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
kinglie majoritie of rule keeping the bond of loue was condemned The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall then can it not conclude against us Ergo it is a truth that some Ministers may be aboue othersome in order honor and dignity But they understand not by order such an order onely as is distinct because some degree of dignitie is appropriate to it which is not to other Though this argument therefore touch us not yet to speake a little further about it this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too severely neither our authors D. Whitakerus D. Reinolds Danaeus to be blamed who doe in some sort excuse him For Bishops were grown such that many good persons were offended at them as the Audiani Yea it was so ordinarie that Ierome distinguisheth schisme from heresie because the one conteined assertions against the faith the other severed from the Church by reason of dissenting from Bishops See him on Tit. 3.10 Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian Epiphanius reporteth it but no other though writing of this subject and storie of these time Sure it is Eustathius was a strong Arian whom Aerius did oppose Neither is it strange for Bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion Are not we traduced as Donatists Anabaptists Puritanes As for his opinion they thought it rather schismatical then hereticall therfore happily called it heresie because it included errour in their understanding which with schismaticall pertinacie was made heresie Neither is it likely that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie nor Austin following him For though Austine was aged yet he was so humble that hee saith Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri Neither was it prejudice to his worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe who in likelyhood should know this matter also better As for his calling it heresie it is certaine he would not haue this in rigour streined For he doth protest in his preface unto that book of heresies that none to his thought can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie Though therefore he doubted not of this that Aerius was in errour such as all Catholickes should decline yet it doth not argue that he thought this errour in rigour and formall propriety to haue been heresie Thus much for this last Argument On the contrarie side I propound these Arguments following to be seriously considered Argument 1. Those whom the Apostles placed as chiefe in their first constituting of Churches and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gaue to the Churches they had none superiour to them in the Churches But they first placed Presbyters feeding with the Word and governing and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches Ergo. The assumption is denied they did not place them as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those Churches but placed them to teach and governe in fore interno with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction they gaue to Presbyters power of order power to teach minister sacraments and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted but kept the coerciue power in their own hands meaning when now by the Presbyters labour the Churches were grown to a greater multitude meaning I say then to set over them some more eminent Pastors Apostolicall men to whom they would commit the power of government that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches and to these with their successours not to the Presbyters were the Churches recommended All which is an audacious fiction without any warrant of Scripture or shew of good reason For it is confessed that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution as the Pastors and Teachers of the Churches Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour they would haue intimated somewhere this their intention but this they doe not yea the contrary purpose is by them declared For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ the Arch-shepheard of them all Againe the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government There may be governours without pastorall power but not a Pastor without power of governing For the power of the Pedum or shepheards staffe doth intrinsecally follow the Pastorall office What likelyhood is there that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith children now begotten are to be nurtured and kept in awe beseeming them If it be said every one fit for the office of a Teacher was not fit for a Governour I answer hee that is fit to be a Pastor teaching and governing in foro interno is much more fit to be a Governour externally hee vvho is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser It vvas a greater and more Apostolicall vvorke to labour conversion and bring the Churches a handfull in the planting as some thinke to become numbersome in people then it is to govern them being converted And it is absurd to think that those who were fit to gather a Church and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings should not be fit to governe it but stand in need to haue some one sent who might rule them and the Churches they had collected Secondly these Presbyters vvere as themthemselues confesse qualified vvith the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost and chosen by speciall designation so that to impute insufficiencie unto them is harsh and injurious to God as well as to man Finally by the twentie of the Acts and the first Epistle of Peter ch 5. it is plaine they doe in their last farewels commit the Churches unto the Presbyters not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to bee sent vvho should supply their roomes vvhich yet they would not haue forgotten being a thing of so great consolation had it been intended by them Argument 2. Those vvho haue the name and office of Bishops common to them they haue no superiour Pastors over them But the Presbyters Pastorall haue that name and office attributed to them For first they are sayd to governe in generall Secondly there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to haue been in the Church of Corinth when it had no Bishop power of ordination 1. Tim. 4. If any say that this their power was but by commission in them and that they were subordinate to the
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
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
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
corrective power inflicteth on their fellow servants in other degrees Thus Pastors signifie Gods will to governing Presbyters and Deacons what he would have them to doe in their places Thus the Apostles might informe all orders under them Concl. 7. This power ministeriall tending to execute the pleasure of Christs corrective power was committed to some in extraordinary degrees personally and singularly and might be so in some cases exercised by them I mean singularitie without concurrence of any others This without doubt was in the Apostles and Euangelists and it was needfull it should bee so first because it might be behovefull there to excommunicate where as yet Churches were not risen to their perfect frame secondly because there might be some persons not setled as fixed dwellers in any Church whom yet to be cast forth was very behovefull Againe some Evangelists might incurre censure as Demas in such sort as no ordinary Churches power could reach to them Concl. 8. That ordinarily this power is not given to any one singularly by himselfe to exercise the same but with the companie of others constituting a representative Church which is the poynt next to bee shewed Yea where Churches were constituted the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power without the ministeriall concurrence of the Churches as in the storie of the Corinthians is manifest THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinarie power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to a vnited multitude of Presbyters THough this question is so coincident with the former that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed yet for some new considerations which may bee super-added wee will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. That which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of iurisdiction was comitted to the Church Mat. 