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
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
themselues to a Bishop and Cathedrall Consistorie and so make one But the 24 Churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselues to the government of one Presbyterie and so make one For so farre as two meete in a third they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If Citie Churches onely and not the Churches of Villages and Countrie Townes had Bishops Presbyters and Deacons placed in them then were those Citie Churches Diocesan Churches But Citie Churches onely had these Ergo Citie Churches were Diocesan distinguished from Parishionall Churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripture Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secondly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Storie They who are given to labour the conversion of the Regions rather then tend those already converted they were not given to a Parishionall Church But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so Ergo. They who were set in a Church before Parishes were could not be given to a Parishionall Church But such were the Presbyters of the Apostles institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practise of all ages from the first division that no Church but the mother Church had a Presbyterie and a Bishop but Presbyters onely Nay it was ever by Councels condemned and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden that in Townes or Villages any but a Presbyter should be planted 3 This is also proved by reason for it was no more possible to haue Bishops Presbyters in everie Parish then to haue a Maior and Aldermen such as we haue in London in every Town 2 If everie Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselues with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the Citie Ergo there was then a Diocesan Church having governement of others Presbyters could not ordeyne sede vacante though they did at first as in the Church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400 yeares a Parishionall Church with a Presbyterie in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan Churches allowing onely such Churches to be instituted of Christ which may meet in one Congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assembly Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a Church as may to holy purposes ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitely and signifieth no more Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum 2 The Scripture speaketh of the Churches in a Kingdome or Province alwaies in the plurall number without any note of difference as equall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nationall or Diocesan Churches Let a reason be given why it should never speak in the singular number had they bene a singular Church Secondly let us come to examples the Churches the Apostles planted were such as might and did congregate First that of Hierusalem though there were in it toward 500 Synagogues yet the Christian Church was but one and such as did congregate into one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000 to it Act. 2.46 5.12 6.1 15.25 21.22 25.22 For their ordinarie meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericall meeting Againe if they might meet Synodically why might they not meete then in daily course though the universall meeting of a Church is not so fitly called Synodicall And though they are said to be millions of beleevers yet that was by accident of a circumstance happily the Passeover We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations They had not a setled state there by which they did get the right of being set members Yea it is likely they were and continued but one congregation For 40 yeares after they were not so great a multitude but that Pâ—lla like to the Zohar of Lot a little Towne could receiue them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one church Act. 14.27 they are said to haue gathered the Church together Ob. That is the Ministers or representatiue Church Ans 1 For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Act. 11. Peter gave account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent the forth with prayer imposition of hands this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publicke service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of decrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly the church of Corinth was one congregation which did for the service of God or exercise of Discipline meet together 1. Cor. 5.4 1. Cor. 14.25 ver 26. 1. Cor. 11.17 ver 23. in uno eodem loco That whole church which was guiltie of a sinner uncast forth could not bee a Diocesan church neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming together ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly Fourthly the church of Ephesus was but one flocke First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Secondly it was but one flock that flock which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Pastour If Presbyters onely then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus There may be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholy meete with those who haue the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1. Pet. 5.2 calleth all those he writeth to one flocke but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flock is but one congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue that there should be Parish churches in Diocesan wise added but a greater number of sister churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Colosse There might be many churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches Examples Ecclesiasticall 1 Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians though numbersome to meete together often in one place Epist to the Ephesians and to the Philippians where the Bishop is let the people be gathered to him as where Christ is there is the whole host of heaven He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God which
