The Diocesans Trial, Part 1 – Part 2

The Diocesans Trial · Part 1 – Part 2

p. 1THE FIRST QVESTION IS, WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches, or Parishionall onelyonly.

FOR determining this Question, we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it. Secondly, those which deny▪ Thirdly, lay down some responsive conclusions, and answer the obj…ctions made against that part we take to be the truth.

Th…se who affirme the fr…e of Diocesan Churches, vou…h their Arguments: p…r…ly from Scripture, partly from presidents, or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall. Fin…lly, from the congruity it h…h with reason, th…t so th…y should be constitute.

The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures, Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23. Ordaine Elders City by City. They ordained Elders Church by Church. Hence it is thus argued. They who ordained that a City, with the Suburbs and …egions about it, should make but one Church, they ordained a Diocesan Church. But …he Apostles, who use these phrases as aequ…pollent, To ordaine Presby…ers in every City, and to ordaine them in every Church, appointed, that a city with the suburbes and region about it, should make but one Church. Ergo, the Apostles constituted a D…ocesan Church.

The reason of the proposition is, because Christians converted in a City, with the suburbes, villages, and countries about it …uld not be so few, as to make but a Parishionall Church. The Assumption is cleare, for these phrases are used, as ad aequa…e, and being so used, needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities, suburbs, and regions into one church.

p. 22 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall. Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament. Ecclesiasticall, from the Primitive times, and from Patternes in our owne times: yea, even from such churches, as we hold reformed, as those in Belgia and Geneva.

To beginne with the church of the Jewes in the old Testament, whence they reason thus. That which ma…y particular Synagogues were then (because they were all but one Common-weal…h, and had all but one profe…si…n) that m…y many christian chur…hes now bee upon the l…ke grounds. But th…y then, though many Synagogues, yet because they were all but one Kingdome, and had all but one profession, were all one nationall church. Ergo, upon like grounds many church…s with us, in a nation or city, may be one nationall or Diocesan church.

Secondly, the church of Jerusalem in the New Testament is objected. 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head church to all Christians in Judea, that was a Diocesan church. But this they did by the church of Jerusalem. Ergo: 2. That which was more numbersome, then could meet Parishion…lly, was no Parishional but Diocesan church. But that church was such. First, by growing to 3000. then 5000 Act. 2.41. & 4.4. then to have millions in it, Act. 21.20. Ergo, the church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall, but a Dioc…san church.

Thirdly, the church of Corinth is objected to have beene a Metropolitan church. He who writing to the church of Corinth, doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it, doth imply that they were all subordinate to that church. But th…s doth Paul, 1 Cor. 2.1. Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians, and calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia, and names it with pr…heminence before the rest of Ach…ia, doth imply th…t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Acha…a was subject. But the Apostle doth this, 2 Cor. 9.2. & 11.11.8.9.10. Ergo.

Fourthly, that which was the mother city of all Macedonia, the church in that city must be, if not a Metropolitan, yet a Diocesan church. But Philippi was so. Ergo.

The fifth is from the chur…hes of Asia, which are thus proved, at least to have beene Diocesan. 1. Those seven churches which contained all other churches in Asia strictly t…ken, whether in city or count…y; those seven were for their circuit, Metropolitan, or Dioc…san churches. But those seven did containe all other in As…. Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia, writeth by name, but to th…se seven, he doth imp…y, that all the rest were cont…ined in these. Bu… Christ writing to the seven, writeth to all p. 3churches in Asia, not to name that five of these were Metropolitan cities, viz. Philadelphia, and Pe…g…mus, two Diocesan at least, 3. He who mak…th the singular church he writeth to, to …e a multitude of churches, not one onelyonly (as the body is not one member onelyonly) hee doth make that one church, to which he writeth in singular, to be a Diocesan church. But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every church, which he had spoken to in singular, doth speake of the same as of a multitude. Let him that hath eares, beare what the Spirit saith to the Churches. Ergo.

Thus leaving sacred examples, we come to Ecclesiasticall.

First, in regard of those ancien… churches, Rome, Alexandria. It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For …f the multitude of christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time, that they exceeded the proportion of one congregation, how much more likely is it that christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200. yeares, that they could not keep in one particular Assembly? But the first is true. Ergo, also the latter. Which is yet further co…firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times.

To come from these to our moderne reformed church…s, these prove a Diocesan church. That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place, that they may have severed in many places. For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congreg…tion. But ma…y distinc… congregations gathered in one city, may make, wee say, one church, as they doe in the Netherlands. Ergo, distinct congregations, severed in divers places may make one church. If many churches, which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery, may so make one, they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory, and so make one. But the 24. churches of Geneva, and the territories belonging to it, doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery, and so make one. For so farre as two meete in a th…rd, they are one in it. Ergo.

