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
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
But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiasticall preheminencie and superioritie of power Ergo they were Diocesan Bishops The assumption is proved Those who were shadowed by seven singular Starres were seven singular persons But the Angels were so Ergo. Againe Those to whom onely Christ did write who onely bare the praise dispraise threatning in regard of what was in the Church amisse or otherwise they had Majoritie of power above others But these Angels are written to onely they are onely praised dispraised threatned Ergo. c. Answ 1. In the two first syllogismes the assumption is denyed Secondly in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the proposition is denied That they must needs be seven singular persons For seven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites whether singular or aggregative seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity a united multitude Thirdly the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed For though we should suppose singular persons written to yet a preheminencie in order and greater authoritie without majoritie of power is reason enough why they should be written to singularly and blamed or praised above other Thus the master of a Colledge though he have no negative voyce might be written to blamed for the misdemeanors of his colledg not that hee hath a power overruling all but because such is his dignitie that did he doe his endevour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may bee denyed That they are onely written to For though they are onely named yet the whole Churches are written to in them the supereminent member of the Church by a Synecdoche put for the whole Church For it was the custome in the Apostles times and long after that not any singular persons but the whole Churches were written unto as in Pauls Epistles is manifest and in many examples Ecclesiasticall And that this was done by Christ here the Epiphonemaes testifie Let every one heare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall instituon But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First they ordained Iames Bishop of Ierusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo cap. 1. out of Clement and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our own authour Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost in Act. 3. 33. Ambros in Galath 1.9 Dorotheus in Synopsis Aug. contra Cris lib. 2. cap. 37. the generall Councell of Const in Trull cap. 32. For though hee could not receive power of order yet they might give him power of jurisdiction and assigne him his Church So that though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might iustly be called the Bishop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had they for their Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and maioritie of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had other called Bishops Chap. 1.14 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Theod. and Chrysost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thither Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when the Churches had to send any where they did usually intreat their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and Titus were instituted Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Crete Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus That which is presupposed in their Epistles is true But it is presupposed that they were Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches they are presupposed to have been ordained Bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus be the paternes of the Episcopall function informing them and in them all Bishops then they were Bishops But they are so Ergo. 2 Againe whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches doth prescribe the very dutie of Bishops he doth presuppose them Bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a Bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governe with singularitie of preheminence and maioritie of power in comparison of other Now these are the things which they have in charge Tit. 1.5 1. Tim. 5.22 1. Tim. 1.3.11 2. Tim. 2.16 Ergo. 3 Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Ergo to Diocesan Bishops Now that Diocesan Bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did succeed them were their successours But Diocesan Bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Councell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were Bishops Diocesan And we read of Philip Bishop of Gortina the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churches were were there Bishops But Timothy was bid abide here Titus to stay to correct all things and they lived and died here For Timothy it is testified by Hegisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom who so refuse to beleeve deserve themselues no beliefe Ergo they were there Bishops Againe Ierom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morte Sanct. Antoninus par 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these doe depose that they lived and died there Further to prove them Bishops 5. Their function was Evangelisticall and extraordinarie or ordinarie not the first that was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and iurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessarie to the beeing of the Church was not to end But the function they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is necessarie to the beeing of the Church Ergo. c. 6 Finally that which Antiquitie testifieth agreeing with Scripture is true But they testifie that they were Bishops which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirme Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5.
could a custome have prevailed with all of them whom we have to Constantines time yet it might enter and steale upon them through humaine frailtie as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faithfull Martyrs the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued Thirdly say they had wittingly and willingly done it through the world they had not cospired because they might haue deemed such power in the Church and themselves to doe nothing but what they might with Christs good liking for the edification of it How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause are at this day of this iudgement that if it were but an Apostolical institution as Apostolical is cōtradistinguished to divine they might change it But if the Apostles did enact this order as Legats and Embassadors of Christ then is it not theirs but Christs own institution What an Embassador speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates did not bearing the person of Legats but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours decree this then it is certaine Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Christ As for those proofes that Bishops have been throughout all Churches from the beginning they are weak For first the Councell of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simpliciter but secundum quid in order happily to that time wherein the custome began which was better known to them then to us the phrase is so used Act. 15.8 in respect of some things which had not continued many years They cannot meane the Apostles times for then Metropolitans should haue actuallie been from the Apostles time Secondlie the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus is likewise aequivocall for they have reference to the fathers of Nice or at least the decrees of the fathers who went before the Councell of Nice For those words being added definitiones Nicenae fidei seeme to explaine the former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascribe this thing onely to ancient custome no lesse then that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the authoritie of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquitie where sacred scriptures are called Canons of the Apostles Finally if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch As for the authoritie of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops ordained in cities not universaliter as if there were no citie but had some Secondly he speaketh of Bishops who had their Churches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common deliberations They had no Diocesan Churches nor were Bishops who had majoritie of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae aptior quam pugnae Rome can recite their successours But because it hath had Bishops Ergo Oecumenicall Bishops is no consequence All who are named