cannot agree to a Diocesan church For these were particular congregations opposed as to that Nationall church so to all Provinciall and Diocesan Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria but as he was Bishop of the congregation in Syria as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England 2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth But a Diocesan church cannot 3 Tertullian Apol. cap. 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet and did worship God in which prayers readings exhortations and all manner of censures were performed Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselues 4 Churches are said at first to haue been Parishes Parishes with in cities in Euseb lib. 3.44 lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. c. 6. l. 4. c. 25. and S. Iohn l. 3. c. 23. saith to the Bishop redde juvenem quem tibi ego Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his depositum or trust was but one congregation lib. 4. c. 11. Hyginus and Pius are said to haue undertaken the Ministerie of the church of Rome which church was such therefore as they might minister unto l. 7.7 Dionisius Alex. writeth to Xistus and the church which he governed A Diocesan church cannot receiue letters Before Iulian and Demetrius his time there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish The church of Alexandria was within the citie l. 7. c. 2. Cornelius is said officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae ex Cyp. l. 1. epist. 3. Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui eum tamen de provincia pellere non potuit Vide Ruffinum lib. 1. c. 6. suburbicarariarum Ecclesiarum tantum curam gessit Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagine of the Parish in Carthage Euseb lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cipriani llb. 1. ep 4. 5 It is the rule of Scripture that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people Bishops were chosen long after by the people As of Rome and others by the people committed to them lib. 4. epist 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set and chose the Bishop in presence of the people Schismes were said to be from thence Quod Episcopo universa fraternitas non obtemperat Cipr. ep 55. tota fraternitas i. unius congregationis tota multitudo ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis Sabino de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus fuit delatus Cipr. l. 1. ep 47.58.68 Ecclesiae igitur circuitus non fuit maior quà m ut Episcopus totam plebem suam in negotiis huiusmodi convocare potuerit Soc. lib. 7. c. 3. de Agapeto Convocavit omnem clerum populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem 6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages there is no likelyhood of the other notation Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates or Suffragan Bishops to them 7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse 8 They were neighbours and might meet a dozen sixe three in the cause of a Bishop 9 They were united sometimes in Provincial Councels in which many Bishops met twice yearely Ruffin l. 1. c. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica 660 fled to saue themselues Austin saith there were innumerable orthodoxe Bishops in Africa and the Provninciall Councels doe confirme the same Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan 1 That church whose causes are wanting that church is wanting But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found Ergo. First the efficient cause God ordeyning For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan no place to be a place where the Assembly Diocesan should be held no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministery without warrant of his word Ergo. The Nationall church of the Iewes Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour it was given them The place of the Nationall meeting God chose Hierusalem The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there and to appeare there before him Secondly the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit obliged to meet at least on solemne daies wheresoeuer the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised Pastors who haue callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled Finally the actuall meetings of them to such end as such more sollemne and publike meetings are ordained to are no where commanded nor in any fashon were ever by any warrant of the Word practised If any say these are not the causes of a Diocesan church but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselues to such a church and the ministerie thereof that they may be governed by them I answer First there is no ordinance of God for this that can be shewed that churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a certaine head church for goverment Nay it is false For every church by Christs institution hath power of goverment and the Synagogue had in ordinarie matters the government that the Church of Ierusalem had being all over except onely in some reserved causes Secondly I say that this will not make a Diocesan church formally so called As a Nationall church could not formally bee without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head church of it So by proportion Yea government is a thing which doth now accidere to a church constituted and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a church of this or that kinde Againe were this true that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers haue onely governement committed to them then it will follow that they onely have the governing of particular churches who are not any way Pastors of them ministring Word and Sacraments to them But this is most absurd that their proper and ordinary Pastors who dispence Word and Sacraments to them should not haue potestatem pedi nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them If any say they were not actu but they were virtute potentie I say it is also to make the Apostles churches imperfect and how can this be known but by a presumed intention which hath nothing to shew it but that after event of things From the effect I argue 2 Those churches which Christ did ordeine and the Apostles plant might ordinarily assemble to the ordinances of worship But a Diocesan church cannot ordinarily assemble Ergo. For when God will haue mercy and not sacrifice and the Sabboth is for man hee will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and impossible as is the ordinarie assembling of a Diocesan multitude If any
distinguish the assumption and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts or as she is a totum standing of her parts now collected together and say she may and doth meete and communicate and edifie her selfe in the first respect I answer this is nothing and doth proue her to be nothing as she is a Diocesan Church quia quid quid est agit secundum quod est If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church she must haue the effect of such a Church to wit assembling as she is Diocesan The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth but were no Nationall Church in this regard that is to say as it is a Nationall Church it had her Nationall reall meetings I reason thirdly from the subject 3 That Church which doth per se essentially require locall bounds of place that must have locall limits set forth of God But a Diocesan Church doth so Ergo. Whence I thus inferre He who institutes a Diocesan Church must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church But God hath not set out any local bounds of the Church in the New Testament Ergo he hath not instituted any Diocesan Church The proposition is certain for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church as also of a Nationall And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Iewes did as in a map set forth the limits of that nation So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provinciall Churches he would