaning out of doubt by another place, and that is, de Corona Militis cap. 3. [Eucharistiae Sacramemtum & in tempore victus, & omnibus mandatum à Domino, etiam antelucanis ritibus, nec de aliorum manu …uam praesidentium sumimus.] And if they received this Sacrament of none but the Presidents, (and that every Lords day at least, as no doubt they did) then they could have no more Congregations in a Church then they had Presidents. And (though Pamelius say that by Presidents here is meant also Presbyters, yet) those that we now dispute against, understand it of the Prelates. And if they will not so do, then may we will interpret the foresaid passage Apol. to be meant of the same sort of Presidents; and then you may soon see what Bishops were in Tertullians dayes. For we have no reason to think that they are not the same sort of Officers which he calleth Presidents, and of whom he there saith, Praesident probati Seniores.

So in the foregoing words in Tertullian, ibid. its said [Aquam adituri ibidem, sed & aliquando prius in Ecclesia sub Antistiti… manu contestamur nos renunciare Diabolo, & Pompae & angel…s ejus] Where it seems that there were no more thus initiated then the Antistes himself did first thus engage in the Congregation; And I believe they take this Antistes for a Bishop.

p. 95And here by the way let this argument be noted. Seeing its past doubt that the first sence of the word foreign is the Catus or holy Assembly it self, why should the Meeting place be so often called also Ecclesia in those times, in the borrowed sence, but only in Relation to the People there assembled? and its plain that it was but one Congregation and not many that assembled in that place: and therefore it was from that one that the Place is called Ecclesia. That it is oft so called, besides this place of Tertullian (which seems so to use the word) I refer you to Mr. Meads exercitation of Temples, who proves it distinctly in the several Centuries. That saying of Theophilus Antiochenus ad Antolychum seems to intimate the whole that I intend [sic Deus dedit mundo qui peccatorum tempestatibus & Naufragiis jactatur, Synagogas, quas Ecclesias Sanctas N…minamus in quibus veritatis doctrina ferv…t, ad quas confugiunt veritatis studiosi, quotquot s…lvari, Dei que judicium & iram evitare volunt.] So that the Churches of those times which were as Noahs Ark, and where safety was to be found for the soul, were Synagogues or Assemblies. So Tertul. de Idololatr. c. 7. pag. (mihi) 171. Tota die ad hanc partem zelus fidei peroravit, ingenuū Christianum ab Idolis in Ecclesiam venire, de adversaria officina in domum Dei venire.—] See more places of Tertullian cited by Pamelius on this place num. 29. page 177. specially see that de virg. Veland. cap. 13. p. 224.

**Very many passages in Cyprian do intimate that then the Diocesses were small, perhaps having yet but unum Altare: As when he saith that [à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine concilio vestro & sine consensu plebis meae, privata sententia gerere, &c. And [Prohibeantur offerre, acturi apud nos, & apud confe…ores ipsos, & apud plebem universam causam suam] And [Haec singulorum tractanda sit & limanda plenius ratio, non tantum cum] collegis meis, sed & cum plebe ipsá universá] And [Vix plebi persuadeo, immo extorqueo, ut tales patiantur …dmitti, & justior factus est fraternitatis dolor, ex eo quod unus at que alius obnitente pl…be & …, mea tamen facilita e suscepti, pejores extiterunt—] How the Universa pleb… of many Congregations or a Diocess like ours, should be consulted and hear and do any thing to admission or exclusion from Communion, and be advised with by Cyprian in all such affairs, is not easie to conceive. See his Epist. 3.6.10.13, 14, 26, 31, 27, 28, 33, 40, &c. Peruse all the citations of Bloudwell de jure Plebis in Regim. Eccles. and see whether they intimate not the smalness of their Diocesses. (Though I believe they prove no such thing as proper Government in the people.) Yet peruse all the Authors cited by him there to prove that … Eccle…iae M…th. 18. refers to the Congregation of Pastors and people together; and it will much confirm the point in hand. I shall not recite any of them, because you may there find them in the end of Grotius de Imperio Sum. Potest.Clemens Alexandrinus hath divers passages to the purpose p. 96now in hand. Stromat. li. 7. in the beginning, he mentioneth the Church and its officers, which he divideth only into two sorts, Presbyters and Deacons. But I will name no more particular persons, but come to some intimations of the point before us from customes or Practices of the Church and the Canons of Councils.

