But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiasticall preheminencie and superioritie of power Ergo 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 the Church amisse or otherwise they had Majoritie 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 proposition 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 preheminencie in order and greater authoritie without majoritie 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 blamed for the misdemeanors of his colledg not that hee hath a power overruling all but because such is his dignitie that did he doe his endevour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may bee 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 heare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall instituon But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First they ordained Iames Bishop of Ierusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo cap. 1. out of Clement and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our own authour Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost in Act. 3. 33. Ambros in Galath 1.9 Dorotheus in Synopsis Aug. contra Cris 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 give him power of jurisdiction and assigne him his Church So that though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might iustly be called the Bishop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had they for their Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and maioritie of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had other called Bishops Chap. 1.14 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Theod. and Chrysost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thither Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when the Churches had to send any where they did usually intreat their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and Titus 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 were Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches they are presupposed to have been ordained Bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus be the paternes 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 he doth presuppose them Bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a Bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governe with singularitie of preheminence and maioritie 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 Bishops Now that Diocesan Bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did succeed them were their successours But Diocesan Bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Councell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were Bishops Diocesan And we read of Philip Bishop of Gortina the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churches were 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 Hegisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom who so refuse to beleeve deserve themselues no beliefe Ergo they were there Bishops Againe Ierom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morte Sanct. Antoninus 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 Evangelisticall and extraordinarie or ordinarie not the first that was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and iurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessarie to the beeing of the Church was not to end But the function they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is necessarie to the beeing of the Church Ergo. c. 6 Finally that which Antiquitie testifieth agreeing with Scripture is true But they testifie that they were Bishops which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirme Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5.
churches read in Crete which were not Congregations There is no more to proue Phillip of Gortina a Metropolitan then to proue Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria For what doth storie 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 necessarie For as Iames might reside exercising an Apostolicall inspection in a particular Church so might these exercise an Euangelisticall function how long soever they resided Secondly the assumption will not be found true for ordinarie constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers For Timothie 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 haue known he might not being their ordinary Pastor leaue 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 plain 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 exedifie the fabricke which Paul had begunne God gaue Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not euer 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 whē now he 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 he had a meaning to come unto Timothy thither 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 wee may say that of wolues arising was and call all into question Neither is it likely but that teares would haue broke his heart and made him yeeld in the peremptories of his speech had not his soule been divinely perswaded Thirdly he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Timothy to be their Bishop for he would not haue omitted such an argument of consolation to hearts so heavie Nor he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle He telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them or to send others Fourthly Timothie was with Paul while he was in bonds at Rome as witnes those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Collossians and Philippians yea Timothy was so with him as to bee imployed by him sent forth and returne to him which is manifest Phillip 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 Marke that they might minister to him Againe when he did write the 2 Epistle Timothie was not Ephesus for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Pricilla and Onesiphorus Obj. But is like these were at Ephesus for their Paul left Aquila and Priscilla They came occasionally they did not fixe 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 natiue countrey at this time even Iconium Listra Derbe which happily is the cause why the Scholasticall storie doth make him Bishop of Lystra because hither he was last sent He was so here as that the Apostle did but send him to see them for hee biddeth him come before winter Besides there are many probabilities hee was not at Ephesus for he speaketh of it through the Epistle as a place now remote from him Thou knowest what Onesiphorus did for me at Ephesus not where now thou are I haue sent Tychius to Ephesus not to thee to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent Finally after Paules death he 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 therfore in this point if they testifie ordinarie residence which they doe not wee haue libertie to renounce them but they testifie onely that he remained in that Church because his stay was longer there then Euangelists did use to make and he is thought to haue 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 as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did meane to winter at Nicopolis When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there for he doth bid him to meet him at Nicopolis where he meant to be as it is likely but Titus comming did not meet him there but at length found him in Macedonia whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians thanking God for his promptnesse even of his own accord to be imployed amongst them 2. Cor. 8.16 which doth shew he had not been made an ordinarie 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 Dalmatia Whence Aquinas doth thinke him to haue been Bishop of that place Wherefore we thinke him that will be carried from such presumptions yea manifest arguments by Hegesippus Clemens and historie grounded on them to be too much affected to so weak 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 their function was Euangelisticall and extraordinarie or ordinarie But their function as assigned to those Churches was not extraordinary We deny this assumption with the proofe of it That the function that these exercised as assigned to certain Churches these two by name was necessary to the 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 Euangelists and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner was not necessarie to perpetuate the being of the Church Assignation to churches to