Bishops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sence we controvert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weak For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondly we have shewed that the Councell of Nice doth not prove this that Bishops were every where from the beginning the phrase of from the beginning beeing there respectively not absolutely used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for he doth not use those words in proprietie but by way of allusion otherwise if hee did think the Apostle had published this decree when the first to the Corinths was written how can he cite testimonies long after written to prove that Bishops were not instituted in the Apostles time but that they were ordained by the Church iure Ecclesiastico when the time served for it The sixt Argument Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches such ministers are of Christs institution But ministers hauing singularitie of preheminence and power above others are amongst them as the Superintendents in Germanie Ergo. Answ The assumption is utterly denied For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops they are of the same degree with other ministers they are onely Presidents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their prerogative ceaseth they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers they are subject to the Presbyteries Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended they returne to the care of their particular Churches The seventh Argument If it were necessarie that while the Apostles lived there should be such Ministers as had preheminence and maioritie of power above others much more after their departure But they thought it necessarie and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostolicke men furnished with such power Ergo much more after their departure Answ The assumption is denied and formerly disproved for they appointed no such Apostolick men with Episcopal power in which they should be succeeded The eighth Argument Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them were lawfull For they would not have held their peace had they known unlawfull Ministers to have crept into the Churches But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops as in Rome Linus Clemens at Ierusalem Iames Simeon at Antioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Mark Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The Assumption is denied for these Bishops were but Presbyters Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting governing with common consent of their Presbyteries If they were affecting our Bishops majoritie they were in Diotrophes sufficientlie contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have been ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and maioritie of rule But Bishops have been held in a higher order by all antiquitie Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch ministers are distinguished into three orders Jgnatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys Areopag de Coelest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fuga in persecutione de Baptismo Ignatius doth often testifie it No wonder when the scripture it selfe doth call one of these a step to another 1. Timoth. 3.13 Cyprian Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc Ephes Cap. 1.2.6 Yea the Councell of Chalcedon counteth it sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter This Hierome himselfe confirmeth saying That from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters did set a Bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of maioritie of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption wee answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecallie it hath a higher vertue or because it hath
institute in the Churches which they had planted for their further building them up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo these were their successors most proper and immediate Thirdly these to whom now taking their farewels they resigned the Churches these were their successours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20 Peter neere death 1. Pet. 5.2 Ergo. Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more properly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath some power Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for First their power of teaching and ministring the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office but a Bishops or at least that a more rudimentall preaching belongs to a Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bishop which are both too absurd Secondly for government the Apostles did no more giue the power of government to one then to another Obj. This is denyed for the Apostles are said to haue kept the power of ordination and the coerciue power in their own hands to haue committed these in the end onely to Apostolique men as Timothy Titus who were their successors succeeding them in it Ans A notable fiction for it is most plain by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise haue provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men aboue others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinarie Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legare Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselues in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselues urged with this that the Apostles haue none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could haue a successour The other of Bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops National or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to haue other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we haue proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first in all that is spoken to the 72 the full dutie and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinarie power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinarie office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtful Thirdly it is not read that tney ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministerie of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselues could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinarie gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Euangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from Citie to Citie without limitation to Euangelize and after we reade of some as Phillip that he was an Euangelist the same is in Ecclesiasticall storie testified of some others Thus we Presbyters should succeed Euangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Euangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armachanus doth take these 72 to haue been ordinary disciples in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receiue a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is hee not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers whereof there may bee but one onely during life in a Church they are in sigularity of preheminence aboue others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothie one Titus one Archippus one Epaphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conc. Nice cap. 8. Conc. Calced cap. 4. Possidonius in vita Augustine Ierom. Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Theod. Oecumen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to bee the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to bee but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates with in the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divine institution Now the assumption is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to haue placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Act. 20. and that there were Bishops at Philippi True it is the Scripture doth not distinguish how manie of the one sort nor how many of the other because no doubt for the number of the Congregations a single Presbyter labouring in the Word or two the one coadjutor to the other might be placed Secondly it is testified by Epiphanius that ordinarilie all Cities but