And it seems to me that the dividing of Parishes so long after (or of Titles as they are called) doth plainly tell us that about those times it was that particular Pol…cical Church did first contain many stated Congregations. And though it be uncertain when this began (Mr. Thorndike as we heard before, conjectureth, about Cyprians dayes) yet we know that it was long after the Apostles, and that it was strange to less populous places long after it was introduced at Rome and Alexandria, where the number of Christians, & too much ambition of the Bishop, occasioned the multiplication of Congregations under him, and so he became a Bishop of many Churches (named as one) who formerly was Bishop but of a single Church. For if there had been enough, one hundred or fifty or twenty or ten years before, to have made many Parishes or stated Assemblies for communion in worsh…p, then no doubt but the light o… Nature would have directed them to have made some stated divisions before; For they must needs know that God was not the God of Confusion but of order in all the Churches: And they had the same reasons before as after: And persecution could no… be the hindrance any more at first then at last: For it was under persecuting Emperours when Parishes or Titles were distinguished, and so it might, notwi…hstanding persecutions have been done as well at first as at last, if there had been the same reason. It seems therefore very plain to me that it was the increase of Converts that caused this division of Titles, and that in planting of Churche… by the Apos…les, and during their time, and much af…er, the Chu…ches consisted of no more then our Parishes, w…o being most inhabitants of the Cities had their meetings there for full communion, though they might have other subor…inate me…tings as we have now in mens houses for Repenting Ser…ons and Prayer.

And as Mr. Thornd…ke out of N…nius tells us of 365. Bishopricks in Ireland planted by Patrick, so other Authors tell p. 97us that Patrick was the first Bishop there; or as others and more credible, Palladius the first, and Patrick next: and yet the Scots in Ireland had Churches before Palladius his dayes, (as Bishop Vsher sheweth de Primordiis Eccles. Britan. 798, 799, 800, &c.) Iohannes Major de gestis scholarum li. 2. cap. 2. prioribus illis temporibus per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis Scotos in fide eruditos fuisse affirmat. Et ita sane ante Majorem scripsit Johannes Fordonus Scotichron. li. 3. cap. 8. [Ante Palladii adventum habebant Scoti fidei Doctores ac Sacramentorum Ministratores Presbyteros solummodo vel Monaches, ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae (N. B.) Of which saith Usher [Quod postremum ab iis accepisse videtur qui dixerunt (ut Johan. Semeca in Glossa Decreti dist. 93. ca. Legimus) [quod in Prima Primitiva Ecclesia commune erat officium Episcoporum & Sacerdotum: & Nomina erant communia, & officium commune; sed in secunda primitiva caeperunt dinstigui & nomina & officia.] So that it seems that some Churches they had before; but Palladius and Patrick came into Ireland, as Augustine into England, and abundantly increased them, and settled withall the Roman Mode▪ So that it seemed like a new Plantation of Religion and Churches there. Yet it seems that the Bishops setled by Patrick (save that himself an Archbishop was like our Bishops) were but such as were there before under the name of Presbyters, saith Fordon, after the rite or fashion of the Primitive Church.

And saith Vsher ibid. p. 800. [Hector Boethius fuisse dicit Palladium primum omnium qui Sacrum inter Scotos egere Magistratum à summo Pontifice Episcopum creatum: quum antea Populi suffragiis ex Monachis & Caldeis pontifices assumerentur. Boeth. Scotorum Histor. lib. 7. fol. 128. b.

And he adds the saying of Balaeus, (Scriptor. Britanic. centur. 14. cap. 6.) [A Caelestino illum missum ait Johannes Balaeus, ut Sacerdotalem ordinem, inter Scotos Romano ritu institueret. Habebant (inquit) antea Scoti suos Episcopos ac Ministros, ex verbi Divini Ministerio plebium suffragiis electos, prout Asianorum more fieri apud Britannos videbant: Sed haec Romanis, ut magis ceremoniosis atque Asianorum osoribus, non placebant] By these passages it is easie to conjecture whether they were Bishops of a County, or Bishops of a Parish that were there in those daies. For my part I heartily wish that Ireland had three hundred sixty p. 98five good Bishops and Churches at this day, even when the whole Nation profess themselves to be Christians, (which then they did not.)