Titus that Paul did not put upon them But to haue 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 Obj. The assumption is denyed it was no abasement For before they were but Presbyters and afterward by imposition of hands were made Bishops why should they receiue imposition of hands and a new ordination if they did not receiue an ordinarie calling we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands I answer This denyall with all whereon it is builded is grosse For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour is to abase them But the Euangelists 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 Euangelists power of teaching and governing was illimitted Ergo. The assumption proved Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle there an Euangelist might doe that which belonged to him But that part of Gods work which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation Ergo. Secondly Every Minister by how much â—e doth more approximate to the highest by so much he is higher But the companions coadjutors of the Apostles were neerer then ordinarie Pastors Ergo. Who are next the King in his Kingdome but those who are Regis Comites The Euangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes 4. That the Euangelists in an ambulatorie course spreading the Gospell were aboue any Bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certain Church Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weake conceite For every Presbyter properly so called was constituted in a certain Church to doe the work of the Lord in a certaine Church But Euangelists 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 Timothie 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 gaue 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 Philip could not and could they enter one into an extraordinary office Ans 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 precatorie 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 haue power Neither is it certaine that Phillip could not haue imposed hands and given the Holy Ghost For though he could he might choose in wisedom for their greater confirmation and edification to let that bee done by persons more eminent Finally imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinarie office For every extraordinarie office is not attended with immediate vocation from God As the calling of Evangelists though extraordinarie was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets Secondly men called immediatly may be promoted to the more fruitfull exercise of their immediate and extraordinarie callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours as Paul and Barnabas were Howsoever it is plaine that Timothie by imposition 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 hee is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist Ergo that calling he was ordained to That work which exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie Bishop was not put upon an ordinarie Bishop But Titus his work did so for it was to plant Presbyters towne by towne through a Nation Ergo. For the ordinarie plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie 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 been a Bishop he is no warrant for ordinarie Bishops but for Primates whose authoritie did reach through whole Ilands Nay if the Doctors rule out of Theodoret were good it would serve for a Bishop of the pluralitie cut For it is sayd he placed Presbyters citie by citie or town by towne who are in name onely Bishops but not that hee placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it He therefore was the sole Bishop of them the test were but Presbyters such as had the name not the office and government of Bishops Finally were it granted that they were ordinarie Bishops and written to doe the things that Bishops doe yet would it not bee a ground for their majoritie of power in matter sacramentall and jurisdiction as is aboue excepted The fifth Argument The Ministers which the Church had 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 singularitie of preheminence during life and in maioritie of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others and these not instituted by generall Councels Ergo. The proposition is plain both by Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. Epist 118. and by Tertul. Constaâ— id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud 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 is plaine for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently and from the beginning as the Councell of Nice testifieth much more Bishops For Diocesan Bishops must be before them they rising of combination of Cities and Diocies And the councell of Ephesus testifieth the government of those Bishops of Cyprus to haue been ever from the beginning according to the custom of old received Yea that the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch was against the Canons of the Apostles Again Cyprian doth testifie that long before his time Bishops were placed in all provinces and Cities besides the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their originall to haue been in the Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall Councell For long before the first generall Councell we read Metropolitans to have been ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no Councell of after times but the Apostles themselues did ordaine
Corinth by the name of Achaia hee doth imply that it is but one particular Church equall with the other Churches in Achaia To the third the proposition is againe denied That hee that speaketh of all the Churches as one doth imply a metropolitan Church For by the first conclusion we may speake of things not onely as they are really but according to any respect of reason under which they are apprehended Again the assumption is false He speaketh not of them as one Church but as divers Churches in one Province But it is named and set before others Ergo. c. The sequell is againe denied For it may be named before other because it is the most illustrious and conspicuous Church but not because it hath any power over other Finally it is too grosse to thinke that all in Achaia came to Corinth to be instructed and make their contributions every Church using the first day of the week when they assembled to make their collections within themselves The fourth instance is Crete where the many Churches in that Iland so full of Cities are said to be one Church of Crete whereof Titus was Bishop Those manifold Churches which made but one whereof Titus was Bishop those were all one Nationall Church But the Churches of Crete as saith the subscription were so Ergo. Ans The proposition might be questioned on the ground aboue but the assumption is false proved by a subscription which is like his proofe which was brought out of the book after the Revelation For first they are not in the Syriack testament Secondly they are not thought of Antiquity ancienter then Theodoret. Thirdly the subscription is false and most unlikely For had Paul written from Nicopolis he would haue wished Titus to come to him to Nicopolis where he was for the present and meant to winter rather then haue spoken of it as a place from which he was absent and whether he meant to repaire The fift instance Phillip 3. That church which was in the chiefe citie of all Macedonia must needs be at least a Diocesan But the Church of Philippi was so Ergo. This will proue an argument when Churches must needs be conformed to the civill regencie of the Emperour his foure chiefe Governours called praefecti praetorii his presidents of Provinces under them and inferiour Iudges and Magistrates under these in one citie and the regions of it But this is an errour giving ground to a Patriarchall and Oecumenicall Church as well as a Provinciall and Diocesan This rule of planting Churches varieth at mans pleasure For the Romane Provinces after the people of Rome gaue up their right to the Emperour were brought all into one under one head and Monarch and Provinces haue bene diversly divided from time to time From this Monarchie arose the Popes plea against the Greeke Churches for his Oecumenicall soveraigntie What forme of Churches must wee haue amongst them who never received any such governement nay any government at all If I were a Conformitant I should object otherwise for a Provinciall Church in Philippi viz. thus That Church which had many Bishops in it could not bee Parishionall nor Diocesan but Provinciall For the Provinciall Church hath the Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops in it and no other But Philippi had so Ergo. But the Proposition is true onely when it is understood of Diocesan Bishops not of Parishionall Bishops Againe Paul writeth not to the Bishops in the Church but in the Citie Now many Bishops are not in the Provinciall Citie though many are in a Provinciall Church Now to come to the churches of Asia I answer to the proposition of the first Syllog by distinction One church may conteine others as an example doth conteyne in it a thing exemplified oâ— as a head Church doth Churches united in subjection to it Those Churches which conteine all other in the latter sence it is true they were at least Diocesan but in this sense the assumption is denyed The same answer sitteth the Prosyllog Hee that writing to these writeth to all other by vertue