Alexandria had two Thirdly Ierom on 1. Tim. 3. doth saie that now indeed there may be but one Bishop meaning Canonicallie making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique Fourthlie Austin did not know it was unlawfull Yea he did onelie in regard of the decree of Nice account it so Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contrary but as a point against Canon which might in some cases be dispensed with as the storie of Narcissus and Alexander and Liberius and Foelix doth more then manifest For though the people of Rome cried out one God one Christ one Bishop yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite wheras had it been a thing they had all thought to haue been against Christs institution they would not haue done Vide Soz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly Ieroms peerelesse power is nothing but Consul-like presidence aboue others for this he pleaded for writing against Iovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselues that schisme might be avoided Wherfore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense that the Bishop jure humano hath a singularity of preheminence before others as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onely Archbishop 13 Argument Those who had peerelesse power aboue others in ordination and jurisdiction they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others But the former is due to Bishops Vnlesse this singularitie of power were yeelded there would be as many schismes as Priests Ergo. The assumption proved Those who haue a peculiar power of ordination aboue others they are in preheminence and power before others But Bishops haue Ergo they are in c. The assumption proved That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent but in the Apostles and after in Timothy and Titus and their successours that is a peculiar of Bishops But ordination was not in the Presbyters c. Ergo. The assumption proved That which these were sent to doe Presbyters had not power to doe It was therefore in them and such as succeeded them the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete Againe the Scriptures Councels Fathers speake of the ordeyner as one Ergo it was the peculiar right of the Bishop and the Bishop onely Hee onely by Canon was punishable for irregularitie in ordination And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fathers by ordination as tho Presbyters doth sonnes by Baptisme And Ierom doth except ordination as the Bishops peculiar wherein hee is most unequall to them Answer I answer the Proposition of the first Sillogisme by distinction Those who haue peerelesse power in regard of the simple right to ordeine viz. in regard of exercising the act and sole performing the rite of it those who haue a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others haue they are aboue others in degree Againe peerelesse power in a Bishop over Presbyters may be said in comparison to them distributiuely or collectiuely considered Hee that hath peerelesse power given him which no one of the other hath is not presently of a greater degree nor hath not majoritie of rule amongst others as a Consul in the Senate But if he haue a peerelesse power such as they all collectiuely considered cannot controule then the Proposition is true but the Assumption will then be found to halt To the proofe of the assumption The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing it selfe not to ministring the rite and executing the act which may be reserved for honour sake to one by those who otherwise haue equall power with him That Bishops haue this power in order the thing it selfe agreeing to them Viproprii officii not by commission from others we deny The assumption is wholly denyed As for the proofe of it First we that deny that Euangelists had not power to ordeyne as well as Apostles Secondly that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they Euery one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination The Euangelists power did not derogate from the Apostles the Presbyters from neither of them But power of imposing hands solitarily whereas yet Churches were not constituted this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Euangelists whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of churches Secondly the assumption is false in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands contrarie to that in Timothie The grace given thee by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Thirdly it is false in presupposing others then Presbyters to haue been Timothy and Titus their successors To the proofe of this assumption The proposition is not true For it might be convenient that the same thing should be done by Euangelists and by ordinary Pastors each concurring in their severall orders to the same service of Christ the Lord. Secondly I answer to the assumption That Presbyters were to bee placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters or where there were as yet none In the first Churches they are bid ordaine if any need further but salvo jure Ecclesia not without the concurrence of others In the latter Churches which were to be constituted they may be conceived sa Evangelists with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands Wee hold Apostles might doe it Evangelists might and the Presbyteries also Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was deceased did ordaine the following For the Canon of three Bishops and Metropolitans added by the Nicene Councell was not knowne yet Neverthelesse it grew timely to be restrained to Bishops the performing I meane of the outward rite and signe but onely by Canon as Consignation was also for which there is as ancient testimonies as this that it was appropriat to the Bish We grant therfore that antiquitie doth sometime speak of the ordainer as one In the Churches of Affrica one did not lay on hands yet in some other churches the rite was by one administred And it is to be noted by the way that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters but to the number of Three or many Bishops required in the ordination of a Bishop They might therfore by their canons be punishable because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to thē This is all that Epiphanius or Ieroms excepta ordinatione can prove But these two conclusions we would see proved out of Scriptures and Fathers First that ordination is an action of power of order a power sacramental which a Presbyter hath not Secondly that by vertue of this power the Bishop doth ordaine and not by Ecclesiasticall right or commission from the Church Certainlie the act of promoting a minister of the Church is rather an act of iurisdiction then order As it belongeth to policie and government to call new Magistrates where they are wanting Obiect
be avoided but that the Pastor should haue it because though everie Praesul or Praelatus be not a Pastor yet everie Pastor is Praelatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinarie Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with everie Church if he who is resident alwaies among them as their spirituall Phisition should not haue power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majoritie of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a Ministerie of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Maister onely doth out of power take everie servant into his house so God in his God did those Aarons sonns with the Levites and Christ the 70 not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authoritie applie all power Ecclesiasticall to everie particular person his sole authoritie doth it though sometime as in ordinarie callings the ministerie of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when shee taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of governement as are in their Kingdom yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they haue a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it tam immediatione suppositi quam virtutis sometime the ministerie of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarilie directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Samuel to annoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immedatione virtutis not suppositi Ob. But yet Bishops haue the Churches the care of them wholly committed to them though therfore Ministers haue equall power to them yet they cannot without their leaue haue any place within their Churches and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an errour likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom hee doth not assigne a flock which hee may attend God calleth Ministers not to a facultie of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministeriall actions if any giue them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartularios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinarie Iudges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the university giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physick without any patients among whom hee may practise But Gods Ministerie is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order is nothing by the way but a relatiue respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should giue them a facultie of feeding and leaue them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to haue