The third principall Argument is from reason. If city churches onelyonly, and not the churches of Villages, and coun…ry Townes, had bishop…, Presbyters, and Dea…ons placed in them, then were those city church…s Diocesan churches. But city chur…hes onelyonly had th…se. Ergo, city churches were Diocesan, distingu…shed from Pa…shi…nall churches. The Assumption is proved first by Scrip…ure, T…tus 1.5. Act. 14.23. Sec…ndly, this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Sto…y. Th…y who are g…ven to l…bour the convertion of the Regions, ra…her then ten… those alre…y converted, they were not given to a Parishionall church. But the p. 4Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so. Ergo. They who were set in a church before Parishes were, could not be given to a Parishionall church. But such were the Presbyters of the Apostl…s institution, Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages, from the first division, that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery and a bishop, but Presbyters onelyonly. Nay, it was ever by councels condemned, and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden, that in Townes or Villages, any but a Presbyter should be planted. 3. This is also proved by reason, for it was no more possible to have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish, then to have a Maior and Aldermen (such as we have in London) …n every Towne. 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter, then had they power of ordination, and furnishing themselves with a Minister, when now they were destitute. But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city. Ergo, there was then a D…ocesan church having government of others. Presbyters could not ordaine, sede vacante, though th…y did at first, as in the church of Alexandria. Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it.

Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches, allowing onelyonly such churches to bee instituted of Christ, which may meet in one congregation ordinarily.

The word which without some modification super-added, doth signifie onelyonly such a company as called forth, may assemble Politically, that word being alone, doth signifie such a church as may to holy pu…poses ordinarily meete in one. But the word Church, which Christ and his Apostles did institute, is used indefinit…ly, and signifieth no more, Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. 2. The Scripture speaketh of the churches in a Kingdome or Province, alwaies in the plurall number, without any note of diff…rence, …s …quall one with the other. Ergo, it doth not know Provinciall, N…tion…ll, or Diocesan churches. Let a reason be given, why it should never speake in the singular number, had they beene a singul…r church

Sec…ndly, let us come to ex…mples: the churches the Apostles pl…ed were su…h … ni…h… and did congregate.

Fi…s…, that of H…rusalem▪ though there were in it toward 500. … nogogues, yet the christ…n church was but one, and such as did congre…ate …n…o one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000. to it. Act 2.46. & 5.12. & 6.1. & 15.25. & 21.22. & 25.22. For their ordinary meeting as it is, Act. 2.46. daily, could not be a Panegeric…ll meeting. Againe, if they might meete Synodically, why might they not meete then in daily course; though the universall meeting of a church is not so fitly called Synodicall: And though p. 5they are said to be millions of beleevers, yet that was by accident of a circumstance, happily the Passeover. We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is, when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations. They had not a setled state there, by which they did get the right of being set members. Yea, it is likely, they were and continued but one congregation. For forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude, but that Pella, like to the Z…har of Lot, a little Towne could receive them. But more of this in the answer to the objection.

Secondly, so the Church of Antiochia, was but one Church, Acts 14.27. they are said to have gathered the Church together. Object. That is, the Ministers, or representative Church. Ans. 1. For Ministers onelyonly, the Church is never used. 2 By analogie, Acts 11. Peter g…ve account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithfull, Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church, which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands, and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God. 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem. foreign.

Thirdly, the Church of Corinth was one congregation, which did for the service of God, or exercise of Discipline meet together, 1 Cor. 5.4. 1 Cor. 14.25. vers. 26. 1 Cor. 11.17. vers. 23. in uno & eodem loco. That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth, could not be a Diocesan Church, neither can the word foreign comming together, ever be shewed to signifie any thing else, besides one particular Assembly.

Fourthly, the Church of Ephesus was but one flocke. First, it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other. Secondly, it was but one flocke; that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed, was but one. They had no Diocesan B…shop. If Presbyters onelyonly, then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus. There may be many flocks, but God ordained none, but such as may wholly meet with those, who have the care of feeding and governing of them. Peter indeed, 1 Pet. 5.2. calleth all those he writeth to, one flocke: but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull, or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same: but properly, and in externall adunation, one flocke is but one congregation. Thirdly, Parishes according to the adverse opinion, were not then divided. Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue, that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added; but a greater number of …ister Churches. But when it is said that all Asia did heare: the p. 6meaning is, that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia, so as Churches were planted every where, even where Paul came not, as at Colosse. There might be many churches in Asia, and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches.

Examples Ecclesiasticall. 1. Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians, though numberlesse, to meete together often in one place, Epist. to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians: where the Bishop is, let the people be gathered to him, as where Christ is, there is the whole host of heaven. He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God, which cannot agree to a Diocesan church: For these were particular congregations, opposed as to that Nationall church, so to all Provinciall and D…ocesan. Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria, but as he was, Bishop of the congregation in Syria, as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England.

2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth. But a D…oc…san church cannot.

3 Tertullian Apol. cap, 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet, and did worship God, in which prayers, readings, exhortations, and all manner of censures were performed. Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselves.

4 Churches are said at first to have beene Parishes, and Parishes within cities, in Eus…b. lib. 3 44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. cap. 6. lib. 4. cap. 25. and S…int Iohn lib 3. cap. 23. …aith to the Bishop, redde juvenem quem tibi ego & Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus. That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his dep setum, or trust, was but one congregation, lib. 4. cap. 11. H…g nus and Pius are said to have undertaken the M…nistery of the church of Rome: which church was such therefore, as they might minister unto, lib 7.7. Dionisius Alex. writeth to Xistus, and the church which he governed. A Diocesan church cannot receive letters. Before Iulian and Demetrius his time, there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish. The church of Alexandria was within the citie, lib. 7. cap. 2. Cornelius is said, officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Rome ex Cyp. lib. 1. epist. 3 Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui cum tamen de provincia pellare ron potuit. Vide Ruffinum, lib. 1. cap. 6. suburbicarariarum Eccl…sirum tantum curam gess…t. Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagiaee, of the Parish in Carthage, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cypriani, lib. 1. epist. 4.