of their subjectionall subordination he doth imply that all others are conteyned in these as member Churches under one head But he who writing to these writeth to all other as exemplified onely in them he doth not imply any such thing Now this is manifest because hee writeth to seven Churches whereas this were superfluous if Christ did intend his letter onely to head Churches conteyning other For then fiue Churches should haue bene written to onely seeing in them all others were conteyned as they say For by law of this virtual continencie Philadelphia and Thiatira were included in two of the other viz. Sardis Pergamus which were their mother cities What needed he haue named Thyatira which by law of this virtuall continencie did intend to direct his letter onely to head Churches Againe the assumption is false For he doth write principally to the seven and to all other Churches in Asia no further then hee writeth to all the Churches in the world There were other Churches in Asia such as were Colosse Hierapolis Troas the Church at Miletum and Assos which the Centuries mention which depended not on those seven If Colosse and Hierapolis were not as Laodicaea reedified when Iohn did write the Revelation yet these other Churches were then extant Not to name Magnesia and Tralles the independancie whereof is fully cleared whatsoever Doct. Downam objecteth To the third reason from Christs manner of concluding his Epistles it is answered by denying the assumption For Christ doth not use the plurall number in respect of that one Church preceding but in respect of the seven collectiuely taken it being his will that the members of each singular Church should lay to heart both severally and jointly what ever was spoken to them and to others Now to come to the Ecclesiasticall examples as of Rome and Alexandria two hundred yeares after Christ And first to answer the reason brought for their increase such as could not keepe still in a Parishionall meeting The Proposition is not of necessarie consequence for there were very extraordinarie reasons of that which which was effected in the Church of Ierusalem From Christ himselfe from the residence of all the Apostles from the state of the people there assembled from the state of that Church from the time in which these were done Christ had prayed for them particularly to which some attribute the first miraculous conversion by Peters preaching Againe it was fit that being now ascended into his glory hee should there more aboundantly display his power and more conspicuously swallow up the scandall of his crosse Againe this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it whose care and industrie we may guesse by their ordination of Deacons that they might not bee distracted Thirdly the confluence and concourse to Hierusalem was of much people who though explicitely they did not beleeue in Christ yet had in them the faith of
Cap. 4. Dyonis Arcepag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambrose proem in 1. Tim. 1. Ierom. 1. Tim. 1.14 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5. Primas prefat in 1. Tim. 1.1 Theod. praefat in Tit. Oecum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is sayd in the book of histories Greg. Lib. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34. Answer We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme with all the instances brought to proue it First for Iames we deny he was ordained Bishop or that it can be proued from antiquitie that he was more then other Apostles That which Eusebius reporteth is grounded on Clement whom we know to be a forged magnifier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should haue ordeyned Peter Iohn and James the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to haue ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignitie which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus do plainly affirme Secondly as the ground is suspected so the phrase of the Fathers Calling him the Bishop of that Church doth not imply that he was a Bishop properly so called The fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict formall proprietie Ierom on the first to the Galathians and in his Epistle to Damasus affirmeth that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles So many fathers call Phillip an Apostle Clem. 5. Const cap. 7. Euseb lib. 3. cap. ult Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops not in proprietie of speech but because they did such things as Bishops doe and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them Thus Peter Paul Iohn Barnabas and all the rest are by the Ancients called Bishops Obj. This is granted true touching others but not in this instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture as well as all other Story that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Ierusalem he did still abide with them even to death Answere though this bee but very conjecturall yet it nothing bettereth the cause here It followeth not Hee did abide with this Church Ergo he was the proper Bishop of this Church For not abiding in one Church doth make a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Church secondly to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it thirdly to governe it with a power of jurisdiction limited onely to that Church But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumcision by his office as they should from all the world resort thither Secondly he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth Ergo not as an ordinary Bishop Thirdly as the rest in what Provinces soever they rested had not their jurisdiction diminished but had power occasionally as well where they were not as where they were so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more founded out of Iames that he did in this circumstance of residing more neerly expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other It is plaine Antiquitie did hold them all Bishops and gather them so to be a Priori Posteriori the Author de quaest vet nov test cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopos salvatorem Ecclesijs in◅ituisse priusquam ascenderet imponens manus Apostolis ordinavit eos in Episcopos Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could regularly doe Oecum cap. 22. in Act. It is to be noted sayth he that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops for they did not make Bishops onely but Presbyters also Now wee must conster the ancient as taking them onely eminentlie and virtuallie to have been bishops or els we must judge them to have been of this mind That the Apostles had both as extraordinary legats most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors with power of teaching and governing such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them which indeed D. Downam himselfe confuteth as Popish and not without reason though while he doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly himselfe doth confirme it not a little Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings First That which might make us doubt of all their teaching and writing is to be hissed forth as a most dangerous assertion But to make Iames so any of them haue both these offices in proprietie might make us doubt Ergo. The assumptiō proved thus That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour when they teach from one office as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infallible discerning when they teach from the other that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write But this opinion doth so Ergo. The proposition is for ought I see of necessarie truth the assumption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infalliblie as he was formally the ordinarie bishop of Ierusalem let us heare it if there were none may not I question whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour For if he taught them as an ordinary bishop and did write his Epistle so then certainly it might erre If he did not teach them so then did he not that he was ordained to neither was he properly an ordinarie Pastor but taught as an extraordinary Embassadour from Christ Secondly Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one but the one must expell the other were never by God conjoyned in one person But these doe so Ergo. The assumption is manifest Because it is plain non can be called to teach as a legat extraordinarie with infallible assistance and unlimited jurisdiction but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church teaching as an ordinarie person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner be called to doe this but at least the exercise of the other is suspended Thirdly that which is to no end is not to be thought to be ordained of God But to give one an ordinarie authoritie whereby to doe this or that in a Church who had a higher and more excellent power of office 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 hee 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
