whereby to doe those same things in the same Church is to no end Ergo. Object But it will be denied that any other power of order or to teach and administer sacraments was given then that he had as an Apostle but onely jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church Answer To this I reply first that if hee had no new power of order he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinary was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Object But it was not in vaine that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church Answer If by the mutuall agreement in which thâ—y were guided by the spirit it was thought meere that Iames should abide in Jerusalem there tending boâ—h the Church of the Jewes and the whole circumcision as they by occasion resorted thither then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked But they did thinke it meete that hee should there tend that Church and with that Church all the Circumcision as they occasionally resorted thereto Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there yâ—t his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Jewes Galath 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor what did hee need assignation under any other title Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person viz. of an ordinary Pastor which hee could not bee who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors hâ—ve Fourthly that calling which hee could not exercise without being much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a point of honour for him But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary Bâ—shop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinary man liable to errour Ergo hee was never ordained to bee a Bishâ—p properly If it bee sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop True it is hee might have beene assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and be no whit abased but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Jewes which hee might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did neede to goe forâ—h as the rest for the Jewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without goiâ—g forâ—h in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary Paâ—tor was much lesse honour then to travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithinia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour â—ither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the rest but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinary Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clemens in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authority What needed they an ordinary Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchy say to supply the absence of Apostles when now they were to decease What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the pâ—oposition For had some ordinary Pastors beene so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other wherefore unlesse this be interâ—erted it is unsound viz. Those ordinary Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminency which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the Assumption is false altogether First thâ—t Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor Secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obi. But the judgement of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostome is that he was Answ. The common judgement is that he was an egregious teacher of theirs but further then this many of the testimonies doe not depose Now so he might be for he was an Evangelist and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher yea an egregious teacher or Doctor of them Nay Saint Ambrose doth plainely insinuate that he was an Evangelist for he saith he was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where hee makâ—th him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the â—ransunt exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because hee was their ordinary Pastor Ieroms testimony on this place doth not evince For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken and as appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Thâ—â—d doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are said to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have beene such an Apostolicke person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truly called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoreâ— to bee admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee communicated then with ordinarie Pastors where now there was danger of confounding those eminent Ministers of Christ with others and when now the Apostles were deceased that then it should cease to bee ascribed to them Againe how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie that hee must bee a person thus and thus according to Pauls Canons qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely uâ—der the name of Apostles and Angels Thirdly antiquity doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was
bishops had so Ergo c. The Assumption is manifest Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this that he should be the governour of the Presbytery and whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psalme call them the Prâ—nces of the Church by whom she is governed The assumption is proved particularly Those who had directive power above others and corrective they had majority of rule But Bâ—shops had Ergo. The assumption proved First for directive power the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them Igâ—a ad Mag. ad Smyr They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bâ—shop Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob Tert. lib. de â—â—pt Can. Apost 38 Can. Carthâ—g 4.38 Con. Câ—r 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5. Secondly that they had corrective power it is proved Apâ—c 2 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles and is commended for it the Angel of Thiatira is reproved for suffering the like Therefore they had power over other ministers Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 9. telleth Regaâ—ian he had power to have censured his Deacon Ierom. adversus Vigilantium marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantiâ—s was did not breake the unprofitable vessell Epiphaniuâ— saith Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves they the people The Presbyters affixed to places and Churches were subject to the Bishops for when they were vacant the bishop did supply them Againe the Presbyters had their power from him and therefore were under him and they were subject to the censure of the bishop Those of his Clergie were under him for he might promote them they might not goe from one Diocesse to another without him nor travell to the citie but by his leave The bishop was their judge and might excommunicate them Cyprâ—li 1. Epist 3. Concil Carth. 4. â—ap 59. Conc. Chal. cap. 9. conc Nice cap. 4. conc Ant. cap. 4. ibid. cap. 6. cap. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. conc Afric cap. 29. conc Ephes. cap. 5. conc Chal. cap. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrisostome prove this All Presbyters were counted acepheli headlesse that lived not in subjection to a bishop The Pastors of parishes were either subject to bishops or they had associates in Parishes joyned with them or they ruled alone But they had not associates neither did they rule alone Ergo they were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop Answer The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must be thus framed Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves without the concurrence of other Presbyters as fellow judges they were greater in majority of rule Thus bishops had not jurisdiction True it is they were called governours and Princes of their Churches because they were more eminent ministers though they had not Monarchiall power in Churches but Consull-like authority and therefore when they affected this Monarchy what said Ierome Noverint se saterdotes esse non dominos noverint se non ad Principâ—tum vocatos ad servitium totius Ecclâ—siae Sic Origen in Esa. hom 7. To the proofe of the Assumption Wee deny that they had this directive power over all Presbyters Secondly that thâ—y had it over any by humane constitution infallible Presbyters were in great difference Those who are called propry sacerdotes Rectores Seniores Minorâ—m Ecclesiarum praepositi the Bâ—shop had not not challenged not that directive power over them which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Cleriâ—kes who were helpes to him in the Liturgy in Chapells and parishâ—s which did depend on him as their proper teacher though they could not so ordinarily goe out to him The first had power within their Churches to teach administer excommunicate were counted brethren to the bâ—shops and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Ancient But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy they had â—his directive power over them the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same But I take these latter to have beene but a corruption of governing Presbyters who came to bee made a humane ministery 1. by having singular acts permitted 2. by being consecrate to this and so doing ex officio what they were imployed in by the bishop But sure these are but helpes to liturgy according to the Canons Preaching did not agree to them further then it could bee delegated or permitted Finally wee read that by law it was permitted them that it was taken away from them againe by the bishops that it was stinted and limited sometimes as to the opening of the Lords Praier the Creed and ten Commandements as it is plaine to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient Secondly let us account them as Ministers of the word given by God to hâ—s Church then I say they could not have any direction but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists and this pâ—wer is gâ—ven to the bishops onely by canon swerving from the first ordinance of Christ for it maketh a Minister of the word become as a cypher without power of his consecration as Ierom speaketh being so interpreted by Pilson himselfe These decrees were as justifiâ—ble as thâ—t which forbiddeth any to baptise who hath not gotten chrisme from the bishop Con. Carth. 4. cap. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onely a precedence of order in the bâ—shop above Presbyters requiring presence and assent as of a fellow and chiefe member not otherwise To the proof of the second part of the former assumption 1. we deny this majority of corrective power to have beene in the Apostles themselves they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Christs corrective power imposed Secondly we deny that this ministeriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evangelist where Churches were constituted Neither is the writing to one above others an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others To that of Cyprian against Râ—gatian we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the consent of Bishops neighbouring but that he might in regular manner have beene bold to have done it because he might be sure quod noâ— coâ—legae tui â—mnesid ratum haberemus Cyprian was of judgement that he hâ—mselfe might doe nothing without the consent of his Presbyters unlesse he should violate his duty by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren It was not modesty in him but due observancy such as he did owe unto his brethren Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarily any thing alone He received some the people and the brethren contradicting lib. 1. epist. 3. but not till he had perswaded them and brought them to be willing Thou seest saith he what paines I have to perswade the brethren to patience So againe I hardly perswade the people yea even wring it from them that such should be received Neither did he take upon him to ordaine Presbyters
alone but propounded made request for them confessing that further then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them they had the right of suffrage no lesse then himselfe as by these epistles may â—ppeare lib. 1. â—pist 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom though grandilâ— quenâ— sometimes did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet he would have these as the seventy Againe Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall Et nos senâ—cum habemus coetum Presbyteroâ—â—m sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam licet â— ut Romani habuerunt senâ—tum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius sâ—ith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsâ—fficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For Colleges supply Churches yet have they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we â—iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bâ—shop had such a jurisdiction as concerâ—ing the Church so farre as it was in society with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not prove them dependant on him For bishops have their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence Thus in Cyprians judgement bishops themselves delinquent turning wolves as Samosatenus Liberius c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries to be deposed and relinquished by them As for those that were part of his clerks it is true they were in greater measure subject to him absolutely in a manner for their direction but for his corrective power he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow bishops do any thing The bishop indeed is onely named many times but it is a common Synecdoche familiar to the Fathers who put the primary member of the church for the representative church as Austine saith Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclâ—siae gâ—ssisse See concil Sardicen cap. 17. conc Carth 4. cap. 2.3 Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3 Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Châ—ysostomes fact is not to be justified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which he was inclined though in regard of his end and unworthinesse of his Presbyters it may be excused yet it is not to be imitated As for those headlesse Clerkes it mâ—keâ—h nothing for the Bâ—shops majority of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them For first it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop a collegâ—at life together Eode refectorio dormitori utehantur Canonice viventes ab Episcopo instruâ—bontur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master it is no wonder if thâ—y be called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyâ—ers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clâ—rkes say it were yet will it not follow â—hat those who were under some were subject to his authority of rule For there is a head in regard of presidency of order as well as of power Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe bishop of their Province and to associate themselves with him So bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbishâ—ps as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes diâ— lâ—ve under some jurisdiction of the bishops but such as did permit them coerâ—ive power in their owne Churches such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity and not of any power whereby he might swâ—y all at his pleasure Thirdly if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny it is better to be without such heads then to have them as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome then if he still were head over us To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had