5 It is the rule of Scripture, that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people. Bishops were chosen long after by the people. p. 7As of Rome, and others by the people committed to them. Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set, and chose the Bishop in presence of the people. Schismes were said to be from thence, Quod Episcop… universa fraternitas non obtemperat, Cypr. epist. 55. tota fraternitas i. unius congregationis tota multitudo, ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis. Sabino …le universa fraternitatis suffrag…o Episcopatus fuit delatus. Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 47.58.68. Ecclesiae …gitur circ…i…us non suit ma…or, quàm ut Episcopu… totam plebem suam in nego…iis bujusmodi c…vocare potuerit. Soc. lib. 7. cap. 3. de Ag…peto. Convocavit omnem clerum & populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem.

6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages; there is no likelihood of the other notation. Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates, or Suffragan Bishops to them.

7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse.

8 They were neighbours, and might meet a dozen, six, three, in the cause of a Bishop.

9 They were united, sometimes in Provinciall Councels, in which many Bishops met twice yearly, Ruffin. lib. 1, cap. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica, 660. fled to save themselves. Austin saith there were innumerable orthodox Bishops in Africa: and the Provinciall Councels doe confirme the same.

Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan.

1 That church whose causes are wanting, that church is wanting. But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found. Ergo.

First, the efficient cause, God ordeyning. For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan: no place to be a place, where the Assembly Diocesan should be held; no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministery, without warrant of his word. Ergo. In the Nationall church of the Jewes, Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour, it was given them: The place of the Nationall meeting, God chose Hierusalem. The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there, and to appeare there before him. Secondly, the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit, obliged to meet at least on solemne dayes, wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised; Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled. Finally, the actuall meeting of them to such, end, as such more solemne and publike meetings are ordained to, are no where commanded, p. 8nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word practised.

If any say, these are not the causes of a Diocesan Church, but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselves to such a Church and the ministery thereof, that they may be governed by them.

I answer. First, there is no ordinance of God for this, that can be shewed, that Churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a certaine head Church for government. Nay, it is false. For every Church by Christs institution hath power of government; and the Synagogue had in ordinary matters, the government that the Church of Jerusalem had; (being all over) except onelyonly in some reserved causes. Secondly, I say, that this will not make a Diocesan Church formally so called. As a Nationall Church could not formally be without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head Church of it: So by proportion. Yea, government is a thing which doth now …ccidere to a Church constituted, and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a Church of this or that kinde. Againe, were this true, that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers have onelyonly government committed to them, then it will follow, that they onelyonly have the governing of particular Churches, who are not any way Pastors of them, ministring Word and Sacraments to them. But this is most absurd, that their proper and ordinary Pastors, who dispence Word and Sacraments to them, should not have potestatem pe…i, nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them. If any say, they were not actu, but they were virtute potentiae: I say, it is also to make the Apostles Churches imperfect: and how can this be knowne but by a presumed intention, which hath nothing to shew it, but that after event of things.

From the effect I argue.

2 Those Churches which Christ did ordaine, and the Apostles plant, might ordinarily assemble to the ordinances of worship. But a Diocesan Church cannot ordinarily assemble. Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and the Sabboth is for man, he will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and impossible, as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude. If any distinguish the assumption, and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts, or as she is a torum, standing of her parts now collected together, and say she may, and doth meet and communicate, and edifie her selfe in the first respect. I answer. This is nothing, and doth prove her to be nothing, as she is a Diocesan Church: quia quid quid est, …git secundum quo…est. If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church, she must have the effect of such a Church; to wit. p. 9assembling, as she is Diocesan. The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth, but were no Nationall Church in this regard; that is to say, as it is a Nationall Church, it had her Nationall reall meetings.

I reason thirdly, from the subject.

3 That Church which doth per se, essentially require locall bounds of place, that must have locall limits set forth of God. But a Diocesan Church doth so. Ergo. Whence I thus inferre, He who institutes a Diocesan Church, must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church. But God hath not set out any locall bounds of the Church in the New Testament: Ergo. He hath not instituted any Diocesan Church. The proposition is certaine: for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church, as also of a Nationall. And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Jewes, did as in a map set forth the limits of that Nation. So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provinciall Churches, he would have appointed locall bounds, if not particularly described, yet knowne and certaine. But God hath not done this. For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places; it being so with the power of teaching, and the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, that it doth respicere subditos onelyonly perse, not terminos locales. Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily, the subjects on it in the second place. As for that commandement of appointing Presbyters Citie by Citie, it is too weake a sparre for this building. Againe, that Church which may be said to be in a Citie, is not Diocesan. But the Churches which the Apostles planted, are said to be in Cities. Ergo. If one say to the proposition, they may; because the head Church is in the Citie. Answer. The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiasticall. But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie. Ergo. The soule may be said to be in the head, though it be in other parts; and God in heaven. God, because of his most infinite and indivisible nature. And so the soule, because it is indivisible, and is as all of it in every part, not as a thing placed in a place containing it, but as a forme in that which is informed by it. But in things which have quantity, and are part out of another, there is not the like reason.