have appointed locall bounds if not particularlie described yet known and certain But God hath not done this For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places it being so with the power of teaching and the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that it doth respicere subditos onelie per se not terminos locales Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarilie the subiects on it in the second place As for that commandement of appoynting Presbyters Citie by Citie it is too weake a sparr for this building Again that Church which may be said to be in a Citie is not Diocesan But the Churches which the Apostles planted are sayd to be in Cities Ergo. If one say to the proposition they may because the head Church is in the Citie Answer The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints vnited into such a body Ecclesiasticall But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie Ergo The soule may be said to be in the head though it be in other parts and God in heaven God because of his most infinite and indivisible nature And so the soule because it is indivisible and is as all of it in every part not as a thing placed in a place containing it but as a forme in that which is informed by it But in things which have quantitie and are part out of another there is not the like reason 4 From the adjuncts That Church which hath no time set wherin to assemble is no Church I suppose the ground above that nothing but union of a Diocese in worship can make a Diocesan church But this Church hath no time Ordinarie it cannot have extraordinarie solemnities God hath not commanded Ergo there is no such Church For if it be a reall Diocesan Church it must haue a reall action according to that nature of which it is The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship Of a Nationall Church is to meet nationally and communicate in worship If then it must meet it must have some time set down ordinarie or extraordinarie But God hath done neither The Churches which the Apostles planted were in their times most perfect and flourishing But Diocesan Churches were not for in those times they were but in seminali infolded not explicated as the adversaries confesse 4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers is absurd But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times when now they had but one congregation and give ordinary gifts onely when now they had 800 churches under them is absurd But this doth the Diocesan frame Ergo. 5 The churches through out which a Presbyter might do the office of a teaching Presbyter and a Deacon the office of a Deacon were not Diocesan But every Presbyter might minister in the word and sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church whereof he was a Deacon Ergo these were not Diocesan The reason of the proposition is No Presbyter can through many congregations performe ordinarie ministerie In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches C. 10. q. 3. Vna plures Ecclesâ—e vni nequaquam committantur Presbytero quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere nec rebus earum necessariam curans impendere 6 If God had planted Diocesan churches that is ordeined that all within citie suburbs and regions should make but one Diocesan Church then may not two Diocesses be vnited into one Church or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Diocesan church But neither of these are so The judgement of the African fathers shew the one and the Canon law doth shew the other p. 2. c. 16.41 Ergo. 7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church others vnited in subjection then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop requiring a number of Ptesbyters and Deacons to minister unto them there may be the perfection of a church But in some one congregation may bee such a multitude Ergo. 8 Those churches which may lawfullie have Bishops are such churches as God instituted But churches in Towns populous Villages have had may have their Bishops Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Towne such as our market townes and others yea by a synecdoche villages for there they taught as wel as in Cities There were Synagogues as well as in Cities They excepted against them afterward in vnconformitie to Law The testimonie of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congreations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth And the fathers of Africa did not require that a Diocesan multitude but a sufficient multitude not through every part for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onely had served the turne should have their Bishop If Diocesan churches and provinciall churches be Gods frame then we had no Churches in Brittaine of Gods frame before that Austin was sent by Gregorie the great But here were churches from before Tertullian after the frame God requireth at least in their judgements Ergo. Now to come to open the
the Messiah and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen The state of this Church was such that it was to send out light to all other a common nurserie to the world Finally the time being now the beginning of planting that heavenly Kingdome seeing beginnings of things are difficult no wonder if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily It doth not therefore follow from this particular to the so great encreasing of these churches in tract of time Nay if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings it would not follow as thus Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them how numbersome were they many yeares after Because the growing of things hath a Period set after which even those things which a great while encreased doe decrease and goe downeward as it was in Ierusalem Not to mention that we deny the assumption But though the Argument is but Topicall and can but breed an opinion onely yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians And Cornelius that there was besides himselfe and 45 Presbyters a numbersome Clergie I answer That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall for who can beleeue that more then halfe the Citie and world after a sort were Christians But he speaketh this and truely in some regard because they were so potent through the world that if they would haue made head they might haue troubled happily their persecutors Or else hee might say they were halfe of them Christians not because there were so many members of the Church but because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause and were it as safe as otherwise would not stick to turne to them But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet having prayers exhortations and ministering all kindes of Censures If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time it will make little for Diocesan Churches Touching Cornelius we answer It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries Cornelius keeping the Cathedrall Church and being sole Bishop of them but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church