because neitheir Presbyters alone had it nor with assistents I answer they had as well the power of government as of teaching and though they had not such assistants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church yet they might have some as a deacon or other person sufficient in such small Churches When the Apostles planted a bishop and Deacon onely how did this bishop excommunicate When the fathers of Africa did give a bishop unto those now multiplied who had enjoyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepiscopi who yet had government of their Churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrary of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others Ergo the contrary is truth Answer To the proposition we deny that it must needs be presently true the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie As the representative catholicke Church may propound an error so she mâ—y condemne a particular truth and yet remaine a catholicke church To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority but that onely which Aerius runne into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom deny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainely 2. Hee did not deny the fact that bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration hâ— could not be so mad If he had all that a bishop had actually how could he have affected to be a bishop as a further honouâ— Deniall of superiority such as consisteth in a further power of ordâ—r then a Pâ—eâ—byter hath and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule this denyall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be â—rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church What then was condemned in him A deniall of all superiority in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignity and secondly the deâ—ying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsâ—kâ— communion with the Church wherein it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should bee read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which have civill authority in lesse or greater measure conjoyned The truth is it cannot be shewed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors or as they are Prelats in the Church it cannot be avoided but that the Pastor should have it because though every Praesul or Pralatus be not a Pastor yet every Pastor is Pralatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinary Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with every Church if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition should not have power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house so God in his God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites and Christ the 70. not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authority apply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person his sole authority doth it though sometime as in ordinary callings the ministery of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of government as are in their Kingdome yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they have a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it 〈◊〉 immâ—diaâ—iâ—â— suppositi quâ—m virtutis sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Saâ—â—el to anoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immediatione virtutis not suppositi Object But yet Bishops have the Churches and the care of them wholly committed to them though therefore Ministers have equall power to them yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churâ—hes and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an error likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he mâ—y atâ—end God calleth Ministers not to a faculty of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartulâ—rios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary Judges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the University giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physicke without any patients among whom he may practise But Gods Ministery is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order if nothing by the way but a relative respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should give them a faculty of feeding and leave them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to have set the Presbyters over theiâ— flocke A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth give him a power of doing something to his family and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessity of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exegency of his people so require he doth not call any to the function of Ministery Againe this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignty to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors and Bishops the moity of sheepe on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheepe feed my sheepe so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheepe in a Diocesan flocke to be his and that he hath power to assigne the severall flockes under him he doth usurpe an Antichristian authority Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a Curate is whom a Parson giveth leave to helpe within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dieth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Master what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now every Minister is an Embassadour of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministery if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministerâ—mediately onely serve God in as much as they have done this or that to which the bishop did direct them Moreover should the bishop bid him not preach at al preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and live from his charge he should not sinne in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministery which he cannot give It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called
that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company is quite besides the text The second Argument Such Pastors as the seven Angels Christ ordained But such were Diocesan Bishopâ— Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminency amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan bishops But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiâ—sticall preheminence and superiority of power Eâ—go they were Diocesan bishops The assumption is proved Those who were shadowed by seven singular Starres were seven singular persons But the Angels were so Ergo. Againe Those to whom onely Christ did write who onely bare the praise dispraise threatning in regard of what was in thâ— Church amisse or otherwise they had Majority of power above others But these Angels are written to onely they are onely praised dispraised threatned Ergo. c. Answ. 1. In the two first syllogismes the assumption is denyed Secondly in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the prâ—position is denied That they must needs be seven singular persons For seven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites whether singular or aggregative seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity a united multitude Thirdly the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed For though we should suppose singular persons written to yet a preheminency in order and greater authority without majority of power is reason enough why they should be written to singularly and blamed or praised above other Thus the Master of a Colledge though he have no negative voyce might be written to and blamed for the misdemeanours of his Colledge not that he hath a power over-ruling all but because such is his dignity that did he doe his endeavour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may be denyed That they are onely written to For though they are onely named yet the whole Churches are written to in them the supereminent member of the Church by a Synecdoche put for the whole Church For it was the custome in the Apostles times and long after that not any singular persons but the whole Churches were written unto as in Pauls Epistles is manifest and in many examples Ecclesiasticall And that this was done by Christ here the Epiphonemaes testifie Let every one beare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall institution But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First thâ—y ordained Iames Bishop of Jerusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo. they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Clâ—ment and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our owne author Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. 