4 From the adjuncts. That Church which hath no time set, wherein to assemble, is no Church. I suppose the ground above, that nothing but union of a Diocesse in worship, can make a Diocesan Church. But this Church hath no time. Ordinary it cannot have: extraordinary solemnities God hath not commanded. Ergo, there is no such Church. For if it be a reall D…ocesan Church, it must have a reall action according to that nature of which it is. The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship. Of p. 10a Nationall Church, is to meet nationally and communicate in …. If then it must meet, it must have some time set downe, ordinary or extraordinary. But God hath done neither. The Churche… which the Apostles planted, were in their times most perfect and flourishing. But Diocesan Churches were not: for in those times they were but in seminali infolded, not explicated, as the adversaries confesse.

4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers, is absurd. But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so. Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times, when now they had but one congregation, and give ordinary gifts onelyonly when now they had 800. churches under them, is absurd. But this doth the Diocesan frame. Ergo.

5 The churches throughout which a Presbyter might doe the office of a teaching Presbyter, and a Deacon the office of a Deacon, were not Diocesan. But every Presbyter might minister in the Word and Sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called; so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church, whereof he was a Deacon. Ergo, these were not Diocesan. The reason of the proposition is; No Pesbyter can through many congregations performe ordinary ministery. In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches, cap. 10. quaest. 3. Vna plures Ecclesiae vni n…quaquam committantur Pesbyter… ▪ quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere, nec rebus carum necessariam curam impendere.

6 If God had planted Diocesan churches, that is, ordeined that all within citie, suburbs, and regions, should make but one D…ocesan Church, then may not two Diocesses be united into one Church, or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a D…ocesan Church. But neither of these are so. The judgement of the African fathers shew the one, and the Canon law doth shew the other, pag. 2. cap. 16.41. Ergo:

7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church, o…hers united in subjection: then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation: But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop, requiring a number of Presbyters and Deacons to minister unto them, there may be the perfection of a church: But in some one congregation may be such a multitude. Ergo:

8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops, are such churches as God instituted: But churches in Townes, populous Villages, have had, and may have their Bishops. Ergo. This is proved by foreign every populous Towne, such as our market townes, and others; ye… by p. 11a synud…cht, villages; for there they taught as well as in Cities. There were Synogogues in Villages, as well as in Cities. They excepted against them afterward in unconformity to Law. The testimony of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congregations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth. And the fathers of Africa did not require, that a D…ocesan multitude, but a sufficient multitude, not through eve…y part, for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches, but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onelyonly had served the turne, should have their Bishop.

If Diocesan churches, and Provinciall churches be Gods frame, then we had no Churches in Britaine of Gods frame, before that Austin was sent by Gregorie the great. But here were churches from before Tertullian, after the frame God requireth, at least in their judgements. Ergo.

Now to come to open the termes, and lay downe conclusions: whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were at the first constitute.

First, the word Church we understand here, not figuratively; taken Metonymically for the place, Syn…ed, for Ministers administring ordinances: but p…operly, for a body politick, standing of people to be taught and governed, and of teachers and governours.

Secondly, it may be asked, What is meant by a Diocesan church? Answ. Such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church, as partaking in holy things, or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church, for all the other within such, or such a circuit. These phrases of a Diocesse, a Diocesan B…shop, or Church, are all since the time of Constantine, yea the two last much later. A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have beene taken up in the Church, from what time Bishops had Territories, ample demaines, and some degree of civill jurisdiction annexed to them. For a Diocesse by the Lawyers, is a circuit of Provinces, such as the Romans Praesidents had: or active, an administration of those Provinces with jurisdiction. L. unica. c. ut omnes sudicet. And in the Canon law, sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously, Dist. 50. cap. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory, or Countrey circuit, opposed to the Citie. Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesanae Ecclesiae, cont. tur. c…p. 8.

Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra distinguished to Parishionall. These had every one a Diocesse, and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani: these Churches had a moity of houses dwelling in neighbourhood th…t belonged to them; but at length by a Synecdoche, the whole Church was called a Diocesse; though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called, seeing the Diocesse is p. 12the meaner part by much, in comparison of the Citie, and should not give the denomination to the whole. So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus, and the Church which had beene called Ecclesia civitatis, matrix, nutrix, Cathedralis, grew to be called Diocesan. But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church, with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union, and communion in some sacred things. Now a Diocesan Church may be put objectivè, that is, for a Chur…h in which are ministers and ministery for the good of the whole Diocesse, though they should never assemble, as the worship in the Church of Jerusalem was for all Judea, and profited, though absent. Or it may be put formally for a body politicke, a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse, with the ministers of the same, having some reall union and communion in sacred things. We deny any such Church.

A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally; M…erially, as it is a Church within such locall bounds, the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other. This God instituted not, for it is accidentall to the Church, may abesse and adesse, a Church remaining one. If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell, as the Dutch doe, one farre enough from the other, while the same beleevers were united with the same governours, the Church were not changed, though the place were altered. Secondly, it is put formally, for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate; such Churches, and such onelyonly we say God erected.

Now for some Conclusions, what we agree in, then what severs us.