set the Presbyters over their flock A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth giue him a power of doing something to his familie and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessitie of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exigency of his people so require he doth not cal any to the function of Ministerie Again this is enough to ground the authoritie which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignetie to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors Bishops the moytie of sheep on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheep feed my sheep so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheep in a Diocesan flock to be his that he hath power to assigne the severall flocks under him he doth usurp an Antichristian authoritie Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a curate is whom a Parson giveth leaue to help within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dyeth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Maister what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now everie Minister is an Embassadour of Christ By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministerie if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministers mediatly only serue God in as much as they haue done this or that to which the Bishop did direct them Moreover should the Bishop bid him not preach at all preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and liue from his charge he should not sin in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministerie which he cannot giue It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are aboue others whom they command as they will such as are called servi ordinarii or praepositi some are under others to doe this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serue their Maister Christ neither having any that they can command nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them But it may be objected that God hath
Cap. 4. Dyonis Arcepag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambrose proem in 1. Tim. 1. Ierom. 1. Tim. 1.14 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5. Primas prefat in 1. Tim. 1.1 Theod. praefat in Tit. Oecum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is sayd in the book of histories Greg. Lib. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34. Answer We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme with all the instances brought to proue it First for Iames we deny he was ordained Bishop or that it can be proued from antiquitie that he was more then other Apostles That which Eusebius reporteth is grounded on Clement whom we know to be a forged magnifier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should haue ordeyned Peter Iohn and James the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to haue ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignitie which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus do plainly affirme Secondly as the ground is suspected so the phrase of the Fathers Calling him the Bishop of that Church doth not imply that he was a Bishop properly so called The fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict formall proprietie Ierom on the first to the Galathians and in his Epistle to Damasus affirmeth that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles So many fathers call Phillip an Apostle Clem. 5. Const cap. 7. Euseb lib. 3. cap. ult Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops not in proprietie of speech but because they did such things as Bishops doe and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them Thus Peter Paul Iohn Barnabas and all the rest are by the Ancients called Bishops Obj. This is granted true touching others but not in this instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture as well as all other Story that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Ierusalem he did still abide with them even to death Answere though this bee but very conjecturall yet it nothing bettereth the cause here It followeth not Hee did abide with this Church Ergo he was the proper Bishop of this Church For not abiding in one Church doth make a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Church secondly to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it thirdly to governe it with a power of jurisdiction limited onely to that Church But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumcision by his office as they should from all the world resort thither Secondly he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth Ergo not as an ordinary Bishop Thirdly as the rest in what Provinces soever they rested had not their jurisdiction diminished but had power occasionally as well where they were not as where they were so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more founded out of Iames that he did in this circumstance of residing more neerly expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other It is plaine Antiquitie did hold them all Bishops and gather them so to be a Priori Posteriori the Author de quaest vet nov test cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopos salvatorem Ecclesijs in◅ituisse priusquam ascenderet imponens manus Apostolis ordinavit eos in Episcopos Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could regularly doe Oecum cap. 22. in Act. It is to be noted sayth he that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops for they did not make Bishops onely but Presbyters also Now wee must conster the ancient as taking them onely eminentlie and virtuallie to have been bishops or els we must judge them to have been of this mind That the Apostles had both as extraordinary legats most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors with power of teaching and governing such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them which indeed D. Downam himselfe confuteth as Popish and not without reason though while he doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly himselfe doth confirme it not a little Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings First That which might make us doubt of all their teaching and writing is to be hissed forth as a most dangerous assertion But to make Iames so any of them haue both these offices in proprietie might make us doubt Ergo. The assumptiō proved thus That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour when they teach from one office as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infallible discerning when they teach from the other that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write But this opinion doth so Ergo. The proposition is for ought I see of necessarie truth the assumption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infalliblie as he was formally the ordinarie bishop of Ierusalem let us heare it if there were none may not I question whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour For if he taught them as an ordinary bishop and did write his Epistle so then certainly it might erre If he did not teach them so then did he not that he was ordained to neither was he properly an ordinarie Pastor but taught as an extraordinary Embassadour from Christ Secondly Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one but the one must expell the other were never by God conjoyned in one person But these doe so Ergo. The assumption is manifest Because it is plain non can be called to teach as a legat extraordinarie with infallible assistance and unlimited jurisdiction but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church teaching as an ordinarie person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner be called to doe this but at least the exercise of the other is suspended Thirdly that which is to no end is not to be thought to be ordained of God But to give one an ordinarie authoritie whereby to doe this or that in a Church who had a higher and more excellent power of office whereby to doe those same things in the same Church is to no end Ergo. Object But it will be denied that any other power of order or to teach and administer sacraments was given then that hee had as an Apostle but onely jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church Answer To this I reply first that if hee had no new