For first the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie in which regard hee is said Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae Neither was his Church as ample as the Province which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently teacheth Secondly we say that these Parochiall churches were to the mother church as chappels of case are to these churches in metrocomüs they had communion with the mother church going to the same for Sacraments and hearing the Word and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them For some of them were not such as had liberty of Baptizing and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church Now to answer further it is beyond 200 yeares for which our defence is taken For there is reason why people which had bene held together for 200 years as a Congregation might now 50 years after be exceedingly encreased The Ecclesiasticall storie noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius Neither must we thinke that an Emperour as Philippus favouring the faith did not bring on multitudes to the like profession Secondly we say there is nothing in this of Cornelius which may not well stand that the Church of Rome though now much increased did not keep together as one Church For the whole people are said to haue prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop who had ordeyned Novatus and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Nouatus his pertinacie From hence that none of the numerous Clergie nor yet of the people very great and innumerable could turne him or recall him which argueth that the Church was not so aboundant but that all the members of it had union and communion for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another And I would faine know whether the seven Deacons seven Subdeacons 42 Acolouthes whether those exorcistes Lectors Porters about 52 are so many as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twentie thousand Surely the time might well require them when many were to bee sent forth to doe some part of ministerie more privately Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters to vilifying of them as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons There were 60 in the church of Sophia for the help of the Liturgie True it is the Congregation could not but be exceeding great and might well be called in a manner innumerable though it were but of a twentie thousand people But because of that which is reported touching division by Euaristus Hyginus Dionisius and Marcellinus though there is no authenticke authour for it neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement Let it be yeelded that there were some Parochiall divisions they were not many and within the Citie and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church Concerning the objection from the Churches of Delgia or the low Countries we deny the proposition for we cannot reason thus If many Masters and distinct formes of Schollers in one free Schoole be but one Schoole then many Masters and company of Schollers severed in many Schooles are but one Schoole Secondly they haue communion in the communitie of their Teachers though not in the same individuall word tended by them But it is one thing when sheep feed together in one common Pasture though they bite not on the same individuall grasse Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe gates Not to urge that in the Sacraments and Discipline they may communicate as one Congregation Touching the objection from Geneua I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who subject themselues to a Presbyteri◠as not having power of governing themselues within themselues as being under it by subordination these may in effect as well be subject to a Consistorie But thus the twenty foure Churches of Genevae doe not They or haue power of governing themselues but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbyterie Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselues to a Bishop and Consistorie wherein they shall haue no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbyterie wherein themselues are members and Iudges with others Thirdly say they had no power nor vvere no members in that Presbyterie yet it is one thing to submit thēselues to the government of Aristocracie another to the Bishops Monarchicall government For vvhile his Presbyters are but as counsellours to a King though he consulteth vvith them he alone governeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by
this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might haue communion But what are all the 24 churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches Now to answer the reasons The first of them hath no part true the proposition is denyed For these churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall that is so conjoyned that they might and did meete in one Congregation The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes and the numbersome Clergie of some Cathedrall Churchâ—… but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser and congregations ampler and fuller and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth nor made so little as might not haue Presbyters and Deacons What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot bee had in every Town yet such a Towne as Cambridge may haue such a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge affoords and the meanest market Town may haue though not in degree yet in kinde like Governnours So is it in Presbyters and other Officers the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens not that a Bishop is ever to haue a like numbersome Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbersome that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance so wealthy that it can well maintaine them And beside because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiastical which the fathers had in their Presbyteries for the nursing of plants which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no what intended To come to the assumption But citie Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that S. Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to be more numbersome the assumption is false that Citie Churches onely had them For the Scripture saith they planted them Church by Church that is through every Church Then every Church had her Governours with in her selfe we must use as ample interpretations as may be Contrarily the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest we cannot without evidence receiue it in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est Ecclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference Parishionall Diocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now their interpretation beggeth every thing without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but three wayes divisim conjunctim and divisim and conjunction divisim one Presbyter in one another in another conjunctim diverse Presbyters in every Church neither of these will serue their turne the latter onely being true for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot bee governed it is sure it did giue of both kinds to every Church they planted Now they seeing some Churches in our times to haue many and some one conster it both waies Collectiue many Presbyters and Singularly one here and one there and because many Presbyters cannot be thus placed in our frame of Churches imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches But they will not seeme to speake without reason the Scripture say they placed Citie by Citie Presbyters and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie Suburbes and Countrey which Parishionall ones doe not But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a citie without occupying limits of citie suburbes and countrey and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church may they not be said to be placed in Cities Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds the case were other but the citie is not literally thus to be understood but metonymically for the Church in the Citie Neither was the church in the citie all within such bounds for the Saints of a place and Church of a place are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall historie it is true that in processe of time the Bishop onely had a company of Presbyters Before Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters Churches should so haue afterward bene divided that all should haue been alike for kind though in circumstantial excellencie some were before other What a grosse thing is it to imagine that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posteritie to imitate A fitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserue some cases in civill jurisdiction over them which the state of later Churches did expresse THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe or by his Apostles any ordinary Pastors as our Bishops having both precedencie of order and maioritie of power above others WEE will follow the same method First setting down the arguments for it with answers to them Secondly the arguments against it Thirdly lay downe conclusions The arguments for it are First taken from Scripture secondly from practise of the Churches thirdly from reason evincing the necessitie of it The first Argument Those whom the Holy Ghost instituted they are of Christs ordaining But the Holy Ghost is sayd to have placed Bishops Act 20. Ergo Bishops are of Christs ordeining Answer We deny the assumption viz. That those Presbytere of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches Yea D. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to haue had no Bishop who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome as he thinketh And others defending the Hierarchie who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops doe judge that these words belong not to Presbyters but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them to wit of Timothy Sosipater Tychicus who say they were three Bishops indeed but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company is quite besides the text The second Argument Such Pastors as the seven Angels Christ ordained But such were Diocesan Bishops Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminencie amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan Bishops
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
the Bishops and Presbyters First for the proposition it is not true for first of Aaron and his sonnes they were not orders different essentially in their power but onely in degree of dignitie wherein the high Priest was aboue others For every Priests power would haue reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest onely Besides when the high Priest was deceased or removed the other Priests did consecrate the successour as Sadock Finally the one had for substance the same consecration that the other neither had the high Priest any maiorite of directiue or correctiue power over others So the Apostles and 72 will not be found different in order and therefore those who resemble these cannot be concluded to be of divers orders For the Apostles and 72 differ no more then ordinary messengers who are imployed in a set course and extraordinary sent by occasion onely They were both messengers the Apostles habitu and abidingly the other in act onely and after a transitorie manner Againe had Aaron and his sonnes been divers orders differing essentially in the inward power of them yet is not the proposition true but with addition in this wise Those who are identically and formally that which Aaron and the Apostles were and that which his sonnes and the 72 were they differ in degree essentially not those who were this analogically by reason of some imperfect resemblance For things may be said to be those things wherewith they haue but imperfect similitude In this sense onely the proposition is true Now to come to the assumption First touching Aaron wee deny any Bishop is as Aaron by divine Institution or by perfect similitude answering to him But because Aaron was the first and high Priest others inferiour so it hath pleased the Church to imitate this pollicie and make the Bishop as it were Primum Presbyterum or Antistitem in primo ordine Presbyters in secundo Whence Bishops may be said to be that which Aaron was through the Churches ordination which she framed looking to this patterne of government which God himselfe had set out in the old Testament The fathers call them Aaron and his sonnes onely for some common analogie which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters and them and conceiue them to be so by humane accommodation not by divine institution But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministerie typified by them by Gods owne appointment this the fathers never thought Christs priesthood no mans was properly typified in Aaron So touching the other part of the assumption That Bishops and Presbyters are what Apostles and the 72 were The fathers many of them insist in this proportion that as the Apostles and 72 were teachers the one in a higher the other in an inferiour order so Bishops and Presbyters were by the Churches ordinance This is the fathers phrase to call them Apostles who in any manner resemble the Apostles to call them as Ambrose Prophets Euangelists Pastors Doctors who resemble these and come in some common analogie neerest them Moses and the 70 Seniors who in any sort resembled them Now the assumption granted in this sense maketh not against us For they might be said these if there were but diverse degrees of dignity amongst them though for power of order by Gods institution they were all one But some streyne it further and take it that Christ instituting those two orders did in so doing institute Bishops and Presbyters the one wherof succeeded the Apostles the other the 72 and that thus the Fathers take it To which I answer First in generall this analogie of Apostles and 72 is not generally affected by them all Ignatius ad Smyrnenses