Conclus. 1. Churches of Cities, Provinces, Kingdomes, may be called Diocesan, Provinciall, Nationall Churches; as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall, yea haply not without warrant of Scripture: As 1 Pet. 1.1. writing to all those dispersed Churches, speaking of them singularly, as of one flocke, 1 Pet. 5.2. The reason is, things may be called not onelyonly as they are really in themselves, but according to some respect of reason, under which we may apprehend them.

Conclus. 2. That …here may be a reall Diocesan, Nationall, or head Church, wherewith others should be bound to communicate more solemnly in Word and Sacraments, and in some more reserved cases concerning their government. This was done in the Church of Judea. Our men are too shie, that feare to come to this proposition, de posse. I am sure our adversaries will grant us, that our Parishionall frame might have beene so constituted.

Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church, but by Gods institution. No Ministers can take this honour, but they must p. 13(as Aaron) be called to it. When nothing in nature can have further d…gree of perfection, then the author of nature putteth into it; how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall, depend on God? We may reason from the Church of Judea, as à pari, to prove, That there cannot be such a Church, but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things, which may make them one Chur…h. Thus there would not have beene a Church Nationall of the Jewes, but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship. The men onelyonly went up, so the male onelyonly were circumcised: but the female representatively went up in them.

Object. It is enough if the communion be in government, which all our opposites grant necessary.

Answ. This maketh then rather one in tertio quodam separabili, then one Church: government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted, and may be absent, the Church remaining a Churc…. The fi…st Churches of B…shops, when now they were divided, did keep all other, who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called, and the people also in some communion with the head Church; for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither. See decret. dist. 3. dist 38.

Conclus. 4. We agree in this, th…t Churches were in their first planting, either not actually Diocesan, being one congregation without any other subordinate, or if they had any, yet were they imperfect, wanting many parts or members of particular Churches, which belonged to them.

That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equall, independent each of other, in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Diocesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves, but onelyonly subject in some more common and transcendent cases. As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Jewes, and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches. If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church and Parishionall: for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church. I answer, not; taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church, it is but a part and member, and hath not perfection, no more then a parochiall Church hath, compared with a Diocesan.

Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed.

To the first, I answer to the proposition by distinction. Those who ordained that the Civita… and V…bs people taken in regard of the p. 14whole multitude of the one, and locall bounds of the other, should make but one Church, they did institute a Diocesan church. But those who so instituted a Church in Ci…y, Suburbs, Countrey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation, they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church. Againe to the assumption. But those who use City by City, and Church by Church as equivalent (which the Apostles doe) they ordained that C…y, Suburbs, and Count…y should make but one Chur…h. I answer by the like distinction. They who use City by City, people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds, as equivalent with Church by Church, they may be said to have ordained that city, suburbs and territories, should make but one Church. But th…s the Apostles doe not use them, as of equall signification. For the City had a reason of an ample continent, the Church of a thing contained. These phrases are, the one proper, the other metonymicall, and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other. Hee placed Presbyters foreign, lest we should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them foreign, Church by Church: because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted …ut of the multitude and locall limites wherewith cities were bounded. Secondly, there is an adaequate acception of these phrases per accidens, not because the citie and church was to make but one church, but because the Christians by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were framed into one church; or because by occasion there was yet but one church, not because there was to be but one. Now hee who thus us…th them promiscuously, doth imply that one church was as yet constituted, not that there was to be but one through the circu…t of city, suburbs, and countrey. Thus likewise it is easi…y answered to the proofe of the proposition: For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted, could not be a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in city, suburbs, and territories, were actually converted, was no more then might be ordered into one church and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion, did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same locall bounds.

To the second Argument: and first, the objection from the Nationall church of the Jewes. I answer, denying the assumption. That the Synagogues being many, made one church; because they were all one Kingdome, one posses…ion. For thus there was one Oecumenicall church, when the world was under one p. 15Emperour, and of one profession. It is accidentall to the unity of a Church whether the kingdome be one or no. If Israel, when God had divided the kingdome into two, had gone up to Hierusalem, and kept there communion in the worship of that Church, they had still been one Church, though two Kingdomes. If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have beene in England, so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church, should bee one Church, though ma…y Kingdomes. The truth is, they were one Church, because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worships, which were in that one Church to which they all belonged. The high Priest was their proper Priest, hee made intercession for them, blessed them, they were not to offer any where, but there. If any thinke this cannot bee the cause, why there were one Church, under the governement of one high Priest, for then should Aaron have beene as well as M…lehisedeck, a type of Christs Kingly office. I answer there is Priestly Prelacy and governement, as well as Princely: Th…y were under Aaron in the former regard, in wh…ch h… was a sh… dow of Christ.