33. Ambâ—os in Galath 1.9 Dorothâ—us in Synopsis Aug. contra Câ—es lib. 2. cap. 37. the generall Councell of Const. in Trull cap. 32. For though hee could not receive power of order yet they might gâ—ve him power of jurisdiction and assigâ—e him his Church So thâ—t though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might justly be called the Bâ—shop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had â—hey foâ— theâ—r Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and majority of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had oâ—her called Bishops Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Tâ—erd and Châ—yâ—ost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thiâ—her Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when thâ— Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and â—itus were instituted Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Crete Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus That which is presupposed in their Epistles is true But it is presupposed that they wâ—re Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Epâ—sâ—opall authority given them to bee exercised in those Churchâ—s thâ—y are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus bee patternes of the Episcopall function informing them and in them all bishops then they were bishops But they are so Ergo. 2 Againe whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches doth prescribe the very dutie of bishops hee doth presuppose them bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governâ— with â—ingularity of preheminence and majority of power in comparison of other Now these are the things which they have in charge Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 1.3.11 2 Tim. 2.16 Ergo. 3. Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan bishops But these were so Ergo to Diocesan bâ—shops Now that Diocâ—san bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did suâ—ceed them were their successours But Diocesan bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Counsell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were bishops Diocesan And we read of Phillip bishop of Gorâ—iâ—a the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churâ—hes were there bishops But Timothy was bid abide here Titus to stay to correct all things and they lived and died here For Timothy it is testified by Hâ—gisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom so refuse to believe deserve tâ—emselves no beliefe Ergo they were there bishops Againe Jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morre Sanct. Antonius par 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these doe depose that they lived and died there Further to prove them bishops 5. Their function was Evangelicall and extraordinary or ordinary not the first â—hâ—t was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessâ—â—y to the
continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as â—usebius reporteth Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certaine place and a calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would have debased Timothy and Titus that Paul did not put upon them But to have brought them from the honour of serving the Gospell as Collaterall companions of the Apostles to be ordinary Pastors had abased them Ergo this to be ordinary Pastors Paul did not put upon them Object The assumption it denyed it was no abasement For before they were but Presbyters and afterward by imposition of hands were made bishops why should they receive imposition of hands and a new ordination if they did not receive an ordinary calling we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands I answer This deny all with all whereon it is builded 〈◊〉 grosse For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour is to abase them But the Evangelists office was superiour to Pastors Ergo. The assumption proved First Every office is so much the greater by how much the power of it is of ampler extent and lesse restrained But the Evangelists power of reaching and governing was illimited Ergo. The assumption proved Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle there an Evangelist might doe that which belonged to him But that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation Ergo. Secondly every Minister by how much he doth more approximate to the highest by so much he is hâ—gher But the companions coadjutors of the Apostles were neerer then ordinary Pastors Ergo. Who are next the King in his Kingdome but those who are Regis Comites The Evangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes. 4. That the Evangelists in an ambulatory course spreading the Gospell were above any bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certaine Church Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weake conceite For every Prsbyter properly so called was constituted in a certaine Church to doe the worke of the Lord in a certaine Church But Evangelists were not but to doe the worke of the Lord in any Church as they should be occasioned Ergo they were no Presbyters properly so called Now for their ordination Timothy received none as the Doctor conceiveth but what hee had from the hand of the Apostle and Presbyters when now he was taken of Paul to be his companion For no doubt but the Church which gave him a good testimony did by her Presbyters concurre with Paul in his promoting to that office Obj. What could they lay on hands with the Apostles which Phillip could noâ— and could they enter one into an extraordinary office Answ. They did lay on hands with the Apostles as it is expresly read both of the Apostles and them It is one thing to use precatory imposition another to use miraculous imposition such as the Apostles did whereby the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred In the first Presbyters have power Neither is it certaine that Phillip could not have imposed hands and given the Holy Ghost For though he could he might choose in wisedome for their greater confirmation and edification to let that be done by persons more eminent Finally imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinary office For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vocation from God As the calling of Evangelists though extraordinary was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets Secondly men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruitfull exercise of their immediate and extraordinary callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours as Paul and Barnabas were Howsoever it is plaine that Timothy by impâ—sition of hands was ordained to no calling but the calling of an Evangelist For that calling he was ordained to which he is called on by Paul to exercise and fully execute But he is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist Ergo that calling he was ordained to That worke which exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop was not put upon an ordinary bishop But Titus his worke did so for it was to plant Presbyters Towne by Towne