To this purpose runs the 14. Canon Concilii Agath. (and if it were so then, much more long before) [Si quis etiam extra Parochias in quibus legitimus est ordinarius que conventus oratorium habere voluerit reliquis festivitatibus, ut ibi Missam audiat, propter fatigationem familiae, justa ordinatione permittimus. Pascha vero, Natali Domini, Epiphania, Ascensione domini, Pentecoste, & Natali Sancti Johannis Baptistae, & siqui maxime dies in festivitatibus habentur, non nisi in Civitatibus, aut Parochiis audiant] Here it appeareth that there was but one legitimus ordinarius que conventus in a Parish; though they tolerated an Oratory or Chappell of ease. And that a Parish here is taken for a Diocess, or such a Church as had proper to it self a Bishop and Presbyterie, as it is probable from the ordinary use of the word by Eusebius and other antients in that sence, so also from what is further said in the following Canons of this Council: And so the word Parish here may be expository of the word City, or else denote a Rural Bishoprick. For Can. 30. saith [Benedictionem super plebem in Ecclesiâ fundere aut paenitentem in Ecclesia benedicere presbytero penitus non licebit.] And if a Presbyter may not bless the people or the penitent, (when the blessing of the people was part of the work in every Solemn Assembly for Church communion) then it is manifest that a Bishop must be present in every such Assembly to do that part which the Presbyter might not do: and consequently there were no more such Assemblies then there were Bishops. And to prove this more fully mark the very next Canon of that Council, viz. the 31. [Missas die dominico secularibus totas audire speciali ordine praecipimus, ita ut ante benedictionem Sacerdotis egredi populus non praesumat. Quod si fecerint, ab Episcopo publicè confundatur] So that its plain that on every Lords day all the people (for here is no distinction or limitation) were to be present in the publick worship to the end, and the Bishop to pronounce the blessing (whoever preached) and openly to rebuke any that should go out before it. From whence it is evident that all such Church Assemblies for communion every Lords day were to have a Bishop present with them to do part of the work: and therefore there p. 99were no more such Assemblies then there were Bishops.

In the 38. Canon of the same Council we find this written [Cives qui superiorum solennitatum, id est, Paschae & Natalis Domini, vel Pentecostes festivatibus cum Episcopis interesse neglexerint, quum in Civitatibus commnionis vel benedictionis accipiendae causa positos se nosse debeant, triennio communione priventur Ecclesiae.] So that it seems there were no more Church-members in a City then could congregate on the festival daies for Communion and the Bishops Blessing: therefore there were not many such Congregations: when every one was to be three years excommunicate that did not Assemble where the Bishop was.

Moreover all those Canons of several Councils that forbid the Presbyters to confirm by Chrysm, and make it the Bishops work, do shew that the Diocess were but small when the Bishop himself could do that besides all his other work.

In the Canons called the Apostles, cap. 5. it is ordained thus [Omnium ali…rum primitiae Episcopo & Presbyteris domum mittuntur, non super Altare. Manifestum est autem quod Episcopus & Presbyteri inter Diaconos & reliquos clericos eas dividunt.] By which it appeareth that there was but one Altar in a Church to which belonged the Bishop, Presbyterie, and Deacons, who lived all as it were on that Altar.

And Can. 32. runs thus [Si quis Presbyter contemnens Episcopum suum, seorsim collegerit, & Altare aliud erexerit, nihil habens quo rebrehendat Episcopum in causa pietatis & justitiae, deponatur quasi principatus amator existens— Haec autem post unam & secundam & tertiam Episcopi obsecrationem fieri conveniat.] Which shews that there was then but one Convention and one Altar to which one Bishop and Presbyters did belong: So that no other Assembly or Altar was to be set up apart from the Bishop by any Presbyter that had nothing against the Bishop in point of Godliness or Justice.

And I believe if Bishops had a whole Diocesse of two hundred or three hundred or a thousand Presbyters to maintain, they would be loth to stand to the fifty eighth Canon which makes them Murderers if they supply not their Clergies wants: But let that Canon pass as spurious.

And long after when Concilium Vasense doth grant leave to the Presbyters to preach, and Deacons to read Homilies in Country p. 100Parishes as well as Cities, it shews that such Parishes were but new and imperfect Assemblies.

In the Council of Laodicea the 56. Canon is [Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi Ecclesiam, & sedere in tribunalibus, sed cum Episcopo ingredi: nisi forte aut aegrotet Episcopus, aut in peregrinationis commodo eum abisse constiterit.] By which it seems that there was but one Assemby in which the Bishop and Presbyters sate together: Otherwise the Presbyters might have gone into all the rest of the Churches without the Bishop at any time, and not only in case of his sickness or peregrination.

The fifth Canon of the Council of Antioch is the same with that of Can. Apost. before cited, that no Presbyter or Deacon contemning his own Bishop, shall withdraw from the Church and gather an Assembly apart, and set up an Altar. By which still it appears that to withdraw from that Assembly, was to withdraw from the Church, and that one Bishop had but one Altar and Assembly for Church Communion.

So Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 35. which order the sitting of the Presbyters and Bishop together in the Church: And many decrees that lay it on the Bishop to look to the Church lands and goods, and distribute to the poor the Churches Alms, do shew that their Diocesses were but small, or else they had not been sufficient for this.