To the second instance of Hierusalem; we deny the proposition. It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order, and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over oth…rs: If it should have beene a head, having power accordingly, as it was a mother Church, it should have beene head to all the world. Secondly, wee deny the Assumption. Th…t the Apostles ever intended, that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Judea: as it had beene before under the High Priest. That constitution was typicall, and may better plead for an universall Christian Church, then for a Nationall. Secondly, there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way. Thirdly, had this D…vinity beene knowne, the Fathers would not have suffered, that it should have beene made a Diocesan church, and subjected to Caesarea. To the Prosillogisme. The Church which was so numbersome, that it could not meete ordinarily, could not bee a Parishionall Church. This was so. Ergo, &c. To the proposition I answer. That which was by inhabitants, who had fixum domicilium, so numbersome that it could not meete, I grant it. But so this was not; by accident often many others were there in transitu. Secondly, nay wee read that they did meete ordinarily, as is above said, and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them, Irenaeu… affirmeth, l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam cam convenisse. p. 16Luke affirmeth the same. As for that of millions of beleevers, it is certaine, they were not fixed members of this Church. For would Luke, who reckoneth the growth of them to five thousand, have concealed so notable accessions, where by they s…y, they grew up to I know not how many thousands; there is no likelihood. Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned, Iohn 2… or whether by reason of the Passeover, or Pentecost, or such like feast, they were in tran…tu, onelyonly there for the present. How ever it is, there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church, Neverthelesse, say, they were more then could fitly meet, yet might they be tollerated as in one Congreg…tion. The Apostles seeing such times to ensue, wherein many of them should translate themselves, and be dispersed hither and thither. God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to be, because it was Ecclesiae surcularis, many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time. Yea, had there beene five thousand setled members, we read of some ordinary Auditories, sp…ken to by ordinary Pastors, as great; as Chrys…stome on Matth. 24. doth signifie, to his esteeme th…y might be five thousand that then heard his voyce.

Touching the third instance, As to the first reason, The proposition is denyed: for naming the rest of Achaia with them, doth no more signifie the subjection of all Achaians, ther…in the 1 Corinth. 1.2. naming all Saints in every place, doth signifie their subjection. The second reason, hath the sequell of the proposition denied: for the contrary is rather true. He who without any note of difference calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia, he doth imply that it is but one particular church equall with the other churches in Achaia. To the third, the proposition is againe denied, That he that speaketh of all the churches as one, doth imply a metropolitan church. For by the first conclusion we may speake of things not onelyonly as they are really, but according to any respect of reason, under which they are apprehended. Againe, the assumption is false: He speaketh not of them as one church, but as divers churches in one Province. But it is named and set before o…hers. Ergo. &c. The sequell is againe denied. For it may be named before other, because it is the most illustrious and conspicuous church; but not because it hath any power over other. Finally, it is too grosse to thinke, that all in Achaia came to Corinth to be instructed and make their contributions, every church using the first day of the weeke when they assembled to make their collections within themselves.

p. 17The fourth instance is Crete; where the many churches in that Iland, so full of cities, are said to be one church of Crete, whereof Titus was Bishop. Those manifold churches which made but one, whereof Titus was Bishop, those were all one Nationall church. But the churches of Crete, as saith the subscription, were so. Ergo. Answ. The proposition might be questioned on the ground above: but the assumption is false: proved by a subscription, which is l…ke his proofe, which was brought out of the booke after the Revelation. For first they are not in the Syria…ke testament. Secondly, th…y are nor thought of Antiquity ancienter then Theodoret. Thirdly, the subscription is false, and most unlikely: For had Paul written from Nicopolis, he would have wished Titus to come to him to Nicopolis, where he was for the present, and meant to winter, rather th…n have spoken of it as a place from wh…ch he was absent, and whether he meant to repaire.

The fifth instance. Phillip. 3. That church, which was in the chiefe citie of Macedonia, must needs be at least a Diocesan. But the church of Philippi was so. Ergo. This will prove an argument, when churches must needs be conformed to the civill regency of the Emperour: his foure chiefe Governours called praefecti praetorii, his presidents of Provinces under them, and inferiour Judges, and Magistrates, under these in one citie, and the regions of it. But this is an errour giving ground to a Patriarchall and Oecumenicall church, as well as a Provinciall and Diocesan. This rule of planting churches varieth at mans pleasure: For the Romane Provinces after the people of Rome gave up their right to the Emperour, were brought all into one, under one head and Monarch, and Provinces have beene diversly divided from time to time. From this Monarchie arose the Popes plea against the Greeke churches for his Oecumenicall soveraignty. What forme of churches must we have amongst them who never received any such government, nay any constant government at all. If I were a conformitant I should object otherwise for a Provinciall church in Philippi: viz thus. That church wh…ch had many B…shops in it could not be Parishionall nor Diocesan, but Provinciall. For the Provinciall church h…th …he Metropolitan and Suffragan B…shops in it, and no other. But Philippi had so. Ergo. But the Proposition is true onelyonly when it is understood of Diocesan Bishops, not of Parishionall B…shops. Paul writeth not to the Bishops in the church, but in the citie: Now ma…y Bishops are not in the Provinciall citie, though many are in a Provinciall church.