dicit Apostolis Presbyteros successisse Diaconos 72 discipulis Clem. lib. 2. Const cap. 30. saith That Bishops answer to God the Father Presbyters to Christ Deacons to the Apostles Ierom doth manifestly make Presbyters whom hee also calleth by name of Bishops in that Epistle where hee maintaineth the Presbyters dignity successours to the Apostles The like hath Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos prepositos that is ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum as Austin speaketh else it should bee all one with the former when hee maketh the Presbyter as well as the Bishop to be ordained in the Apostles Finally these Fathers who take the 72 to haue beene Apostles as well as the other could not imagine this proportion of diverse orders set up in them Secondly if Christ in these instituted those other it must bee one of these waies First hee did make these not onely Apostles but Bishops and so the 72 not onely his messengers for the time but Presbyters also Or secondly else hee did ordaine these as he did raine Manna noting and prefiguring as by a type a further thing which hee would worke viz. that he would institute Bishops and Presbyters for Teachers ordinary in his Church but both these are gatis spoken without any foundation or reason For the first we haue shewed that the Apostles could not bee Bishops ordinarily nor yet the calling of these seventie two which was to goe through all Cities Evangelizing stand with Presbyters Presbyters being given to Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there fixed Neither can the latter be true for then Christ should haue giuen a Sacrament when he ordained his Apostles and sent forth his 72. Secondly the type or the shadow is lesse then the thing typified the substance of it But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors Ergo. Thirdly I say that Christ did never ordaine that any should succeed the Apostles or the 72 in regard of their order There is a double succession in gradum or in Caput as the jurists distinguish In gradum eundem as when one brother dying another brother doth succeed him in the inheritance In caput as when one not of the same degree and line doth come after another as when a brother dying another doth inherite after him not a brother but a cosin to him Thus the Apostles haue no successors succeeding them in gradum but such onely as follow them being of other degrees and in another line as it were in which sort euery Pastor doth succeed them But then they are said to succeed them because they follow them and after a sort resemble them not because they hold the places which the Apostles did properly Apostolo in quantum est Apostolus non succeditur Legato quatenus est Legatus non succeditur Fourthly that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order succeed the Apostles no lesse fully then any other First they must needs succeed them who are spoken to in them whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes in the Supper in the commandement of teaching and baptizing Ergo Presbyters must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did
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
which the Consull doth in calling the assembly propounding things c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Senators nor to withdraw themselves from being subiect to the censure of the rest of the Senate To the fift argument to the proposition by distinction if they have all power both of ministeriall application and instituting others out of vertue and authoritie then Pastours derive But this is denyed She hath no power but of Ministerie and no plenitude but so farre as they in their own persons can discharge It presupposeth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not But to let the proposition passe because of some derivation it is true If she have but all power of Ministeriall application then Bishops derive from her But they doe not We say they doe And whereas it is objected that which the Church never had she cannot convey it I answer that which the Church never had she cannot virvirtually convey it but she may as ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving it Nothing can give that which it hath not either formally or virtually unlesse it give it as an instrument to one who hath it A man not having a peny of his own may give an hundred pounds if the king make him his Almoner A Steward may give all offices in his masters house as ministerially executing his masters pleasure Thus the Church deriveth as taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will haue placed in this or that office in his Church This answereth to the last suggestion For if the Church did virtually and out of power make an officer it is true as wee see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth But if she doe it in Steward-like manner ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house then is not he so taken in to doe in his name but in his masters name As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did conferre it on him The last obiection I answer That the particular Church may depose their Bishop What member soever in the Church is the offending person may be complained of to the Church The Church of Philippi if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop and so power of instituting him then of destituting also Instituere destituere ejusdem est potestatis But hee is given the onely iudge in Christs roome and though they elect him yet as you haue sayd and truly they have not the power of that authoritie in them to which he is elected No more then the Electors of the Emperour haue in them power of the imperiall dignitie Answer Wee say therefore that as the Church hath onely ministeriall power of application that is as they cannot out of power call a Pastour but onely call one whom Christ poynteth out and to whom Christ out of power giveth the place of Pastour So she cannot censure or depose but onely ministerially executing the censure of Christ who will have such a one turned out or otherwise censured But the Bishop never was sole judge though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may be said so Christ instituted a Presbyterie in which all had equall power of iudgement Cyprian Ep. 68 in the case of Basilides Martialis doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy so of refusing unworthy Hee speaketh of an ordinarie power as by choosing is manifest not extraordinarie and in case of necessitie And Mr. Field maintaineth that Liberius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastour subiect to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subiect to the censure of the particular Church Vnlesse they will say with some Schoolmen Soto viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the Church Secondlie I marvell how hee commeth to represent the generall Church with whom in his calling the Church Oecumenicall hath nothing to doe To that which is obiected touching Fathers Pastours the similitudes hold not in all things Natural parents are no