through a Nation Ergo. For the ordinary plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop But this was Titus his worke Ergo. Bishops are given to particular Churches when now they are framed that they may keepe them winde and wether tight they are not to lay foundations or to exedifie some imperfect beginnings But say Titus had beene a bishop he is no warrant for ordinary bishops but for Primates whose authority did reach through whole Ilands Nay if the Doctors rule out of Theodorâ—t were good it would serve for a bishop of the plurality cut For it is said he placed Presbyters city by city or Towne by Towne who are in name onely bishops but not that he placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it He therefore was the sole bishop of them the rest were but Presbyters such as had the name not the office and government of Bishops Finally were it granted that they were ordinary bishops and written to doe the things that bishops doe yet would it not be a ground for their majority of power in matter sacramentall and jurisdiction as is above excepted The fifth Argument The Ministers which the Church hâ—d generally and perpetually the first 300. yeares after Christ and his Apostles and was not ordained by any generall Councell were undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution But the Church ever had Diocesan bishops in singularity of preheminence during life and in majority of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others and these not instituted by generall Councells Ergo The proposition is plaine both by Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. Epist. 118. and by Terâ—ul Constat id ob Apostolis traditum quod apuâ— Ecclesias Apostolorum fuit sacrosanctum For who can thinke that all the Churches generally would conspire to abolish the order of Christ planted by the Apostles and set up other Ministers then Christ had ordained The assumption it plaine for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently and from the beginning as the Councell of Nice testâ—fieth much more bishops For Dioces in bishops must bee before thâ—m they rising of combination of Cities and Dioces And the councell of Ephesus testâ—fieth the government of those bishops of Cyprus to have been ever from the beginning according to the custome of old received Yea that the attempt of the bishop of Antioch was against the Canons of the Apostles Againe Cyprian doth testifie that long before his time bâ—shops wâ—re placed in all Provinces and Cities besides the sâ—ccâ—ssion
and service The reason is because this exceedeth the â—ounds of ministeriall power and is a participation of that despoticall power which is appropriate to the master of the family Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signifie their masters direction and to execute ministerially what their master out of his corrective power inflicteth on their fellow servants in other degrees Thus Pastors signifie Gods will to governing Presbyters and Deacons what he would have them to doe in their places Thus the Apostles might informe all orders under them Concl. 7. This power ministeriall tending to execute the pleasure of Christs corrective power was committed to some in extraordinary degrees personally and singularly and might be so in some cases exercised by them I meane singularity without concurrence of any others This without doubt was in the Apostles and Evangelists and it was needfull it should be so first because it might be behovefull there to excommunicate whereas yet Churches were not risen to their perfect frame secondly because there might be some persons not setled as fixed dwellers in any Church whom yet to be cast forth was very behovefull Againe some Evangelists might incurre censure as Demas in such sort as no ordinary Churches power could reach to them Concl. 8. That ordinarily this power is not given to any one singularly by himselfe to exercise the same but with the company of others constituting a representative Church which is the point next to bee shewed Yea where Churches were constituted the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power without the minsteriall concurrence of the Churches as in the story of the Corinthians is manifest THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any singular person or to united multitude or Presbyters THough this question is so coincident with the former that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed yet for some new considerations which may be super-added we will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. Thaâ— which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church Matâ— 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to â—ome one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to be exercised by the whole Church or to any Church in the Church Ergo to one who is in effect as the church having all the authority of it Secondly if one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction iâ— promised then one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of jurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia saith that the bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the bishop â— that they cannot be severed Finally as the kingdome of England may be put for the King in whom is all the power of the Kingdome So the Church for the chiefe governour in whom is the power of it The second Argument Thâ—t which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted that was not promised to them as their immediat right But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted Ergo Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters For then the Apostles would not have withhold it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his judgeâ—ent was faine to excommunicate And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate And signifie them as not having power within themselves to censure them And so Paul alone excommunicaâ—ed Hymenâ—us and Alexander The third Argument That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches and their successours that was not committed to Presbyteries but singular persons But in power of ordination and jurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Tituâ— in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of jurisdiction that Christ did ordaine But the order of one chiefe governour is sitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fifth Argument If all authority and power of exercise be in the Church originally then the Pastors derive their power from the Church But this is not true Ergo it was not committed to the Church That authority which the Church never had shee cannot convey But the Pastorall authority of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken Ergo it cannot be derived from her Againe Pastours should discharge their office in the name of the Church did they receive their power from the Church The sixth Argument If the power of jurisdiction and execution be committed from Christ to the Church then hath the Church supreame power Then may a particular Church depose her bishop the sheepe censure the shepheard children their fathers whâ—ch is absurd On the other side it is argued Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many and to be exercised by many that never wâ—s committed by Christ to one and the execution of aâ—y one But Mat. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many and that exercitative so as by them being many it is to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plaine in the place Where first mâ—rke â—hat Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particulâ—r Church tâ—ken in distinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Thâ—refore no universâ—ll or provinciall or Diocesan Church gâ—thered in a Câ—uncell Secondly it is not any particular Châ—rch that he doth send â—ll Christiâ—ns to for â—hâ—â— all Christâ—ans in the world should come to one particular at Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Church where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntâ—ation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speake it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governors of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom wee may ordinarily and orderly complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinary as all but Morelius and such Democritall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two
upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâ—iers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâ—d upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâ—en that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâ—ment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâ—an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâ—r English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ— they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâ—fe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hâ—nd not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and â—hird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâ—ite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been teaâ—med by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised nor had and therefore could not bee succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters thaâ— which Christ gave them out of his power even the power of ordinary government They are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed as well by government as doctrine They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock What feare of tyranny where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him hee having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee imployed I thought it necessary to send Spaâ—brâ—dit us to you Secondly hee doth imply that Epaphraditus had not returned to them but that hee sent him and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might bee dispatched to them Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle as their ordinary and eminent Pastor In the Scriptures none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them Now this is undoubted the Philippians had sent him to Paul It is then most probable when he is â—â—lled their Apostle it is in regard he was sent by them which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words who hath ministred to me the things â—eâ—dfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve should be used of those sent civilie Not so for while the persons sending are signified they are sufficiently contradistinguished it being the Priviledge of the Apostles that they were the Apostles of Christ Jâ—sus not simply that they were Apostles Secondly Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent For though Christ meane it of himselfe yet he implies it by a discourse a genere ad speciem Thirdly we see the like phrase 2 Cor. 8 The Apostles of the Churches For Chrysostâ—me there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were by Paul to the Churches therefore the churches might not send them with their contributions Neither is this an argument that he was their bishop because their church sent him for they sent Apostles themselves and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from church to church for the edification of them For the instance of Archipus I finde it not urged Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus First we deny the Antecedent that they were instituted bishops by Paul And in the first presillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogisme tending to prove this assertion denyed we answer first to the propoâ—ition by distinguishing the Episcopall authority which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Proposition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to have had authority Episcopall given them both for the substance of it and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary bishop they are presupposed bishops but this is denyed For they are presupposed to have and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to have and exercise in that manner and formallity which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Evangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Evangelist to exercise all that power â—hey did exercise as Evangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth 〈◊〉 Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crâ—te which himselfe present in person might not and would not have done If wee should reason then thus Hee who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to have beene bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation Hee who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop hee was Bishop but not â—ee who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner at doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee deny the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Evangelists ordinary Pastors have many things common in their administration Hence is it that the example of the one may be a patterne to another though they are not identically and formally of one calling Councells have enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles as being patternes for them Vide Aug. De doctrin Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4. To the third reason Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the very duties of Bishops bee doth take them to have beene Bishops The Proposition is not true without a double limitation If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped he doth not therefore presuppose them bishops because thâ—se are duties of Evangelists agreeing to bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the wâ—ord doth ascribe and appropriate to bishops yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them it will not follow that he doth take them for bishops not that Paul doth purpose the very duties of bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly we deny him to purpose for substance the duties of bishops For hee doth not bid him ordaine as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers nor governe with power directive and corrective over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvâ— uni useuiusque Ecclesiae iure the Apostles did not otherwise For thougâ— Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting and framinâ— of othâ—rs Secondly because they were in degree and dignity abovâ— all other ordinarâ— governours of the Church which their Consâ—â— like preheminencye was sufficient why they should be written alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to inform not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesâ— Bishops thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Eâ—â— The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothâ—â—â— written to any persons can informe Diocesan bishops unlesse 〈◊〉 persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same ordâ—â— For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apâ—stolique