that 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 tyrannie where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionallie to send him he having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee employed I thought it necessarie to send Epaphroditus to you Secondly hee doth implie that Epaphroditus had not returned to them but that he sent him and that therefore he was not the ordinary Bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might be dispatched to them Neither is it any thing probable he should be called an Apostle as their ordinarie 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 probabl when he is called 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 needfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelue should be used of those sent civily 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 Iesus 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 Chrysostome there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were sent 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 themselues and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from Church to Church for the edification of them For the instance of Archippus 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 prosillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogism tending to proue this assertion denyed we answer first to the proposition by distinguishing the Episcopall authoritie which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Propsition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to haue 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 haue and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to haue and exercise in that manner and formallitie which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Euangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Euangelist to exercise all that power they did exercise as Euangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth to Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crete which himselfe present in person might not and would not haue done If we should reason then thus He who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to haue been Bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation He who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop he was Bishop but not he who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner as doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee denie the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Euangelists ordinarie Pastors haue 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 Councels haue 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 verie duties of Bishops hee doeth take them to haue 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 therfore presuppose them Bishops because these are duties of Euangelists agreeing to Bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the word 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 nor that Paul doth propose the verie duties of Bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly wee deny him to propose 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 directiue and correctiue over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothie is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvo uniuscujusque Ecclesiae jure the Apostles did not otherwise For though Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in Churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting framing of others Secondly because they were in degree and dignity aboue all other ordinary governours of the Church which their Consul-like preheminence was sufficient why they should be written to alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Ergo The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothing written to any persons can informe Diocesan Bishops unlesse the persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same order For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apostolique it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whatsoever Secondly we deny Diocesan Bishops are de jure successours As for the equivocal Catalogue which maketh all who are read Bishops to haue been Diocesan we shall speake of them hereafter The Bishops between Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedom Councell were not all of one cut and there are no
doe the work of ordinarie Pastors is indeed necessarie not assignation to doe the worke of Euangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be taken What they speak so agreeing that it is virtually conteyned in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to be beleeved and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainly contradicted but yet no way included may be admitted fide humana if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it 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 declyning To the assumption we answer What doe not some ancient enough call Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while and in like sense a Primate and a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to haue been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in proprietie of speech all these were absurd Obj. I but they call him Bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Ans They call him Bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordeyne 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 Euangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishops in their time used to doe But that he was not an Euangelist and more then an ordinary Bishop they doe not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1. Tim. pag. 405. Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusqnam Episcopus etiamsi ad tempus in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit unde quidem vocant eum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinarie Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I haue shewed contrary to Scripture yea contrarie to that text which maketh him to haue done the worke of an Euangelist As for the shew from the Subscriptions we haue spoken sufficiently Now to shew that they were not properly Bishops First we haue shewed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Epistopall duties a while but were not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therfore not Bishops properly Secondly they who did the work of an Euangelist 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 Euangelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Euangelist Bishop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Euangelist and the act of an ordinarie Pastor or Bishop cannot be formally one For when everie thing doth agere secundum quod actu est those things which are not the same formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Euangelist and the ordinarie Pastor or Bishops are not formally the same Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gaue now ascending by the work of the Ministerie to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet a Prophet from an Euangelist so an Euangelist 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 Euangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Answ 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 altiori tamen ratione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formallie the power of all other offices suites which the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Iustice of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospell but this maketh not an Euangelist no more then an Apostle but doth per accidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this cometh per accedens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Marke and Luke was not therefore Euangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should haue been Euangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowmed then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that we call them Euangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospels whom the Scriptures never call Euangelists These Euangelists 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 ministerie common for the generall of it to all the other did gather Saints and build Christs Bodie Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministerie common to Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly giue to othersome and othersome those he did not giue conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gaue to some one to others another Else he must haue said he gaue the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Euangelists and Pastors Ergo. That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an Euangelist that Paul never annexed to an Euangelist But the Calling of a Bishop is such For a Bishop is tyed to a particular Church The Calling of an Euangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministerie 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 Euangelist The Calling of an Euangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Euangelist 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 Euang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as Eusebius reporteth Euseb hist li. 5. cap. 9. Now a Calling wherby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certain place and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would haue debased Timothy and