wayes children nor in state of subiection to their children but spirituall fathers are so fathers that in some respect they are children to the whole Church So sheepheards are no wayes sheep but ministers are in regard of the whole Church Secondly Parents and Sheepheards are absolutelie parents and sheepheards bee they good or evill but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves Besides are not civil Kings Parents and Pastors of their people yet if they be not absolute Monarches it was never esteemed as absurd to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them If their owne Churches have no power over them it will be hard to shew wherein others haue such power of iurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches But Lord Bishops must take state on them and not subiect themselves unto any triall but by their Peeresonely which is by a Councell of Bishops FINIS ERRATA PAg. 1. lin 15. read constitute for continued pag. 3. lin 1. five of these were Metropol l. 2. two Diocesan at least Philadelphia and Thyatira l. 25. citie for citie Church pag. 5. l. 30. read Bishop for Pastor pag. 7. l. 2. Cypr. lib. 4. epist l. 34. In the nationall pag. 11. l. 2. Synagogues in villages as well as in cities l. 16. were at the first constitute pag. 17. l. 31. nay any constant government at all Pag. 18. l. 16. Philadelphia and Thyatira pag. 22. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 24. l. 28. not to the Presbyters of Ephesus pag. 28. l. 10. Iohn the baptist pag. 35. l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 37. l. 33. and in like sence others a primate pag. 51. grat is The rest of the literall faults and wants may be easily supplied by the understanding Reader
power of order he could not be an ordinarie Bishop properlie and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinarie was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Obiect But it was not in vaine that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church Answer If by the mutuall agreement in which they were guided by the spirit it was thought meet that Iames should abide in Ierusalem there tending both the Church of the Iewes and the whole circumcision as they by occasion resorted thither then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked But they did think it meet that he should there tend that Church and with that Church all the Circumcision as they occasionally resorted thereto Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there yet his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Iewes Galath 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor what did hee need assignation under any other title Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person viz. of an ordinary Pastor which he could not be who did receive no such power of order as ordinarie Pastors have Fourthly That calling which hee could not exercise without beeing much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a poynt of honour for him But hee could not exercise the calling of an ordinarie Bishop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authoritie and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinarie man liable to errour Ergo hee was neuer ordained to bee a Bishop properlie If it bee sacriledgee to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop True it is hee might have been assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and bee no whit abased but then he must keepe there as Pastor of it with Apostolicall authoritie caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Iewes which he might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did not need to goe forth as the rest for the Iewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinarie teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without going forth in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary pastor was much lesse honour then ro travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithynia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull privat place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour hither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the â—est but in having such an honorable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinarie Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clement in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authoritie What needed they an ordinarie Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchie say to supply the absence of Apostles when now they were to decease What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the proposition For had some ordinarie Pastors been so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignitie in them above other wherefore unlesse this bee interserted it is unsound viz. Those ordinarie Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminencie which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the assumption is false altogether First that Epaphroditus was an ordinarie Pastor secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obj. But the iudgment of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom is that he was Answ the common judgement is that he was an egregious teacher of theirs but further then this many of the testimonies doe not depose Now so he might be for he was an Evangelist and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher yea an egregious teacher or Doctor of them Nay S. Ambrose doth plainly insinuate that hee was an Evangelist for he sayth hee was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where he maketh him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the transient exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because he was their ordinarie Pastor Ieroms testimonie on this place doth not evince For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken and as appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Theod. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are sayd to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have been such an Apostolick person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truely called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoret to be admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should be communicated then with ordinarie Pastors where now there was danger of confounding those eminent ministers of Christ with others and when now the Apostles were deceased that then it should cease to be ascribed to them Againe how shall we know that a bishop is to be placed in a citie that hee must be a person thus and thus according to Pauls Canons qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely under the name of Apostles Angels Thirdly antiquitie doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been termed by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should be called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolical the Apostles were not succeeded Iurisdiction Episcopal they never exercised nor had and therefore could not be succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters
directive power aboue others and corrective they had majoritie of rule But Bishops had Ergo. The assumption proved First for directive power the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them Igna. ad Mag. ad Smyr They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bishop Clem. Epist 1. ad Iacob Tert. Lib. de bapt Can. Apost 38. Con. Carthag 4.38 Con. Car. 2. Can. 9. Con. Gan. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5. Secondly that they had corrective power it is proved Apoc. 2. 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer fals Apostles is commended for it the Angel of Thyatira is reproved for suffering the like Therfore they had power over other ministers Cyp. lib. 3. Ep. 9. telleth telleth Rogatian he had power to have censured his Deacon Ierom. adversus Vigilantium marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantius was did not breake the unprofitable vessell Epiphanius sayth Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves they the people The Presbyters affixed to places churches were subject to the Bishops for when they were vacant the Bishop did supplie them Againe the Presbyters had their power from him and therefore were under him and they were subiect io the censure of the Bishop Those of his Clergie were under him for hee might promote them they might not goe from one Diocesse to another without him not travell to the Citie but by his leave The Bishop was their iudge and might excommunicate them Cypr. lib. 1. Epist 3. Concil Carth. 4. ca. 50. Conc. Chal. ca 9. Conc. Nice ca. 4. Conc. Ant. ca. 4. ibid. ca. 6. ca. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. Conc. Afric ca. 29. Conc. Ephes ca. 5. Con. Chal. ca. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrysostome prove this All Presbyters were counted acephali headlesse that lived not in subjection to a Bishop The Pastors of parishes were either subject to Bishops or they had associats in Parishes ioyned with them or they ruled alone But they had not associats neither did they rule alone Ergo they were subject to the authoritie and jurisdiction of the Bishop Answer The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must bee thus framed Those who had power of iurisdiction in themselves without the concurrence of other Presbyters as fellow judges they were greater in maioritie of rule Thus Bishops had not iurisdiction True it is they were called governours and Princes of their Churches because they were more eminent ministers though they had not Monarchicall power in Churches but Consull-like authoritie and therefore when they affected this Monarchie what sayd Ierom Noverint se sacerdotes esse non dominos noverint se non ad Principatum vocatos sed ad servitium totius Ecclesiae Sic Origen in Esa hom 7. To the proofe of the Assumption Wee deny that they had this directive power over all Presbyters Secondly that they had it over any by humane constitution infallible Presbyters were in great difference Those who are called proprij sacerdotes Rectores Seniores Minorum Ecclesiarum praepositi the Bishop had not nor challenged not that directive power over them which hee did over those who were numbred amongst his Clerickes who were helpes to him in the Liturgie in Chappell 's and parishes which did depend on him as their proper teacher though they could not so ordinarilie goe out to him The first had power within their Churches to teach administer excommunicate were counted brethren to the Bishops and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Auncient But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergie they had this directiue power over them the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same But I take these latter to have been but a corruption of governing presbyters who came to bee made a humane ministery 1. by having singular actes permitted 2. by being consecrate to this so doing ex officio what they were imploied in by the Bishop But sure these are but helps to liturgie according to the Canons Preaching did not agree to them further then it could be delegated or permitted Finally we read that by law it was permitted them that it was taken away from them again by the Bishops that it was stinted and limited sometime as to the opening of the Lords praier the Creed and 10 commandements as it is plain to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient Secondlie let us account them as ministers of the word given by God to his church then I say they could not have any direction but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists and this power is given to the Bishops onelie by canon swerving from the first ordinance of Christ for it maketh a minister of the word become as a cypher without power of his consecration as Ierom speaketh being so interpreted by Bilson himself These decrees were as justifiable as that which forbiddeth any to baptise who hath not gotten chrisme from the Bishop Con. Carth. 4. ca. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onelie a precedence of order in the Bishop aboue presbyters requiring presence and assent as of a fellow and chiefe member not otherwise To the proof of the second part of the former assumption 1. we denie this majoritie of corrective power to have been in the Apostles themselves they had only a ministry executiue inflicting that which Christs corrective power imposed Secondly we deny that this ministeriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evanglist where Churches were constituted Neither is the writing to one aboue others an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others To that of Cyprian against Rogatian we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would haue done it alone or that he and his Presbyterie could have done it without the consent of Bishops neighbouring but that he might in regular manner have been bold to have done it because he might be sure quod nos collegae tui omnes id râ—tum haberemut Cyprian was of iudgement that he himself might do nothing without the consent of his Presbyters unlesse he should violate his dutie by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren It was not modestie in him but due observancie such as he did owe unto his brethren Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarilie any thing alone He received some the people and the brethren contradicting lib. 1. ep 3. but not till he had perswaded them and brought them to be willing Thou seest saith he what pains I have to perswade the brethren to patience So againe I hardly perswade the people yea even wring it froÌ„ them that such should be received Neither did he take upon him to ordaine Presbyters alone but propounded made request for them confessing that further then God did extraordinarilie prevent both him and them they had the right of suffrage no lesse then himselfe as by these epistles may appeare l. 1. ep 20. l. 2. ep 5. l. 4. ep 10. Ierom though grandiloquent sometimes did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without