that which Christ gave them out of his power even the power of ordinary government They are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed as well by government as doctrine They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock What feare of tyrannie where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionallie to send him he having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee employed I thought it necessarie to send Epaphroditus to you Secondly hee doth implie that Epaphroditus had not returned to them but that he sent him and that therefore he was not the ordinary Bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might be dispatched to them Neither is it any thing probable he should be called an Apostle as their ordinarie and eminent Pastor In the Scriptures none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them Now this is undoubted the Philippians had sent him to Paul It is then most probabl when he is called their Apostle it is in regard he was sent by them which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words who hath ministred to me the things needfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelue should be used of those sent civily Not so for while the persons sending are signified they are sufficiently contradistinguished it being the Priviledge of the Apostles that they were the Apostles of Christ Iesus not simply that they were Apostles Secondly Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent For though Christ meane it of himselfe yet he implies it by a discourse a genere ad speciem Thirdly we see the like phrase 2. Cor. 8. the Apostles of the Churches For Chrysostome there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were sent by Paul to the Churches therefore the Churches might not send them with their contributions Neither is this an argument that he was their Bishop because their Church sent him for they sent Apostles themselues and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from Church to Church for the edification of them For the instance of Archippus I finde it not urged Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus First we deny the Antecedent that they were instituted Bishops by Paul And in the first prosillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogism tending to proue this assertion denyed we answer first to the proposition by distinguishing the Episcopall authoritie which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Propsition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to haue had authority Episcopall given them both for the substance of it and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary Bishop they are presupposed Bishops but this is denyed For they are presupposed to haue and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to haue and exercise in that manner and formallitie which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Euangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Euangelist to exercise all that power they did exercise as Euangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth to Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crete which himselfe present in person might not and would not haue done If we should reason then thus He who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to haue been Bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation He who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop he was Bishop but not he who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner as doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee denie the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Euangelists ordinarie Pastors haue many things common in their administration Hence is it that the example of the one may be a patterne to another though they are not identically and formally of one calling Councels haue enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles as being patternes for them Vide Aug. De doctrin Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4. To the third reason Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the verie duties of Bishops hee doeth take them to haue beene Bishops The Proposition is not true without a double limitation If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped he doth not therfore presuppose them Bishops because these are duties of Euangelists agreeing to Bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the word doth ascribe and appropriate to Bishops yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them it will not follow that he doth take them for Bishops nor that Paul doth propose the verie duties of Bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly wee deny him to propose for substance the duties of Bishops For hee doth not bid him ordaine as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers nor governe with power directiue and correctiue over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothie is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvo uniuscujusque Ecclesiae jure the Apostles did not otherwise For though Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in Churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting framing of others Secondly because they were in degree and dignity aboue all other ordinary governours of the Church which their Consul-like preheminence was sufficient why they should be written to alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Ergo The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothing written to any persons can informe Diocesan Bishops unlesse the persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same order For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apostolique it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whatsoever Secondly we deny Diocesan Bishops are de jure successours As for the equivocal Catalogue which maketh all who are read Bishops to haue been Diocesan we shall speake of them hereafter The Bishops between Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedom Councell were not all of one cut and there are no
a higher degree of dignitie and honour Now wee deny that ever antiquitie did take the Bishop above his Presbyters to bee in a higher order then a Presbyter further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignitie and honour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Sardica speaketh Which is further proved becavse the fathers did not hold a Bishop to differ from a Presbyter as Presbyter from a Deacon For these differ genere proximo Noverint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari But a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter as from one who hath the power of Priesthood no lesse then himselfe and therefore the difference betwixt these must bee circumstantiall not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops not that one exceedeth the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignitie then then the other More plainly There may be a fourefold difference in gradu 1. in potestate gradus 2. in Exercitio 3. in Dignitate 4. in amplitudine Jurisdictionis The first difference is not betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter according to the common tenent of antiquitie or the Schoole but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardlie diverse one from the other For as a Bishop differeth not in power and degree from an Archbishop Because nothing an Archbishop can doe as confirming consecrating Bishops c. but a Bishop can doe also So neither doth a Presbyter from a Bishop Obiect But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter and confirme as the Bishop doth and therefore differeth potestate gradus To this I answer that these authours meane not this difference in power de fundamentali remota potestate sed ampliata immediata et iam actu horum effectuum productiva as if Presbyters had not a remote and fundamentall power to doe those things but that they haue not before they be ordained bishops their power so enlarged as to produce these effects actuallie As a boy hath the generative facultie while he is a child which he hath when he is a man but yet it is not in a child free from all impediment that it can actually beget the like But this is too much to grant For the power sacramentall in the Priest is an actuall power which hee is able to performe and execute nothing defectiue in regard of them further then they be with-held from the exercise of it For that cause which standeth in compleat actualitie to greater more noble effects hath an inferior lesser of the same kind under it also unlesse the application of the matter be intercepted Thus a presbyter he hath a sacramental power standing in ful actualitie to higher sacramental actions therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in his power further then they are excepted kept from bein applied to him And therfore power sacramentall cannot bee in a Presbyter as the generative facultie is in a child for this is inchoate onely and imperfect such as cannot produce that effect The power of the Priest is compleat Secondlie I say these are no