could a custome have prevailed with all of them whom we have to Constantines time yet it might enter and steale upon them through humaine frailtie as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faithfull Martyrs the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued Thirdly say they had wittingly and willingly done it through the world they had not cospired because they might haue deemed such power in the Church and themselves to doe nothing but what they might with Christs good liking for the edification of it How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause are at this day of this iudgement that if it were but an Apostolical institution as Apostolical is cōtradistinguished to divine they might change it But if the Apostles did enact this order as Legats and Embassadors of Christ then is it not theirs but Christs own institution What an Embassador speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates did not bearing the person of Legats but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours decree this then it is certaine Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Christ As for those proofes that Bishops have been throughout all Churches from the beginning they are weak For first the Councell of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simpliciter but secundum quid in order happily to that time wherein the custome began which was better known to them then to us the phrase is so used Act. 15.8 in respect of some things which had not continued many years They cannot meane the Apostles times for then Metropolitans should haue actuallie been from the Apostles time Secondlie the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus is likewise aequivocall for they have reference to the fathers of Nice or at least the decrees of the fathers who went before the Councell of Nice For those words being added definitiones Nicenae fidei seeme to explaine the former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascribe this thing onely to ancient custome no lesse then that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the authoritie of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquitie where sacred scriptures are called Canons of the Apostles Finally if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch As for the authoritie of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops ordained in cities not universaliter as if there were no citie but had some Secondly he speaketh of Bishops who had their Churches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common deliberations They had no Diocesan Churches nor were Bishops who had majoritie of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae aptior quam pugnae Rome can recite their successours But because it hath had Bishops Ergo Oecumenicall Bishops is no consequence All who are named Bishops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sence we controvert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weak For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondly we have shewed that the Councell of Nice doth not prove this that Bishops were every where from the beginning the phrase of from the beginning beeing there respectively not absolutely used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for he doth not use those words in proprietie but by way of allusion otherwise if hee did think the Apostle had published this decree when the first to the Corinths was written how can he cite testimonies long after written to prove that Bishops were not instituted in the Apostles time but that they were ordained by the Church iure Ecclesiastico when the time served for it The sixt Argument Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches such ministers are of Christs institution But ministers hauing singularitie of preheminence and power above others are amongst them as the Superintendents in Germanie Ergo. Answ The assumption is utterly denied For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops they are of the same degree with other ministers they are onely Presidents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their prerogative ceaseth they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers they are subject to the Presbyteries Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended they returne to the care of their particular Churches The seventh Argument If it were necessarie that while the Apostles lived there should be such Ministers as had preheminence and maioritie of power above others much more after their departure But they thought it necessarie and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostolicke men furnished with such power Ergo much more after their departure Answ The assumption is denied and formerly disproved for they appointed no such Apostolick men with Episcopal power in which they should be succeeded The eighth Argument Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them were lawfull For they would not have held their peace had they known unlawfull Ministers to have crept into the Churches But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops as in Rome Linus Clemens at Ierusalem Iames Simeon at Antioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Mark Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The Assumption is denied for these Bishops were but Presbyters Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting governing with common consent of their Presbyteries If they were affecting our Bishops majoritie they were in Diotrophes sufficientlie contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have been ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and maioritie of rule But Bishops have been held in a higher order by all antiquitie Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch ministers are distinguished into three orders Jgnatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys Areopag de Coelest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fuga in persecutione de Baptismo Ignatius doth often testifie it No wonder when the scripture it selfe doth call one of these a step to another 1. Timoth. 3.13 Cyprian Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc Ephes Cap. 1.2.6 Yea the Councell of Chalcedon counteth it sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter This Hierome himselfe confirmeth saying That from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters did set a Bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of maioritie of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption wee answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecallie it hath a higher vertue or because it hath
institute in the Churches which they had planted for their further building them up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo these were their successors most proper and immediate Thirdly these to whom now taking their farewels they resigned the Churches these were their successours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20 Peter neere death 1. Pet. 5.2 Ergo. Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more properly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath some power Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for First their power of teaching and ministring the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office but a Bishops or at least that a more rudimentall preaching belongs to a Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bishop which are both too absurd Secondly for government the Apostles did no more giue the power of government to one then to another Obj. This is denyed for the Apostles are said to haue kept the power of ordination and the coerciue power in their own hands to haue committed these in the end onely to Apostolique men as Timothy Titus who were their successors succeeding them in it Ans A notable fiction for it is most plain by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise haue provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men aboue others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinarie Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legare Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselues in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselues urged with this that the Apostles haue none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could haue a successour The other of Bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops National or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to haue other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we haue proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first in all that is spoken to the 72 the full dutie and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinarie power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinarie office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtful Thirdly it is not read that tney ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministerie of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselues could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinarie gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Euangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from Citie to Citie without limitation to Euangelize and after we reade of some as Phillip that he was an Euangelist the same is in Ecclesiasticall storie testified of some others Thus we Presbyters should succeed Euangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Euangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armachanus doth take these 72 to haue been ordinary disciples in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receiue a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is hee not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers whereof there may bee but one onely during life in a Church they are in sigularity of preheminence aboue others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothie one Titus one Archippus one Epaphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conc. Nice cap. 8. Conc. Calced cap. 4. Possidonius in vita Augustine Ierom. Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Theod. Oecumen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to bee the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to bee but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates with in the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divine institution Now the assumption is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to haue placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Act. 20. and that there were Bishops at Philippi True it is the Scripture doth not distinguish how manie of the one sort nor how many of the other because no doubt for the number of the Congregations a single Presbyter labouring in the Word or two the one coadjutor to the other might be placed Secondly it is testified by Epiphanius that ordinarilie all Cities but
Alexandria had two Thirdly Ierom on 1. Tim. 3. doth saie that now indeed there may be but one Bishop meaning Canonicallie making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique Fourthlie Austin did not know it was unlawfull Yea he did onelie in regard of the decree of Nice account it so Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contrary but as a point against Canon which might in some cases be dispensed with as the storie of Narcissus and Alexander and Liberius and Foelix doth more then manifest For though the people of Rome cried out one God one Christ one Bishop yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite wheras had it been a thing they had all thought to haue been against Christs institution they would not haue done Vide Soz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly Ieroms peerelesse power is nothing but Consul-like presidence aboue others for this he pleaded for writing against Iovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselues that schisme might be avoided Wherfore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense that the Bishop jure humano hath a singularity of preheminence before others as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onely Archbishop 13 Argument Those who had peerelesse power aboue others in ordination and jurisdiction they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others But the former is due to Bishops Vnlesse this singularitie of power were yeelded there would be as many schismes as Priests Ergo. The assumption proved Those who haue a peculiar power of ordination aboue others they are in preheminence and power before others But Bishops haue Ergo they are in c. The assumption proved That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent but in the Apostles and after in Timothy and Titus and their successours that is a peculiar of Bishops But ordination was not in the Presbyters c. Ergo. The assumption proved That which these were sent to doe Presbyters had not power to doe It was therefore in them and such as succeeded them the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete Againe the Scriptures Councels Fathers speake of the ordeyner as one Ergo it was the peculiar right of the Bishop and the Bishop onely Hee onely by Canon was punishable for irregularitie in ordination And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fathers by ordination as tho Presbyters doth sonnes by Baptisme And Ierom doth except ordination as the Bishops peculiar wherein hee is most unequall to them Answer I answer the Proposition of the first Sillogisme by distinction Those who haue peerelesse power in regard of the simple right to ordeine viz. in regard of exercising the act and sole performing the rite of it those who haue a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others haue they are aboue others in degree Againe peerelesse power in a Bishop over Presbyters may be said in comparison to them distributiuely or collectiuely considered Hee that hath peerelesse power given him which no one of the other hath is not presently of a greater degree nor hath not majoritie of rule amongst others as a Consul in the Senate But if he haue a peerelesse power such as they all collectiuely considered cannot controule then the Proposition is true but the Assumption will then be found to halt To the proofe of the assumption The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing it selfe not to ministring the rite and executing the act which may be reserved for honour sake to one by those who otherwise haue equall power with him That Bishops haue this power in order the thing it selfe agreeing to them Viproprii officii not by commission from others we deny The assumption is wholly denyed As for the proofe of it First we that deny that Euangelists had not power to ordeyne as well as Apostles Secondly that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they Euery one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination The Euangelists power did not derogate from the Apostles the Presbyters from neither of them But power of imposing hands solitarily whereas yet Churches were not constituted this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Euangelists whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of churches Secondly the assumption is false in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands contrarie to that in Timothie The grace given thee by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Thirdly it is false in presupposing others then Presbyters to haue been Timothy and Titus their successors To the proofe of this assumption The proposition is not true For it might be convenient that the same thing should be done by Euangelists and by ordinary Pastors each concurring in their severall orders to the same service of Christ the Lord. Secondly I answer to the assumption That Presbyters were to bee placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters or where there were as yet none In the first Churches they are bid ordaine if any need further but salvo jure Ecclesia not without the concurrence of others In the latter Churches which were to be constituted they may be conceived sa Evangelists with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands Wee hold Apostles might doe it Evangelists might and the Presbyteries also Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was deceased did ordaine the following For the Canon of three Bishops and Metropolitans added by the Nicene Councell was not knowne yet Neverthelesse it grew timely to be restrained to Bishops the performing I meane of the outward rite and signe but onely by Canon as Consignation was also for which there is as ancient testimonies as this that it was appropriat to the Bish We grant therfore that antiquitie doth sometime speak of the ordainer as one In the Churches of Affrica one did not lay on hands yet in some other churches the rite was by one administred And it is to be noted by the way that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters but to the number of Three or many Bishops required in the ordination of a Bishop They might therfore by their canons be punishable because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to thē This is all that Epiphanius or Ieroms excepta ordinatione can prove But these two conclusions we would see proved out of Scriptures and Fathers First that ordination is an action of power of order a power sacramental which a Presbyter hath not Secondly that by vertue of this power the Bishop doth ordaine and not by Ecclesiasticall right or commission from the Church Certainlie the act of promoting a minister of the Church is rather an act of iurisdiction then order As it belongeth to policie and government to call new Magistrates where they are wanting Obiect