being of the Church The reason is because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner viz. as Evangelists and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner was not necessary to perpetuate the being of the Church Assignation to churches to doe the worke of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary noâ— assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be â—aken What they speake so agreeing that it is virtually conteined in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainely contradicted but yet no way included may be admâ—tted side humanâ— if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it is is in effect of light credulity A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declining To the assumptioÌ„ we answer What do not some ancient enough cal Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while in like sense others a Primate a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to have been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in propriety of speech all these were absurd Object I but they call him bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Answ. They call him bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordaine Deacons Presbyters For wheresoever they found this done and by whomsoever they did call them bishops as I noted before from Oecumen The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these bishops because they made longer stay in these Churches then Evangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishopes in their time used to doe But that he was not an Evangelist and more then an ordinary bishop they do not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1 â—im pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusquâ—â— Episcopus etiamsi ad â—emâ—us in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicavâ—rit sacrâ—s ordiâ—nes promoveris unde quidem vocant cum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinary Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I have shewed contrary to Scripture yâ—a contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist As for the shew from â—he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently Now to shew thâ—t thâ—y were not properly bâ—shops First we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episcopall duties a while but wâ—re not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therefore not bâ—shops properly Secondly thâ—y who did the worke of an Evangelist in all that they did did not perform formally the worke of a bishop But these did so As is vouched of Timothy Doe the worke of an Evâ—ngelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Evangelist and bâ—shop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Evangelist and the act of an ordinary Pastor or bishop cannot be formally one For when everything doth agere secundum quod actis est those things which are not thesame formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or bishops are not formally the same Ergo The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gâ—ve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguâ—shed from a Prophet a Prophet from an Evangelist so an Evangelist from an ordinary Teacher Object But it may be said they were not distinct but that the superiour contained the inferiour and Apostles might be Evangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Aâ—sw That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently in as much as they could doe altiâ—ri tamen raâ—ione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formally the power of all otâ—er offices suites wâ—th the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Justâ—â—e of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penmen of the Gospell but this maketh not an Evangelist more then an Apostle but doth per cecidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this commeth per cecidens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Maâ—kâ— and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should have beene Evangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowned then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that wee call them Evangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospells whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension but the first writer of the Gospell being an Apostle was at least eight yeares after Secondly they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles Thirdly they were such as by labour of ministery common for the generall of it to all other did gather Saints and build Christs Body Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministery common to Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome and oâ—hersome those he did not give conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gave to some one to others another Else he must have said he gave the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Evangelists and Pastors Ergo. That calling which is not compatible with the calling of an Evangelist that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist But the callâ—ng of a bishop is such For a bishop is tyed to a particular Church The calling of an Evangelist is a calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministery to gather Saints and edifie Christs body without any limitation to any particular Church Ergo Paul never annexed the calling of a bishop to an Evangelist The calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist But this doth difference them to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church Thus Phillip thus all those who were the Apostles helpers working the work of the Lord as they did were Evang. of which sort some
externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Acts 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have beene in the churches of Corinth when it had no bishop power of ordination 1 Tim. 4. If any say that this their power was but by commission in them and that they were subordinate to the Apostles in exercise of it being to reteine it onely untill such time as more eminent Pastors should be given I answer all this is spoken gratis without any foundation and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected The Presbyters so had this power that they did commit it to the bishops as we shall shew after and therefore it must have beene in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinary office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the holy Ghost who onely had out of authority trusted them with it If the Apostles and they did concurre in doing one and the same thing they did it as inferiour to the Apostles and servants of a lower order not with any subjection to them as heads of derivation serving Christ their onely Lord no lesse immediately then the Apostles themselves Argument 3. That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors but in all other orders there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power above other No Apostle Prophet Evangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition be denied upon supposall of a different reason because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest and other secondary ones so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be devided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the parity is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yâ—t this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should bee in degree inferiour to other the governing Elders to the Pastors and the Deacons to them Thirdly if every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body should have governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracy especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of gouernment sufficient to preserve order But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it selfe Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled and to the civill Magistrate who in case of delinquency hath directive and corrective power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyranny subject it As for the distinction of Priests wee grant it but as man could not have made that distiction had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament no more can we under the new Howbeit that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule as our Bishops now challenge Argument 4. If some be inferiour unto othersome in degree of power it must be in regard of their poweâ— to teach or their power to govern or in the application of this power to their persons