〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there ought to be none Howsoâ—ver hee is to bee conceived as apposing practically the difference of honour dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiasticall institutâ—on What is this to us Deniall of superiority in regard of honor dignity joyned with schisme was condemned Ergo deniall of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule keeping the bond of love 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 above othersome in order honor and dignity But â—hâ—y understand not by order such an order onely as is distinct because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it which is not to other Though thâ—s 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. Reynolds Danaeus to be blamed who doe in some sort excuse him For bishops were growne such that many good persons were offended at them as the Audiani Yea it was so ordinary that Ierom distinguisheth schisme from heresie because the one conteined assertions against the faith the other served 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 story of these times Sure it is Eustathius was a strong Arian whom Aerius did oppose Neither is it strange to 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 this opinion thâ—y thought it rather schismaticall then hereticall therfore happily called it heresie because it included errour in their understanding which with schismaticall pertinacy was made heresie Neither is it like that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie nor Austin following him For thouâ—h Austine was aged yet he was so humble that hee saiâ—h Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri Neither was it prejudice to hâ—s worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe who in likelihood should know this matter also better As for his calling it heresie it is certaine he would not have this in rigour streined Fâ—r he doth protest in his preface unto that booke of heresie that none to his thought can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie Though thâ—refore he doubted not of this that Aâ—rius was in errour such as Catholickes should decline yet it doth not argue that hee thought this errour in rigour and former propriety to have beene heresie Thus much for this last Argument On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be serioâ—sly considered Argument 1. Those whom the Apostles placed as â—hiefe in their first constituting of Churches and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gave to the Churches they had none sâ—periour to them in the Châ—rches But they first placed Presâ—yâ—eâ—s feeâ—ing 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 give 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 coercive power in their owne hands meaning when now by the Presbyters labour the churches were growne 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 have 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 likelihood is there that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith châ—ldren now begotten are to be nurtâ—red and kepâ— iâ— awe beseeming them If it be said every one sit for the office of a Teacher was not sit for a Governour I answer he that is fit to be a Pastor â—eaching and govâ—rning in foro interno is much more fit to be a Governour externally he who is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser It was a greater and more Apostolicall worke to labour conversion and bring the churches a handfull in tâ—e plantiâ—g as some thinke to become numbersome in people then it is to governe them being converted And it is absurd to thinke 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 have somâ— one sent who â—ight rule them and the churches they had collected Secondly these Presbyters were as themselves confesse qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and chosen by speciall designation so that to impute insufficiency unto them is harsh and injurious to God as well as to man Finally by the twenty of the Acts and the first Epistle of Peter cha 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 be sent who would supply their roomes which yet they would not have forgotten being a thing of so great consolation had it been intended by them Argument 2. Those who have the name and office of Bishopscommon to them they have no superiour Pastors over them but the Presbyters Pastorall have that name and office attributed to them For first they are said to governe in generall Secondly there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro
alone but propounded made request for them confessing that further then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them they had the right of suffrage no lesse then himselfe as by these epistles may â—ppeare lib. 1. â—pist 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom though grandilâ— quenâ— sometimes did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet he would have these as the seventy Againe Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall Et nos senâ—cum habemus coetum Presbyteroâ—â—m sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam licet â— ut Romani habuerunt senâ—tum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius sâ—ith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsâ—fficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For Colleges supply Churches yet have they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we â—iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bâ—shop had such a jurisdiction as concerâ—ing the Church so farre as it was in society with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not prove them dependant on him For bishops have their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence Thus in Cyprians judgement bishops themselves delinquent turning wolves as Samosatenus Liberius c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries to be deposed and relinquished by them As for those that were part of his clerks it is true they were in greater measure subject to him absolutely in a manner for their direction but for his corrective power he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow bishops do any thing The bishop indeed is onely named many times but it is a common Synecdoche familiar to the Fathers who put the primary member of the church for the representative church as Austine saith Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclâ—siae gâ—ssisse See concil Sardicen cap. 17. conc Carth 4. cap. 2.3 Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3 Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Châ—ysostomes fact is not to be justified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which he was inclined though in regard of his end and unworthinesse of his Presbyters it may be excused yet it is not to be imitated As for those headlesse Clerkes it mâ—keâ—h nothing for the Bâ—shops majority of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them For first it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop a collegâ—at life together Eode refectorio dormitori utehantur Canonice viventes ab Episcopo instruâ—bontur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master it is no wonder if thâ—y be called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyâ—ers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clâ—rkes say it were yet will it not follow â—hat those who were under some were subject to his authority of rule For there is a head in regard of presidency of order as well as of power Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe bishop of their Province and to associate themselves with him So bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbishâ—ps as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes diâ— lâ—ve under some jurisdiction of the bishops but such as did permit them coerâ—ive power in their owne Churches such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity and not of any power whereby he might swâ—y all at his pleasure Thirdly if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny it is better to be without such heads then to have them as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome then if he still were head over us To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had because neitheir Presbyters alone had it nor with assistents I answer they had as well the power of government as of teaching and though they had not such assistants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church yet they might have some as a deacon or other person sufficient in such small Churches When the Apostles planted a bishop and Deacon onely how did this bishop excommunicate When the fathers of Africa did give a bishop unto those