kinglie majoritie of rule keeping the bond of loue was condemned The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall then can it not conclude against us Ergo it is a truth that some Ministers may be aboue othersome in order honor and dignity But they understand not by order such an order onely as is distinct because some degree of dignitie is appropriate to it which is not to other Though this argument therefore touch us not yet to speake a little further about it this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too severely neither our authors D. Whitakerus D. Reinolds Danaeus to be blamed who doe in some sort excuse him For Bishops were grown such that many good persons were offended at them as the Audiani Yea it was so ordinarie that Ierome distinguisheth schisme from heresie because the one conteined assertions against the faith the other severed from the Church by reason of dissenting from Bishops See him on Tit. 3.10 Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian Epiphanius reporteth it but no other though writing of this subject and storie of these time Sure it is Eustathius was a strong Arian whom Aerius did oppose Neither is it strange for Bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion Are not we traduced as Donatists Anabaptists Puritanes As for his opinion they thought it rather schismatical then hereticall therfore happily called it heresie because it included errour in their understanding which with schismaticall pertinacie was made heresie Neither is it likely that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie nor Austin following him For though Austine was aged yet he was so humble that hee saith Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri Neither was it prejudice to his worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe who in likelyhood should know this matter also better As for his calling it heresie it is certaine he would not haue this in rigour streined For he doth protest in his preface unto that book of heresies that none to his thought can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie Though therefore he doubted not of this that Aerius was in errour such as all Catholickes should decline yet it doth not argue that he thought this errour in rigour and formall propriety to haue been heresie Thus much for this last Argument On the contrarie side I propound these Arguments following to be seriously considered Argument 1. Those whom the Apostles placed as chiefe in their first constituting of Churches and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gaue to the Churches they had none superiour to them in the Churches But they first placed Presbyters feeding with the Word and governing and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches Ergo. The assumption is denied they did not place them as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those Churches but placed them to teach and governe in fore interno with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction they gaue to Presbyters power of order power to teach minister sacraments and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted but kept the coerciue power in their own hands meaning when now by the Presbyters labour the Churches were grown to a greater multitude meaning I say then to set over them some more eminent Pastors Apostolicall men to whom they would commit the power of government that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches and to these with their successours not to the Presbyters were the Churches recommended All which is an audacious fiction without any warrant of Scripture or shew of good reason For it is confessed that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution as the Pastors and Teachers of the Churches Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour they would haue intimated somewhere this their intention but this they doe not yea the contrary purpose is by them declared For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ the Arch-shepheard of them all Againe the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government There may be governours without pastorall power but not a Pastor without power of governing For the power of the Pedum or shepheards staffe doth intrinsecally follow the Pastorall office What likelyhood is there that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith children now begotten are to be nurtured and kept in awe beseeming them If it be said every one fit for the office of a Teacher was not fit for a Governour I answer hee that is fit to be a Pastor teaching and governing in foro interno is much more fit to be a Governour externally hee vvho is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser It vvas a greater and more Apostolicall vvorke to labour conversion and bring the Churches a handfull in the planting as some thinke to become numbersome in people then it is to govern them being converted And it is absurd to think that those who were fit to gather a Church and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings should not be fit to governe it but stand in need to haue some one sent who might rule them and the Churches they had collected Secondly these Presbyters vvere as themthemselues confesse qualified vvith the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost and chosen by speciall designation so that to impute insufficiencie unto them is harsh and injurious to God as well as to man Finally by the twentie of the Acts and the first Epistle of Peter ch 5. it is plaine they doe in their last farewels commit the Churches unto the Presbyters not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to bee sent vvho should supply their roomes vvhich yet they would not haue forgotten being a thing of so great consolation had it been intended by them Argument 2. Those vvho haue the name and office of Bishops common to them they haue no superiour Pastors over them But the Presbyters Pastorall haue that name and office attributed to them For first they are sayd to governe in generall Secondly there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to haue been in the Church 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
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 mean singularitie without concurrence of any others This without doubt was in the Apostles and Euangelists and it was needfull it should bee so first because it might be behovefull there to excommunicate where as 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 companie of others constituting a representative Church which is the poynt next to bee shewed Yea where Churches were constituted the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power without the ministeriall concurrence of the Churches as in the storie of the Corinthians is manifest THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a vnited multitude of 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 bee super-added wee will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. That which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of iurisdiction was comitted to the Church Mat. 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to some one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to bee 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 representativly a Church when jurisdiction is promised then one person may be representatiuly a church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of iurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia sayth that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the Bishop that they cannot bee severed Finally as the kingdome of England may bee 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 That 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 withheld it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his iudgement 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 excommunicated Hymenaeus 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 iurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of iurisdiction that Christ did ordain But the order of one chiefe governour is fitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fift Argument If all authoritie 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 authoritie which the Church never had she cannot convey But the Pastorall authoritie 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 iurisdiction and execution bee 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 which 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 was committed by Christ to one and the execution of any one But Math. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of iurisdiction to be in many and that exercitativè so as by them being many is it to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plain in the place Where first marke that Christ doth presuppose the authoritie of every particular Church taken indistinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Therefore no universall or provinciall or Diocesan Church gathered in a Councell Secondly it is not any particular Church that he doth send all Christians to for then all Christians in the world should come to one perticular Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Churh where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntiation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinarie 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 orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie 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 or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtuallie as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one