sacramentall actions Thirdlie were they yet as much may bee said to prove an Archbishop a distinct order from a Bishop as to prove a Presbyter and Bishop differing in order For it is proper to him out of power to generate a Bishop other Bishops laying on hands no otherwise then Presbyters are said to doe where they ioyne with their Bishops If that rule stand not maior ad minori nor yet equalis ab equali I marvel how Bishops can beget Bishops equal yea superior to them as in coÌ„secrating the Lord Archbishop yet a presbyter may not ordain a presbyter It doth not stand with their Episcopall majoritie that the rule every one may give that which be hath should hold here in the exercise of their power Those who are in one order may differ jure â—…o or humane Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall for they might all offer incence and make intercession But the solumne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ Priests would haue reached to this power of intercession in the holy place or any act of like kinde but that God did not permit that this should come under them or they intermeddle in it Thus by humane law the Bishop is greater in exercise then the Priest For though God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other yet commonly confirmation ordination absolution by imposing hands in receiving Penitents consecrating Churches and Virgines haue been referred to the Bishop for the honour of Priesthood rather then any necessity of law as Ierome speaketh Finally in dignity those may differ many wayes who in degree are equall which is granted by our adversaries in this cause Yea they say in amplitude of jurisdiction as in which it is apparant an Archbishop exceedeth another But were it manifest that God did giue Bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse and an Archbishop through his Province though but when he visiteth this would make one differ in order from the other as in this regard Euangelists differred from ordinary Pastors But that jurisdiction is in one more then another is not established nor hath apparencie in any Scripture To the proofes therefore I answer briefly the one may be a step to the other while they differ in degrees of dignities though essentially they are but one and the same order In this regard it may be sacriledge to reduce one from the greater to the lesser if he haue not deserved it As for that of Ierom it is most plain he did meane no further order but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their Bishop or first Presbyter as that they did mount him up in a higher seate the rest sitting lower about him and gaue him this preheminence to sit first as a Consul in the Senate and moderate the carriage of things amongst them this Celsiori gradu being nothing but his honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing sole authoritie For by a Canon of the Councill of Laodicea we finde that the Bishop had this priviledge to sit first though Presbyters did together with him enter and sit as Iudges of equall commission For though Deacons stood Presbyters did alwaies sit in circuitu Episcopi 10 Argument If Bishops be that which Aaron and the Apostles were and Presbyters be that which the Priests and the 72 Disciples were then the one are aboue the other in preheminence and power But they are so See Ierom to Nepotian Ergo. Answer If Bishops c. and Presbyters be that which the sonnes of Aaron and the 72 were then there are different orders c. To these may be added a third That which Moses and the 70 Seniors were that are
But a new spirituall officer may be instituted by a sacrament Answ If God would so have collated the grace of spirituall callings but hee hath appointed no such thing The Apostles and 72. were not instituted by a sacrament or imposition of Christs hands Now the greater the grace was which was given the more need of a sacrament whereby it should bee given Obiect They were extraordinarie Answ They might have had some ambulatorie sacrament for the time Againe imposition of hands was used in giving extraordinary graces Act. 8. Secondly were it a sacrament it should conferre the grace of office as well as grace sanctifying the person to use it holily But we see that this it could not do As for Paul and Barnabas the Church did separate them at the command of God and lay hands on them and pray for them but they were alreadie before this immediatlie chosen by God to the grace of their office It could be nothing then but a a gesture accompanied with praier seeking grace in their behalfe For the sacramentall collating of grace sanctifying all callings we have in these two sacraments of Christs institution Thirdly there are many kindes of imposition of hands in the old and new testament yet cannot it be proved that it is any where a proper sacrament It is then a rite a gesture a ceremony signifying a thing or person separate presented to God praied for to God Thus Antiquitie did think of it as a gesture of one by praier to God seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministery So Ecclesiasticallie it was used in baptising in consecrating in reconciling penetents as well as ordaining but never granted as a sacrament in those other cases by grant of all It is then a rite or gesture of one praying Tertul. de bapt sheweth this saying Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans invitans spiritum sanctum Ierom also contra Luciferanos Non abnuo hanc esse Ecclesiae consuetudinem ut Episcopus manum impositurus excurrat ad invocationem spiritus sancti Amb. de dignit sacerdot Sacerdos imponit supplicem dextram August Quid aliud est manus impositio quam oratio c. The Greeke Churches haue ever given Orders by a forme of praier conceived with imposition of hands Hence it is that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses where it could not bee otherwise considered then a deprecative gesture Neither is it like the African Fathers ever thought it a sacrament which no other had vertue and power to minister but the Bishop For then they would never haue admitted Presbyters to use the same rite with them For so they had suffered them to prophane a sacrament wherein they had no power to intermeddle Obiect If one say they did lay on hands with them but the Bishops imposition was properlie Consecrative and sacramentall their 's Deprecative onelie Answer Besides that this is spoken without foundation how absurd is it that the verie selfe-same sacramentall rite should bee a sacrament in one ministers hand and no sacrament performed by another Yea when the Bishop doth it to a Presbyter or Deacon then a sacrament when to a Subdeacon and other inferiour officers then none let any iudge Austin did account no other of imposition of hands then a praier over a man accompanied with that gesture Secondlie they doe not thinke that the Bishop ordaineth by divine right it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramentall power but that he onelie doth ordain quoad signum ritum extrinsecum by the Churches commission though the right of ordaining bee in all the Presbyterie also As in a Colledge the societie have right to choose a fellow and to ordain him also though the master doth alone lay on hands and give admission Thus Ierom speaketh of confirmation that it was reserved to the Bishop for honour sake rather then any necessitie of Gods law Whence by analogie and proportion it followeth they think not ordination or those other Episcopall roialties to have been reserved to him by divine right Beside there are more ancient proofes for Canonicall appropriating confirmation then for this imposition of hands Cornelius speaketh thus of Novatus hee wanted those things which hee should have had after Baptisme according to the Canon the sealing of our Lord from a Bishop Euseb Lib. 6. cap. 25. So Cyprian to Iul. Neverthelesse Ierom iudgeth this also to have been yeelded them for honour sake And wee know that in the Bishops absence Presbyters through the East did Consignare through Grecia through Armenia Neither would Gregorie the great haue allowed Presbyters in the Greek Churches to have confirmed had hee iudged it otherwise then Canonicallie to belong to the Bishops That therefore which is not properly a sacramentall action and that which is not appropriate to a Bishop further then Presbyters have committed it to him that cannot make him in higher degree of ministerie then Presbyters are Thirdly in reconciling penitents the Presbyters did it in case of the Bishops absence as is to bee gathered from the third Councell of Carthage 32. And who thinkes blessing so appropriate to a Bishop that Presbyters may not solemnlie blesse in the name of the Lord though antiquitie reserved this to him These therefore were kept to him not as actes