now multiplied who had enjoyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepiscopi who yet had government of their Churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrary of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others Ergo the contrary is truth Answer To the proposition we deny that it must needs be presently true the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie As the representative catholicke Church may propound an error so she mâ—y condemne a particular truth and yet remaine a catholicke church To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority but that onely which Aerius runne into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom deny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainely 2. Hee did not deny the fact that bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration hâ— could not be so mad If he had all that a bishop had actually how could he have affected to be a bishop as a further honouâ— Deniall of superiority such as consisteth in a further power of ordâ—r then a Pâ—eâ—byter hath and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule this denyall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be â—rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church What then was condemned in him A deniall of all superiority in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignity and secondly the deâ—ying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsâ—kâ— communion with the Church wherein it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should bee read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in divers places may make one church If many churches which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery may so make one they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory and so make one But the 24. churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery and so make one For so farre as two meete in a thâ—rd they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If city churches onely and not the churches of Villages and counâ—ry Townes had bishopâ— Presbyters and Deaâ—ons placed in them then were those city churchâ—s Diocesan churches But city churâ—hes onely had thâ—se Ergo city churches were Diocesan distinguâ—shed from Paâ—â—shiâ—nall churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripâ—ure Tâ—tus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secâ—ndly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Stoâ—y Thâ—y who are gâ—ven to lâ—bour the convertion of the Regions raâ—her then tenâ— those alreâ—â—y converted they were not given to a Parishionall church But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so Ergo. They who were set in a church before Parishes were could not be given to a Parishionall church But such were the Presbyters of the Apostlâ—s institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages from the first division that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery and a bishop but Presbyters onely Nay it was ever by councels condemned and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden that in Townes or Villages any but a Presbyter should be planted 3. This is also proved by reason for it was no more possible to have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish then to have a Maior and Aldermen such as we have in London â—n every Towne 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselves with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city Ergo there was then a Dâ—ocesan church having government of others Presbyters could not ordaine sede vacante though thâ—y did at first as in the church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches allowing onely such churches to bee instituted of Christ which may meet in one congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assemble Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a church as may to holy puâ—poses ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitâ—ly and signifieth no more Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum 2. The Scripture speaketh of the churches in a Kingdome or Province alwaies in the plurall number without any note of diffâ—rence â—s â—quall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nâ—tionâ—ll or Diocesan churches Let a reason be given why it should never speake in the singular number had they beene a singulâ—r church Secâ—ndly let us come to exâ—mples the churches the Apostles plâ—â—â—ed were suâ—h 〈◊〉 niâ—hâ— and did congregate Fiâ—sâ— that of Hâ—â—rusalem though there were in it toward 500. â—â—nogogues yet the christâ—â—n church was but one and such as did congreâ—ate â—nâ—o one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000. to it Act 2.46 5.12 6.1 15.25 21.22 25.22 For their ordinary meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericâ—ll meeting Againe if they might meete Synodically why might they not meete then in daily course though the universall meeting of a church is not so fitly called Synodicall And though they are said to be millions of beleevers yet that was by accident of a circumstance happily the Passeover We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations They had not a setled state there by which they did get the right of being set members Yea it is likely they were and continued but one congregation For forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude but that Pella like to the Zâ—har of Lot a little Towne could receive them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church Acts 14.27 they are said to have gathered the Church together Object That is the Ministers or representative Church Ans. 1. For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Acts 11. Peter gâ—ve account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly the Church of Corinth was one congregation which did for the service of God or exercise of Discipline meet together 1 Cor. 5.4 1 Cor. 14.25 vers 26. 1 Cor. 11.17 vers 23. in uno eodem loco That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth could not be a Diocesan Church neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming together ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly Fourthly the Church of Ephesus was but one flocke First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Secondly it was but one flocke that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Bâ—shop If Presbyters onely then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus There may be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholly meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5.2 calleth all those he writeth to one flocke but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flocke is but one congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added but a greater number of â—ister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Colosse There might be many churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches Examples Ecclesiasticall 1. Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians though numberlesse to meete together often
of bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their origâ—nall to have beene in thâ— Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall councell For long before the first generall councell we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no councell of after times but the Apostles themselves did ordaine bishops for even since those contentions wherein some said I am Pauls others I am Apollos they were set up by generall decree whâ—ch could not bee made but by the Apostles themselves And in Psal. 44. hee maketh David to prophecy of bishops who should be set up as the Apostles Successors Answer First we deny the proposition For first this doth presuppose such an assistance of Gods Spirit with the Church that she cannot generally take up any custome or opinion but what hath Apostolicall warrant whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Churches before any councell enacted it yet was no Apostolicall tradition Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc ut dies festi observentur sed homines ipsi suu quique lâ—cis ex more quodem introduxerant Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on Wednesday and Saturday fasting â—n some fashion before Eâ—ster ceremonies in baptising the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any councell established 2. It doth presuppose that the Church cannot generally conspire in taking up any custome if she be not led into it by some generall proponent as a generall representative councell or the Apostles who wert Oecumenicall Doctors but I see no reason for such a presumption 3. Thâ—â— doth presuppose that something may be which is of