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
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 The 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 affâ—ords and the meanest market Towne may have though not in degâ—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 lâ—ke numbeâ—some Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbeâ—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 onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that Saint Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to bee more numbersome the assumption is false that Citie Churches onely 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 Dâ—ocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now their interpretation beggeth everything without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but there waâ—es divisim conjuctâ—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 onely 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 pâ—anted Now 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 thuâ— 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 onely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserve some cases in civil jurisdiction over them which the state of later Churches did expresse THE 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 agâ—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 fiâ—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 Bâ—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 say they were three Bishops indeed but
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
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
or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtually as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one person Secondly the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdly the gradation doth shew it First by thy selfe Then shew a witnes or two Then to the Church as the sinne increaseth the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured increaseth also If one say though the Church signifie one governour yet the gradation holdeth for to tell it to â—he governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twenty Wee grant that this is true and were the word Câ—urch taken here to note some eminent governour it might be brought in as a further degree though one onely were enforced But how can Peter be complainaint if Peter the Praesul onely be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthly the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person was not any one but many Their rebuke upon which it is like he repented was a rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoyned for what ye shall â—ind on earth shall be bound in heaven Sixtly if the church did not note an assembly how could he assure them from hence that God would do what they agreed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Unlesse the Church meant were an assembly this argument could not be so correspondent Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on But where the Church is binding or loosing there are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly the churâ—h in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually but an assembly of Priests sitting together as Judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctly presuppose every particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joint authoriâ—y and joint execution of a representative Church a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practice of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to bee exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinâ—hians that power with the exercise of it was committed by Christ to many not to one But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many and to be performed by many assembled Ergo. The proposition is plaine For Paul would not have called for nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall other then Christ had ordained The assertion is denyed by some but â—t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumenâ—s For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast them forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si auâ—em quis potestalem non hâ—bâ—â— quim scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondly Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For hee doth not call on them to restraine him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdly Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within those who were called brethren and lived otherwise Fourthly Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or muâ—ct oâ— many writing to them that they would not proceed 2 Cor. 2 6. Lastly Paul doth attribâ—te power to them to forgive him and to receâ—ve him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as hâ—ve no power to binde have no power to loose So it mighâ— be provâ—d by the Church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess. 3.14 If any man waâ—k inâ—rdinatly note him that others may refraine him Noting being not a signification by letter which doth wrest the word against all copies and the current of all Greek interpreters but judicially to note him â—hat all may avoid him that is excommunicate him Finally the churches of Asia as it is plaine had power of government within themselves Argum. 5. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the churches nor Evangelists but with concurrence of the churches and Presbyteries that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour but by many But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with concurrence of the Presbyters of the church Ergo much lesse may any ordinary Minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery For that Persons must be understood here is apparant by the like place when it is said by the laying on of my hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person and so here a Presbytery Secondly 〈◊〉 take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicons and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers â—ake it a company of bishops For neither was that Canon of 3. bishops and the Metropolitan or all the bishops in a Province in the Apostles time neither were theâ—e who are now called bishops then called Presbyters as they say but Apostles men that had received Apostolick grace Angels c. Finally it is very absurd to think of companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but he placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from bishops which is the grant of our adversaries Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence besides testimonie of Scripture Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbytery with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of these keyes doing it ex officiâ— and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth Yea the bishops called Primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Prebytery did not give them Whence have bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the bâ—shop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained Ministers As Consuls and Dâ—ctators are said to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Jesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on