or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe or finally in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on an other but Christ for any of these Ergo. The proposition standeth on a sufficient enumeration the assumption may be proved in the severall parts of it The former branch is thus cleared First the power we have is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee have it as imediately from Christ as they I shew them both thus The power of order is the power which inableth us to preach and deliver the whole counsell of God and to minister all Sacraments sealing Gods covenant Now unlesse we will with the Papists say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office or that his power is a rudimentall limited power as to open the creed Lords praier and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacraâ—entall there being other sacraments of ordination and â—onfirmation which wee may not minister all which are groâ—â—e weâ— must yeeld their power of order to be the same Yea were these sacraments properly they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath Ordination in doâ— this in remembrance of me confirmation in power to baptize The power being the same it is happily in one immediately and in the other by derivation from him Nothing lesse All grant that Christ doth immediately give it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she give this power might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order no sacrament no preaching The Pope doth not if we follow the common tenent challenge so much as to give the power of order to any bishop or priest whatsoever If you say the Presbyter is ordained by the bishop that is nothing so is the bishop by other bishops from whom notwithstanding he receiveth not this power We will take this as granted of all though the truâ—h is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can have none but what is derived to him from the bishop who hath the fulnesse of it within his Diocesan Church But this is false and grounded on many false presumptions As first that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors for to make a Pastor and give him no help against the Wolfe is to furniâ—h him forth imperfectly Secondly it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church and so to others whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter and exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it Thirdly this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the bishop and from him to be derived to other which maketh him a head of virtuall influence that in his Church which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all bishops For his headship and spirituall soveraignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in forâ— externo is committed to him Not to mention how bishops while they were bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicity and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistory did carry all the credite every office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more
governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestive is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one inspiring him with his spirit and not be present with many who are in his name and with his warrant assembled As for those comparisons they hold not in all they hold in that which the Consull doth in calling the assembly propounding things c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Senators nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate To the fift argument to the proposition by distinction if they have all power both of ministeriall application and instituting others out of vertue and authority then Pastours derive But this is denyed She hath no power but of Ministery and no plenitude but so farre as they in their owne persons can discharge It presupposeth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not But to let the proposition passe because of some derivation it is true If she have but all power of Ministeriall application then Bishops 〈◊〉 fâ—om 〈◊〉 But â—hey doe not We say they doe And whereâ—â— it i◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— which the Church neâ—er had she cannot conve◠〈…〉 which the Church never had she cannot virtually convey it but she may aâ— ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving iâ— Nothing can give that which it hath not either formally or virtually unlesse it give it as an instrument to one who hath it A man not having a penny of his owne may give aâ— hundred pounds if the King make him his Almoner A Steward may give all offices in his masters house as ministerially exâ—cuting his masters pleasure Thus the Church deriveth as taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church This answereth to the last suggestion For if the Church did virtually and out of power make an officer it is true as we see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth But if she doe it in Steward-like manner ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house then is not he so taken in to doe in his name but in his masters name As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did confer it on him The last objection I answer That the particular Church may depose their Bishop What member soever in the Church is the offending person may be complained of to the Church The Church of Philippi if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop and so power of instituting him then of destituting also Instituere destituere ejusdem esâ—â—otestates But he is given the onely judge in Christs roome and though they elect him yet as you have said and truely they have not the power of thâ—t authority in them to which he is elected No more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the Imperiall dignity Answer We say therefore that as the Church hath onely ministeriall power of application that is as they cannot out of power call a Pastour but onely call one whom Christ pointeth out and to whom Christ out of power giâ—eth the place of Pastour So she cannot censure or depose but onely ministerially executing the censure of Christ who will have such a one turned ouâ— or otherwise censured But the Bishop never was sole judge though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may be said so Christ instituted â— Presbytery in which all had equall power of judgement Cyprian Ep. 68. in the case of Besâ—â—â—des and Martialis doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy so of refusing unworthy He speaketh of an ordinary power as by choosing is manifest not extraordinary and in case of necessitie And Mr. Field maintaineth that Lâ—â—erius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church Unlesse they will say with some Schoolmen Sotâ— viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the generall Church with whom in his calling the Church Oecumenicall hath nothing to doe To that which is objected touching Fathers Pastors the similitudes hold not in all things Naturall parents are no wayes children nor in state of subjection to their children but spirituall fathers are so fathers that in some respect they are children to the whole Church So shepherds are no way sheepe but ministers are in regard of the whole Church Secondly Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds be they good or evill but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves Besides are not civill Kings Parents and Pastors of their people yet if they be not absolute Monarches it was never esteemed as absurd to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them If their owne Churches have no power over them it will be hard to shew wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches But Lord Bishops must take state on them and not subject themselves unto any triall but by their Peeres onely which is by a Councell of Bishopâ— FINIS