Aposâ—licall authâ—â—ity which neither directly nor consequently is included in thâ— woâ—â—d written For when there are some customes which have beene generall which yet canot be grounded in the word written it is necessary by this proposition that some things may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall as being delivered by word unwritten For they cannot have warrant from the Apostles but by word written or unwritten To the proofe we answer That of Tertullian maketh not to the purpose for hee speaketh of that which was in Churches Apostolicall as they were now planted by them which the sentence at large set downe wâ—ll make cleare Si cor stat id bonum quod pâ—ius id prius quod estaâ— initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariterutique constabil id â—sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would aâ—ke what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creâ—itur If thâ—y say his meaning is that such a thing cannot but in their writings be delivered they doe pervert his meaning as is apparent by that Cont. Don. lib. 2.27 Confuetudinem ex Apostoloâ—em traditions venâ—entem siâ—ut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum tamen quia custodiuntâ— per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsit tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what â—hey say is contained in it If thâ—y yeeld he doth meane as he doth of nowritten tradition we hope thâ—y will not justifie him in this we will take that liberty in him which himselfe doth in all others and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings Now count him in thâ—s to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelâ—sly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the lâ—titude of all traditions yâ—t wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begunne by Councells an argument of Divine and Apostolicall authority yet dealing against Donatists Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee saith he will not use this argument because it was but humane and uncertaine ne videâ—r humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certu documentâ— Wee answer to the assumption two things First it canot bee proved that unâ—versâ—lly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church and some Parochiall Churches Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters and that but one congregation they could not be like our Diocesan bâ—shops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaristus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripaâ—titâ— story testâ—fieth that till the time of Sozomeh they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly those Bâ—shops which had no more but one Deacon â—o helpe them in their ministery toward their Churches they could not be Dâ—ocesan Bâ—shops But such in many parts the Apostles planted as Epiphanius doth testifie Ergo. Thirdly such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes could not have Diocesan bâ—shops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sâ—zom in his 7. booke cap. 10. testifieth Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so universally received Secondly bishops came to be common by a Councell saith Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dâ—cree pâ—ssing through the world toto orbe decretum est saith Ierom ad Evag. which is to bee considered not of one Oecumeniall Councell but distributively in that singular Churches did in their Presbyteries decree and that so that one for the most part followed another in it This interpretative though not formalitèr is a generall decree But to thinke this was a decree of Pauls is too too absurd For besides that the Scripture would not have omitted a decree of such importance as tended to the alteration of and consummation of the frame of Churches begun through all the world How could Ierom if this decree were the Apostles conclude that bishops were above Presbyters magii consuetudine Ecclesia then Dominicae dispositionis veritate If the Doct. do except that custome is here put for Apostolicall institution let him put in one for the other and see how well it will become the sense Let Bishops know they are greater theâ— Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle then by the truth of Christs disposition Is it not fine that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites facing Christ their Lord And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thâ—nke that decretum est imported no more then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world Which is elegantly said to be a decree because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis the force of a decree But Ambâ—ose his place is plain Prospiciente Concilio he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles For he maketh this provision by councell to have come in when now in Egypt Alexandria Presbyters according to the custome of that Church were not found fit to
they must needs succeed theâ— 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 baptizâ—ng Ergo Presbyteâ—s must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chuâ—ches which they had planted for theâ—r fuâ—ther building thâ—m 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 tâ—â—se were thâ—ir successors most proper and immediate Thirdly tâ—ese to whom now tâ—king their farewells they resigned the Churches these were thâ—ir succâ—ssours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to sâ—e Ephesus more Act. 20. Peter neere death 1 Pet. 5.2 Erâ—o Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more propâ—rly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath same powâ—r Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for first their power of teachâ—â—g and ministring the Sacraments doth â—s fully and propâ—rly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Pâ—eaching not necâ—issarily câ—nnexâ—d to a Presbyters office but a bishopâ— or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs 〈◊〉 Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bâ—shop which are both too absurd Secondly for governement the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to one then to another Object This is denyed for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination and the coercive power in their owne hands and to have committed these in the end onely to Apostolike men as Timothy Titus who were their successours succeeding them in it Answ. A notable fiction for it is most plaine by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise have 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 above others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinary Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legarâ— Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselves 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 themselves urged with this that the Apostles have none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could have a successour The other of bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we have proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two For first in all that is spoken to the seventy two the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary 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 ordinary office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtfull Thirdly it is not read that they ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministery 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 themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Evangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from City to City without limitation to Evangelâ—ze and after we read of some as Philip that he was an Evangelist the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others Thus wâ— Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples in his 7. Book Armenicâ—râ—m quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receive 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 he 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 where of there may be but one onely during life in a Church they are in singularity of preheminence above others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothy one Titus one Archippus one Eâ—aphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conâ— Nice cap 8. Conc. Calud cap 4. Pâ—ssidonius in vita Augustine Ieremâ— Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Tâ—eoâ— Orcâ—umen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to be the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within 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 divâ—nâ— institution Now the assumptâ—on is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Actâ— 20. and that there were