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 thâ—rd they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If city churches onely and not the churches of Villages and counâ—ry Townes had bishopâ— Presbyters and Deaâ—ons placed in them then were those city churchâ—s Diocesan churches But city churâ—hes onely had thâ—se Ergo city churches were Diocesan distinguâ—shed from Paâ—â—shiâ—nall churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripâ—ure Tâ—tus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secâ—ndly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Stoâ—y Thâ—y who are gâ—ven to lâ—bour the convertion of the Regions raâ—her then tenâ— those alreâ—â—y converted they were not given to a Parishionall church But the Presbyters 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 Apostlâ—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 onely 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 â—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 Dâ—ocesan church having government of others Presbyters could not ordaine sede vacante though thâ—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 onely such churches to bee instituted of Christ which may meet in one congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assemble Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a church as may to holy puâ—poses ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitâ—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 diffâ—rence â—s â—quall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nâ—tionâ—ll or Diocesan churches Let a reason be given why it should never speake in the singular number had they beene a singulâ—r church Secâ—ndly let us come to exâ—mples the churches the Apostles plâ—â—â—ed were suâ—h 〈◊〉 niâ—hâ— and did congregate Fiâ—sâ— that of Hâ—â—rusalem though there were in it toward 500. â—â—nogogues yet the christâ—â—n church was but one and such as did congreâ—ate â—nâ—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 Panegericâ—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 they 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 Zâ—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 onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Acts 11. Peter gâ—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Bâ—shop If Presbyters onely 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 â—ister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning 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
it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whâ—tsoever Secoâ—ly wee deny Diocesan bishops are de jure successours As for equivocall Catalogue which maketh all who are read bishops to have beene Diocesan we shall speake of them hereafter The bishops betweene Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedon Councell were not all of one cut and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations Therâ— is no more to prove Phillip of Gortina a Metropolitan then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria For what doth story relate but that Phillip was amongst other a bishop of those Churches which were in Crete There are many Churches in England a Minister of which Churches is such an one that is one Minister amongst others of those Churches To that of their residing there and dying in these Churches First the proposition is not necessary For as Iames might reside exercising an Apostolicall inspection in a particular Church so might these exercâ—se an Evangelicall function how long soever they resided Secondly the assumption will not bee found true for ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers For Timothy though he be exhorted to stay at Ephesus yet this doth not argue it that he was enjoyned ordinary residence For first it was a signe he was not bishop because Paul did exhort him for he would well have knowne he might not being their ordinary Pastor leave them further then the more important good of the Church should occasion 2. He is bid to stay there not finally but till the Apostle should come to him which though he might be delayed it is plaine he then intended So Titus is placed in Crete not to stay there and set downe his rest but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 further to set as it were and exedisie the fabricke which Paul had begun God gave Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not ever a correcting of any thing amisse but a setling every thing right by erecting the substance foreshadowed But say it were correcting it were but such a correction as one might performe in transitu with a little longer stay though not ordinary residence By Scripture the contrary is manifest For first it is not like that Timothy was placed bishop after Pauls being at Rome for when Paul saith he prayed him when now hee was going to Macedonia to stay at Ephesus he doth intimate that when hee left him they were there both together Secondly when he wished him to abide there hee had a meaning to come unto Timothy thâ—ther where he left him so as at least to call on him and see the Church But Paul after his parting from the Presbyters knew he should never see the Ephesians more Act. 20. If wee say he doth foretell it for likely so we may say that of wolves aâ—ising was and call all into question Neither is it likely but that teares would have broke his heart and made hâ—m yeeld in the pâ—remptories of his speech had not his soule beene divinely perswaded Thirdly he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Timothy to be their Bishop for he would not have omitted sue hâ—aâ— argument of consolation to hearts so heavy Not he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle Hee telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them or to send others Fourthly Timothy was with Paul while hee was in bonds at Rome as witnesse those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Câ—llâ—â—â—ins and Philippians yea Timothy was so with him as to bee imployed by him sent forth and returne to him which is manifest Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus yet he was not placed to be resident for in the end of the Epistle he doth bid Timothy come to him and bring Markâ— that they might minister to him Againe when hee did write the 2. Epistle Timothy was not Ephesus for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Priscilla and Onesiphorâ—â— Object But is like these were at Ephesus for there Paul left Aquila and Priscilla They came occasionally they did not fiâ—e there which Chrysostome also judgeth And the house of Onesiphorus Bernard taketh it was at Iconium in Lycaonia so that it is like he was in his native countrey at this time even Iconium Listra Derbe which happily is the cause why the Scholasticall story doth make him Bishop of Lystra because hither he was last senâ— He was so here as that the Apostle did but send him to see them for hee biddeth him come bâ—fore winter Besides there are many probalities he was not at Ephesus for he speaketh of it through the Epistle as a place now remote from him Thou knowest what Onesiphâ—rus did for mee at Ephesus not where now thou art I have sent Tychius to Ephesus not to thee to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent Finally after Paules death hee did not returne to Ephesus but by common consent went to Iohn the Apostle and very little before his death came to Ephesus if ever As for the Fathers therefore in this point if they testifie ordinary residence which they doe not wee have liberty to renounce them but they testifie onely that he remained in that Church because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make and he is thought to have suffered martyrdome there So for Titus when Paul sent him to Crete to doe that worke is uncertaine but this is certaine it was before his writing to the Corinths the second time and going to Rome This likewise that Paul was then in travelling and as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there for hee doth bid him to meete him at Nicopolis where he meant to be as it is likely but Titus comming did not meete him there but at length foâ—nd him in Macedonia whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians thanking God for his promptnesse even of his owne â—â—cord to be imployed amongst them 2 Cor. 8.16 which doth shew he had not beene made an ordinary bishop any where We find that he did accompany Paul at Rome 2 Tim. 4.10 and when Paul writ his second Epistle to Timothy he was in Dalâ—atia Whence Aquinaâ— doth thinke him to have beene bishop of that place Wherefore wee thinke him that will bee carried from such presumptions yea manifest arguments by Hegesippus Clemens and history grounded on them to be too much affected to so weake authors and wish not credit with him who counts him unworthy credit that will not sweare what such men depose Touching the proofe that followeth That either function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary or ordinary But their function as assigned to those Churchâ—s was not extraordinary We deny this assumption with the proofe of it That the function that these exercised as assigned to certaine Churches these two by name was necessary to the
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