Now to come to the churches of Asia. I answer to the proposition of the first Syllog. by distinction. One church may conteine others, as an example doth conteine in it a thing exemplified: or p. 18as a head Church doth Churches united in subjection to it. Those Churches which conteine all other in the latter sence, it is true, they were at least Diocesan: but in this sense the assumption is denyed. The same answer fitteth the Prosyllog. He that writing to these, writeth to all other by vertue of their subjectionall subordination, he doth imply that all others are conteined in these as member Churches under one head. But he who writing to these, writeth to all other as exemplified onelyonly in them, he doth not imply any such thing. Now this is manifest, because he writeth to seven Churches: whereas this were superfluous, if Christ did intend his letter onelyonly to head Churches conteyning other. For then five Churches should have beene written to onelyonly, seeing in them all others were conteyned, as they say. For by law of this virtuall continency, Philadelphia and Thiatira were included in two of the other, viz. Sardis, and Pergamus, which were their mother cities. What needed he have named Philadelphia and Thyatira, which by law of this virtuall continency did intend to direct his letter onelyonly to head Churches? Againe, the assumption is false: For he doth write principally to the seven, and to all other Churches in Asia no further then he writeth to all the Churches in the world. There were other Churches in Asia, such as were Colosse, Hierapolis, Troas, the Church at Miletum, and Assos, which the Centuries mention, which depended not on those seven. If Colosse and Hierapolis were not, as L…odicaea, reedified when John did write the Revelation, yet these other Churches were not extant. Not to name Magnesia and Tralles, the independancy whereof is fully cleared whatsoever Doct. Downam objecteth.

To the third reason; from Christs manner of concluding his Epistles, it is answered by denying the assumption. For Christ doth not use the plurall number in respect of that one Church preceding, but in respect of the seven collectively taken, it being his will that the members of each singular Church should lay to heart both severally and joyntly, what ever was spoken to them and to others.

Now to come to the Ecclesiasticall examples, as of Rome, and Alexandria, two hundred yeares after Christ. And first to answer the reason brought for their increase, such as could not keepe still in a Parishionall meeting. The proposition is not of necessary consequence; for there were very extraordinary reasons of that which was effected in the Church of Jerusalem: From Christ himselfe, from the residence of all the Apostles; from the state of the people there assembled; from the state of that Church; from the time in which these were done. Christ p. 19had prayed for them particularly, to which some attribute the first miraculous conversion by Peters preaching. Againe, it was fit, that being now ascended into his glory, he should there more aboundantly display his power, and more conspicuously swallow up the scandall of his crosse. Againe, this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it: whose care and industry we may guesse by their ordination of D…acons, that they might not be distracted. Thirdly, the confluence and concourse to H…erusalem was of much people, who though explicately they did not beleeve in Christ; yet had in them the faith of the Messiah, and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen. The state of this Church was such, that it was to send out light to all other, a common nursery to the world. Finally, the time being now, the beginnings of planting that heavenly Kingdome, seeing beginnings of things are difficult, no wonder if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily. It doth not therefore follow from this particular, to the so great encreasing of these churches in tract of time, Nay, if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings, it would not follow, as thus. Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them, how numbersome w…re they many yeares after? Because the growing of things hath a Period set, after which, even those things which a great while encreased, doe decrease and goe downward, as it was in Jerusalem. Not to mention, that we deny the assumption.

But though the Argument is but Topicall, and can but breed an opinion onelyonly, yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable. Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians. And Cornelius, that there was besides himselfe, and 45. Presbyters, a number-some Clergie.

I answer, That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall: for who can beleeve that more then halfe the Citie, and world, after a sort, were Christians? But he speaketh this, and truely in some regard, because they were so potent through the world, that if …hey would have made head they might have troubled happily their per…ecutors. Or else …he might s…y they were halfe of them Christians, not because there were so many members of the Church: …ut because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause, and were it as safe as otherwise, would not sticke to …urne to them. But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet, having prayers, exhortations, and ministering all kindes of censures: If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time, it will make little for Diocesan Churches.

p. 20Touching Cornelius: we answer. It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries. Cornelius keeping the Catherall Church, and being sole Bishop of them: but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church. For first, the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie, in which regard he is said, Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae. Neither was his Church as ample as the Province, which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently reacheth. Secondly, we say that these Parochiall churches, were to t…e mother church, as chappels of ease are to these churches in metrocomiis, they had communion with the mo…her church, going to the same for Sacraments and he… ring the Word, and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them Porsome of them were not su…h as had liberty of Baptizing, and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church.

Now to answer further, it is beyond 200. yeares for which our defence is taken. For there is reason why people which had beene held toge…her for 200. yeares as a Congregat…on, might now fifty yeares after be exceedingly encreased. The Ecclesiasticall story noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith, now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius. Nei…her must we thinke that an Emperour, as Philippus, favouring the faith, did not bring on multitudes to the like profession. Secondly, we… say, there is nothing in this of Corn…lius which may not well stand, that the Church of Rome, though now much increased, did not keepe together as one Church. For the whole people are said to have prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop, who had ordeyned Novaetus: and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Novae…us his pertinacie: From hence, that none of the numerous Clergie, nor yet of the people, very great and innumerable, could turne him, or recall him, which argueth that the Church was not so abo…ndant, but that all the members of it had union and communion, for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another. And I would faine know, whether the seven Deacons, seven Subdeacons, two and forty Acolouthes, whether those exorcistes, L…ctors, Porters about two and fifty are so many, as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twenty thousand? Surely the time might well require them, when many were to be sent forth to doe some part of ministery more privately. Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters, to vilifying of them, as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons. There were six…y in the church of S…phia for the helpe of the Liturgie. True it is, the Congregation could not but be exceeding great, and might well be called in a manner innumerable, though it were but of a twenty thousand people. But because of that which is reported touching division by Evaristus, Hyginus, Dionisius, and p. 21Marcellinus, though there is no authenticke authour for it; neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement. Let it be yeelded that th…re were some Parochiall divisions, they were not many, and within the Citie, and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church.