exceeding the Presbyters power of order but for the supposed honor of him the Church For as Ambrose sayth Vt omnes eadem possent irrationale vulgaris res vilisque videretur It pleaseth antiquitie therefore to set up one who should quoad exercitium doe manie things alone not because that Presbyters could not but it seemed in their eyes more to the honour of the Church that some one should be interessed in them Fourthlie Amalarius in a certaine booke sacred orders doth confute the doctrine of an uncertain authour who taught that one Bishop onelie was to lay hands on a Deacon because he was consecrated not to Priesthood but to ministerie and service Nunquid scriptor libelti doctior sanctior Apostolis quiposuerunt plures manus super Diaconos quando consecrabantur propterea sotus Episcopus manus ponat super Diaconum acsisolus possit precari virtutem gratiarum quam plures Apostoli precabantur Optimū est bonos duces sequi qui certaverunt usque ad plenam victoriam Whence it is plaine hee did know no further thing in imposition then praier which the more impose is the more forcible The fourteenth Argument Those who had jurisdiction over Presbyters assisting them and Presbyters affixed to Cures they had a superioritie of power over other ministers But Bishops had so Ergo c. The Assumption is manifest Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this that he should be the governour of the Presbyterie and whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psal call them the Princes of the Church by whom shee is governed The assumption is proved particularly Those who had
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
his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet hee would haue these as the seventie Againe Ierom doth write expreslie of all in generall Et nos senatum babemus coetum Presbyterorum sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quoquam licet sicut Romani habuerun senatum cujus consilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius saith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therfore they did it alone without concurrence of their com-Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsufficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For colleges supply Churches yet haue they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we distinguish majoritie of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bishop had such a jurisdiction as concerned the Church so farre as it was in societie with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his own Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not proue them dependant on him For Bishops haue their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquencie they were subject to the Bishop with the Presbyterie 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 subiect to their Churches Presbyters 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 hee 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 primarie member of the Church for the representative Church as Augustine sayth Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclesiae gessisse See concil Sardicen c. 17. conc Carth. 4. c. 2.3 Tol. 4. c. 4. Socr. l. 1. 3. Soz. l. 1. c. 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when hee did it not without a Synod of many Bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Chrysostoms fact fact is not to be iustified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which is 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 maketh nothing for the Bishops maioritie 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 collegiat life together Eodem refectorio dormitorio utebantur Canonicè viventes ab Episcopo instruebantur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a maister it is no wonder if they bee called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyters in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clerks say it were yee will it not follow that those who were under some were subject to his authoritie of rule For there is a head in regard of presidencie 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 Archbishops as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes did live under some iurisdiction of the Bishops but such as did permit them coercive power in their owne Churches such as made the Bishop a head in regard of dignitie and not of any power vvhereby he might sway all at his pleasure Thirdlie if the Bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchie or tyrannie it is better bee without such heads then to have them as we are more happie 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 government of those Churches which presbyters had because neither 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 enioyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepisâ—opi who yet had government of their churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrarie of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superioritie in one minister above others Ergo the contrarie is truth Answer To the proposition we denie that it must needs be presently true the contrarie wherof is generallie condemned for heresie As the representative catholick church may propound an errour so she may condemne a particular truth and yet remain a catholick church To the assumption we deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every deniall of superioritie but that onely which Aerius run into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom denie superioritie of anie kind as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainlie 2. He did not denie the fact that Bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration he could not be so mad If he had all that a Bishop had actuallie how could he have affected to be a Bishop as a further honour Denial of superioritie such as consisteth in a further power of order then a Presbyter hath and in a kinglie monarchical majoritie of rule this deniall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be broughs as witnesses against this superioritie in the Church What then was condemned in him A denial of all superioritie in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignitie and secondlie the denying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsake communion with the Church wherin it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there ought to be none Howsoever he is to be conceived as apposing practicallie the difference of honour dignitie which was in the Church by Ecclesiastical institution What is this to us Denial of superioritie ia regard of honor dignitie joined with schisme was condemned Ergo deniall of superioritie in power of order and
ordained some to be helps and assistants to othersome It is sayd that God hath ordained powers helps governours 1. Cor. 12.8 and were not the Euangelists assistants to the Apostles doing that to which they directed them To this I answer that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons and such as ministred to the infirme ones As for Euangelists they were companions and assistants to the Apostles but it was in order to the work of God in their hands which they were to serue not in order to their persons as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferioritie Obserue how Paul speaketh of them 2. Cor. 8.23 Titus was his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his work and fellow souldier 1. Thess 3.2 Timothie was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2. Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministerie The truth is this was servitus non personalis sed realis the Euangelists did serue the work the Apostles had in hand without being servants to their persons When brickelayers worke some mixe lime and make mortar some beare up tile and mortar some sit on the house and there lay that which is brought them These are all fellow servants yet the one doth serve to set forward the work of the other But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles wholly in exercise of their calling I answer as Christ gaue some to be Euangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them Hee did not therefore wholly leaue them to the direction of any There is a double direction one potestativa which is made from majoritie of rule ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other socialis such as one servant having fit knowledge of his maisters will and ripe experience may giue to another The latter kinde of direction it was not the former by which the Euangelists were directed Which though commonly Paul used yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords hither and thither as may bee gathered 2. Cor. 8.16.17 and 2.7.14.15 The fift Argument That which the Apostles had not over Prophets Evangelists Presbyters nor Deacons themselves that power which the Church hath not over any member the Bishop hath not over other ministers But they had not over any inferior officers any majoritie of directive or corrective power neither hath the Church it selfe any such power Ergo. The assumption is proved For majoritie of directive and corrective power is a Lord-like and Regall power now there is no such power in the Church or in the Apostles or in any but onely in that one Lord all other power being but a declarative and executive ministerie to signifie and execute what Christ out of majoritie of power would have signified and put in execution The sixth Argument That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation never was of Christs institution But Bishops Maioritie of power in regard of order and jurisdiction doth so Ergo. That which maketh the Bishop a head as doth influere derive the power of externall government to other his assistents that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation But to claime the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church doth so for he must needs substitute helpers to him because it is more then by himselfe he can performe But this is it which maketh Antichrist he doth take upon him to bee head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of external government and the Bishop doth no lesse in his Diocesan Church that which he usurpeth differing in degree onely and extension not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth If it bee said that his power is Antichristian because it is universall it is not so For were the power lawfull the universalitie could not make it Antichristian The Apostles had an universalitie of authoritie yet no Antichrists because it did not make them heads deriving to others from their fulnesse it was not prince-like majoritie of power but steward like and ministeriall onely If one doe usurpe a kingly power in Kent onelie he were an Anti-king to our soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Scotland and Ireland There is but one Lord and manie ministrations Neither doth this make the Popes power papall because it is not under a Synod for the best of the Papists hold and it is the most common tenent that he is subject to an oecumenicall Councell Secondlie though he be subject yet that doth not hinder but bee may usurpe a kinglie government for a King may haue a kinglie power and yet confesse himselfe accountable to all his people collectively considered Neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church because one may manage it and the Popes unlawfull because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church for then all the power the Pope doth challenge is not per se but per accidens unlawfull by reason of mans unsufficiencie who cannot weild so great a matter The seventh Argument Those ministers who are made by one patent in the same words have equall authoritie but all ministers of the word are made by the same patent in the same words Receiue the holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive c. Ergo. The proposition is denied because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken These words spoken to Apostles they gave them larger power then to a Bishop and so spoken to a Presbyter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop Answer If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastorall feeding with the word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then wee would grant the exception but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assistent but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists who were among themselves equall in degree Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power then another so no Pastor or Teacher but must receive the same power as who are among themselves of the same degree Secondlie were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bishop hath as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde which the Apostles had though not so universall but contracted to particular churches Now to come unto some conclusions or assertions which may lend light unto the deciding of this question Conclus 1. Let this be the first No minister of the word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church Power is naturall or morall Morall is Civill or Ecclesiastical Civill is either Lord-like and ruling or ministeriall and servile So Ecclesiasticall taken largelie for all power subjectivelie in or objectiuelie about the Church is either Lord-like
then the Church receiving and executing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the Church typified by Peter is properly and really a Church not figuratiuely and improperly for then Peter should haue bene a figure or type of a type or figuratiue Church The figure therfore and type being of the Church which is properly taken and the Church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Math. 18.17 the Church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratiuely and improperly a Church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that Church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall Church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the Church Math. 18. Ergo that Church Math. 18. is not a virtuall Church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastor and people by mutuall loue which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocentius 3. that the Bishop was counted the Church or this dreame of a virtuall Church once imagined The Clerkes of the Church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carrie the name of the Church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up aboue generall Councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall Churches As for a Kingdom I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratiuely but the Church typified by Peter must needs be a Church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a Church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power wherby the whole Kingdom is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Corinth who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I haue decreed or judged leaving nothing to the Church but out of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist 2. he saith For this cause I haue written to you that I may prooue whether you will in all things be obedient What Arguments are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated he leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing he leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to giue sentence The truth is the Apostle might haue judged him to be excommunicate and an Euangelist if present might haue judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles haue and the same man should be excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as she cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example she is provoked Yea where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him he should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had been just and the peoples favour had been unjust Ionathan had been under condemnation but execution had been prevented by the peoples headstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans As though one may not exercise power or government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superiour Touching the place in the Thessalonians those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greek Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to be avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Paules excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but as he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his hands 2. Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbyterie ioyned 1. Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath been sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a universitie having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authoritie of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his own order this is the fitttest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeares expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this depravation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessitie of one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by ioynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestine is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one insspiring him with his spirit and not be present with many who are in his name and with his warrant assembled As for those comparisons they hold not in all they hold in that