person Secondlie the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdlie 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 the governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twentie Wee grant that this is true and were the word Church 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 Praeful onely be the iudge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthlie 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 hee repented was a rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoined for what ye shall bind 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 â—…ed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Vnlesse the Church meant were an assemblie 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 church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assemblie of Priests sitting together as iudges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practise of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to be exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinthians 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 denied by some but it is a plain truth by many invincible arguments For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast him forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si autem quis potestatem non habet quem scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondlie Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For he doth not call on them to restrain him him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdlie 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 mulct of many writing to them that they would not proceed 2. Cor. 2.6 Lastly Paul doth attribute power to them to forgive him and to receive him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as have no power to bind have no power to loose So it might be proved by the Church of the Thessalonians 2. Thess 3.14 If any man walk inorninatly 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 al Greek interpreters but judicially to note him that all may avoyd him that is excomunicate him Finallie the churches of Asia as it is plain had power of government within themselves Argum. 3. 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 manie But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with cocurrence of the Presbyters of the Church Ergo much lesse may any ordinarie minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbyterie For that Persons must bee 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 Presbyterie Secondly to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicous and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy neuer received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers take 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 these 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 coÌ„panies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but hee 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 Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone haue infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and dutie of confession the truth Yea the Bishops called primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Presbyterie did not give them Whence have Bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the Bishop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are sayd to have ordained ministers As Consuls and Dictators are sayd to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Iesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therfore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of
then the Church receiving and executing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the Church typified by Peter is properly and really a Church not figuratiuely and improperly for then Peter should haue bene a figure or type of a type or figuratiue Church The figure therfore and type being of the Church which is properly taken and the Church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Math. 18.17 the Church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratiuely and improperly a Church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that Church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall Church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the Church Math. 18. Ergo that Church Math. 18. is not a virtuall Church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastor and people by mutuall loue which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocentius 3. that the Bishop was counted the Church or this dreame of a virtuall Church once imagined The Clerkes of the Church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carrie the name of the Church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up aboue generall Councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall Churches As for a Kingdom I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratiuely but the Church typified by Peter must needs be a Church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a Church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power wherby the whole Kingdom is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Corinth who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I haue decreed or judged leaving nothing to the Church but out of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist 2. he saith For this cause I haue written to you that I may prooue whether you will in all things be obedient What Arguments are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated he leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing he leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to giue sentence The truth is the Apostle might haue judged him to be excommunicate and an Euangelist if present might haue judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles haue and the same man should be excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as she cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example she is provoked Yea where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him he should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had been just and the peoples favour had been unjust Ionathan had been under condemnation but execution had been prevented by the peoples headstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans As though one may not exercise power or government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superiour Touching the place in the Thessalonians those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greek Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to be avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Paules excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but as he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his hands 2. Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbyterie ioyned 1. Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath been sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a universitie having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authoritie of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his own order this is the fitttest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeares expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this depravation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessitie of one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by ioynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestine is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one insspiring 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