Concerning the objection from the Churches of Belgia, or the low Countries, we deny the proposition: for we cannot reason thus: If many Masters, and distinct forme… of Schollers, in one free… Schoole, be but one Schoole: then many Masters and company of Schollers, severed in many Schooles, are but one Schoole. Secondly, they have communion in the community of their Teachers, though not in the same individuall word tended by them. But it is one thing, when sheepe feed together in one common Pasture, though …hey bite not on the same individuall grasse: Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe-gates. Not to urge, that in the Sacraments and Discipline, they may communicate as one Congregation.

Touching the objection from Geneva: I answer to the proposition by distinction. Those who subject themselves to a Presbyterie, as not having power of governing themselves within themselves, as being under it by subordination, these may in effect, as well be subject to a Consistorie: But thus the twenty foure Churches of Geneva doe not. They or have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutuall communication, one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbytery. Secondly, it is one thing, for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein th…y shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery, wherin themselves are members and Judges with others. Thirdly, say, they had no power, nor were no members in that Presbytery, yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocrasie, another to the Bishops Monarchicall government. For while his Presbyters are but as Counsellours to a King, though he consulteth with them, he alone governeth. Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were intire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion. But what are all the foure and twenty Churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches?

Now to answer the reasons. The first of them hath no part true: the proposition is denyed. For these Churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall, that is, so conjoyned that they might and did meet in one Congregation. p. 22The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes, and the numbersome Clergy of some Cathedrall Churches, but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser, and Congregations ampler and fuller, and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth, nor made so little as might not have Presbyters and Deacons. What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot be had in every Towne, yet such a Towne as Cambridge may have a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge aff…ords, and the meanest market Towne may have, though not in deg…ee, yet in kinde like Governours. So is it in Presbyters and other Officers: the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens, not that a Bishop is ever to have a l…ke numbe…some Presbyterie, but because the Church is so numbe…some that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance, and so wealthy that it can well maintaine them. And beside, because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiasticall, which the fathers had in their Presbyteries; for the nursing of plants, which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches, which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no whit intended.

To come to the assumption: But city Churches onelyonly had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons. Answer, First, not to stand upon this, that Saint Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters, but Presbyters onelyonly, and they say Bishops were given, when the Presbyters had brought the Church to bee more numbersome, the assumption is false, that Citie Churches onelyonly had them. For the Scripture saith, they planted them Church by Church, that is, through every Church. Then every Church had her Governours within her selfe, wee must use as ample interpretations as may be. Contrarily, the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest wee cannot without evidence receive it, in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est. Eclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference, Parishionall, D…ocesan, or Provinciall; but onelyonly a company orderly assembling, not foreign. Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation. Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall, as, foreign is foreign, so foreign is foreign. Now their interpretation beggeth everything without any ground. For when Presbyters may be taken but there wa…es: divisim, conjuct…m, and divisim, and conjunctim: divisim one Presbyter in one, another in another, conjunctim, diverse Presbyters in every Church, neither of these will serve their turne, the latter onelyonly being true: for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters, without which the Church cannot be governed, it is sure it did give of both kinds to every Church they p…anted, p. 23Now they seeing some Churches in our times to have many, and some one conster it both waies Collective, many Presbyters, & Singularly, one here, and one there, and because many Presbyters cannot be thu… placed in our frame of Churches, imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches.

But they will not seeme to speake without reason; the Scripture say they placed City by City Presbyters, and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie, Suburbes, and Countrey, which Parishionall ones doe not. But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a Citie, without occupying limits of Citie, Suburbes, and Countrey? and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church, may they not bee said to be placed in Cities? Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds; the case were other; but the citie is not literally thus to be understood, but metonymically for the Church in the Citie. Neither was the Church in the city, all within such bounds; for the Saints of a place and Church of a place, are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech. As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall history, it is true, that in processe of time, the Bishop onelyonly had a company of Presbyters. Before, Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters. Churches should so have afterward beene divided, that all should have beene alike for kinde, though in circumstantiall excellency some were before other. What a grosse thing is it to imagine, that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posterity to imitate? A sitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles, who sending out there foreign, or Colonies, doe use to reserve some cases in civil jurisdiction over them, which the state of later Churches did expresse.

p. 24THE SECOND QVESTION, WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe, or by his Apostles, any ordinary Pastor, as our Bishops, having both precedency of order, and majority of power above others.

WEE will follow the same method: First, setting downe the arguments for it, with answers to them: Secondly, the arguments ag…inst it. Thirdly, lay downe conclusions. The arguments for it are: First, taken from Scripture: secondly, from practise of the Churches: thirdly, from reason evincing the necessity of it.

The fi…st Argument.

Those whom the holy Ghost instituted, they are of Christs ordaining. But the holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops, Acts 20. Ergo, B…shops are of Christs ordaining.

Answer. We deny the assumption: viz. That those Presbyters of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops. It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church; such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation. The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom: that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches. Yea, Doct. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have had no Bishop, who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome, as he thinketh. And others defending the Hierarchie, who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops, doe judge that these words belong not to the Presbyters of Ephesus, but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them, to wit, of Timothy, Sosipater, Tychicus, who, p. 25say they, were three Bishops indeed; but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company, is quite besides the text.