All the premises laid together me thinks afford me this conclusion, that the Apostolical particular Political Churches were such as consisted of one only Worshipping Congregation (a Congregation capable of personal communion in publick worship) and their Overseers; and that by little they departed from this form, each Bishop enlarging his Diocess, till he that was made at first the Bishop but of one Church, became the Bishop of many, and so set up a new frame of Government, by setting up a new kind of particular Churches. And thus was the primitive Government corrupted, while men measured their charge by the circuit of Ground, thinking they might retain the old compass when they had multiplied converts, and therefore should have multiplyed Churches and Bishops.**And it seems the Churches were not so large as some imagine, even at the sixth General Council at … in Consta…ti…op. when Canon 78. it was ord…ed that no the fifth day of the week the Baptized were to say over their Belief to the Bishop or the Presbyters: And it was not such Diocesses as ours that this work could be th… done for.

To all this I add these observations. 1. That the very Nature of Church Government tels us that a Governour must be present p. 101upon the place, and see to the execution: For God hath made us the Laws already, and Synods must in way of Vnion determine of the most advantagious circumstances for the perfo…ming of the duties which God imposeth: And particular Bishops are to guide their particular Congregations in Gods Worship, and in order thereto; Their guidance is but a subservient means to that worship: And therefore they must Rule the Church as a Captain doth his Company in fight, or a Physitian his Patient, or a Schoolmaster his School, by his own presence, and not at many miles distance by a Surrogate.

2. The doctrine which makes the first particular Political Church to consist of many stated Worshipping Churches like our Parishes, doth set on the saddle, if not also hold the stirrup for a Diocesan Bishop to get up, to head those prepared bodies.

3. Seeing the Presbyterians do confess that it is not Necessary (but lawful) for a particular Political Church to consist of many Worshipping Churches, and say, It may consist only of one: Common Reason and experience will then direct us to conclude that its best ordinarily take up with that one: seeing people that know one another, and live within the reach of each other for common converse▪ and ordinarily meet and join in the same publick Worship, are most capable of the ends of Church Policy; and a Pastor capable of guiding such, better then other Parishes that he knows not.

4. He that makes the Pastor of one Parish the Ruler of the rest adjoining, doth lay upon him much more duty then sitting in a Presbyterie to vote in censures. For those censures are a small part of Church Government, comparatively (else most Congregations in England have little or no Government; for they have little or none of these Censures.) Yea indeed true Church Guidance or Government contains a great part, if not most of the Pastoral work, which a man would be loth to undertake over too many distant unknown Congregations: Though he may well undertake in Synods to promote Unity, and to do the best he can for the whole Church of Christ. If therefore those of the Congregational way, were as neer us in other things, as in this before insisted on, (especially if they would renounce**As many of them d… …, when they hold it in terms, of which see what I have said in the Preface to the Reform… Pastor; And even in this while they confess that Pastors are Rulers and the People must obey, according to the express words of the text, Heb. 13.17. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Thes. 5.12, &c. They grant us what we plead for.Heb 13:171 Tim 5:171 Thess 5:12 that great mistake of the Peoples having the Power of the Keys or Government, and take up for them with a Iudicium Discretionis, p. 102and just liberty) we need not stand at so great a distance.

And lastly, If Ministers of the Gospel would tenderly weigh the greatness of their work and charge, and the dreadfulness of their account, the worth of souls, the power and prevalency of sin, the rage of all the Churches enemies, and the multitudes of them, they would sooner tremble to think of the difficulties in Governing or guiding one Congregation in the way to heaven, than grasp at more, and think themselves able to be the guides of many, and draw such a heavy burden on themselves, and prepare for such a reckoning. Lest they be offended with my words, I will say the like in the words of Chrysostom (or whoever else was the Author of the Imperfect work) on Matth 20. Hom. 35. pag. (mihi) 901. [Si haec ergo ita se habent, secularem quidem primatum desiderare, et si ratio non est, vel causa est: quia etsi justum non est, vel utile est. Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere, ne que ratio est, ne que causa: quia ne que justum est, ne que utile. Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinat servituti, labori, dolori, & quod majus est, periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia, apud justum judicem? nisi forte qui non credit Iudicium Dei, nec timet, uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter, convertat …um in Secularem. Sed ne forte qui talis est in appetendo primatum, profectum pietatis pie praetendat, dico, Nunquid qui in ordine prior est▪ jam & meritis est melior?] And of the Ministerial honours he saith (ibid.) D…niq, ipsi honores in Christo in prima quidem facie videntur honores, revera autem non sunt honores diversi, sed sunt diversa Ministeria: ut puta honor oculi videtur, quia illuminat Corpus: Sed ipse honor illuminandi non est ei honor sed Ministerium ejus.—]

So much to prove the Proposition, that the late English Episcopacy is not to be restored, under any pretence of Order or Peace.

Wherein I have purposely forborn the mention of its Abuses, and doleful consequents, because they may suppose that Abuse to be separable from the thing.