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to some one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to bee exercised by the whole Church or to any Church in the Church Ergo to one who is in effect as the church having all the authority of it Secondly if one person may be representativly a Church when jurisdiction is promised then one person may be representatiuly a church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of iurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia sayth that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the Bishop that they cannot bee severed Finally as the kingdome of England may bee put for the King in whom is all the power of the kingdome So the Church for the chiefe governour in whom is the power of it The second Argument That which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted that was not promised to them as their immediat right But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted Ergo Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters For then the Apostles would not have withheld it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his iudgement was faine to excommunicate And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate and signifie them as not having power within themselves to censure them And so Paul alone excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander The third Argument That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches and their successours that was not committed to Presbyteries but singular persons But in power of ordination and iurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of iurisdiction that Christ did ordain But the order of one chiefe governour is fitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fift Argument If all authoritie and power of exercise be in the Church originally then the Pastors derive their power from the Church But this is not true Ergo it was not committed to the Church That authoritie which the Church never had she cannot convey But the Pastorall authoritie of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken Ergo it cannot be derived from her Againe Pastours should discharge their office in the name of the Church did they receive their power from the Church The sixth Argument If the power of iurisdiction and execution bee committed from Christ to the Church then hath the Church supreame power Then may a particular Church depose her Bishop the sheepe censure the shepheard children their fathers which is absurd On the other side it is argued Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many and to be exercised by many that never was committed by Christ to one and the execution of any one But Math. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of iurisdiction to be in many and that exercitativè so as by them being many is it to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plain in the place Where first marke that Christ doth presuppose the authoritie of every particular Church taken indistinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Therefore no universall or provinciall or Diocesan Church gathered in a Councell Secondly it is not any particular Church that he doth send all Christians to for then all Christians in the world should come to one perticular Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Churh where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntiation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speak it of any ordinarie particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governors of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom wee may ordinarily and orderlie complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinarie executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinarie as all but Morelius and such Democritall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentiallie taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtuallie as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one
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.
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
power of order he could not be an ordinarie Bishop properlie and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinarie was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Obiect But it was not in vaine that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church Answer If by the mutuall agreement in which they were guided by the spirit it was thought meet that Iames should abide in Ierusalem there tending both the Church of the Iewes and the whole circumcision as they by occasion resorted thither then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked But they did think it meet that he should there tend that Church and with that Church all the Circumcision as they occasionally resorted thereto Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there yet his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Iewes Galath 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor what did hee need assignation under any other title Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person viz. of an ordinary Pastor which he could not be who did receive no such power of order as ordinarie Pastors have Fourthly That calling which hee could not exercise without beeing much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a poynt of honour for him But hee could not exercise the calling of an ordinarie Bishop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authoritie and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinarie man liable to errour Ergo hee was neuer ordained to bee a Bishop properlie If it bee sacriledgee to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop True it is hee might have been assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and bee no whit abased but then he must keepe there as Pastor of it with Apostolicall authoritie caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Iewes which he might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did not need to goe forth as the rest for the Iewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinarie teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without going forth in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary pastor was much lesse honour then ro travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithynia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull privat place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour hither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the â—est but in having such an honorable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinarie Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clement in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authoritie What needed they an ordinarie Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchie say to supply the absence of Apostles when now they were to decease What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the proposition For had some ordinarie Pastors been so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignitie in them above other wherefore unlesse this bee interserted it is unsound viz. Those ordinarie Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminencie which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the assumption is false altogether First that Epaphroditus was an ordinarie Pastor secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obj. But the iudgment of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom is that he was Answ the common judgement is that he was an egregious teacher of theirs but further then this many of the testimonies doe not depose Now so he might be for he was an Evangelist and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher yea an egregious teacher or Doctor of them Nay S. Ambrose doth plainly insinuate that hee was an Evangelist for he sayth hee was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where he maketh him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the transient exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because he was their ordinarie Pastor Ieroms testimonie on this place doth not evince For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken and as appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Theod. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are sayd to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have been such an Apostolick person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truely called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoret to be admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should be communicated then with ordinarie Pastors where now there was danger of confounding those eminent ministers of Christ with others and when now the Apostles were deceased that then it should cease to be ascribed to them Againe how shall we know that a bishop is to be placed in a citie that hee must be a person thus and thus according to Pauls Canons qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely under the name of Apostles Angels Thirdly antiquitie doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been termed by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should be called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolical the Apostles were not succeeded Iurisdiction Episcopal they never exercised nor had and therefore could not be succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters
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
Titus that Paul did not put upon them But to haue brought them from the honour of serving the Gospell as Collaterall companions of the Apostles to be ordinary Pastors had abased them Ergo this to be ordinary Pastors Paul did not put upon them Obj. The assumption is denyed it was no abasement For before they were but Presbyters and afterward by imposition of hands were made Bishops why should they receiue imposition of hands and a new ordination if they did not receiue an ordinarie calling we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands I answer This denyall with all whereon it is builded is grosse For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour is to abase them But the Euangelists office was superiour to Pastors Ergo. The assumption proved First Every office is so much the greater by how much the power of it is of ampler extent and lesse restrained But the Euangelists power of teaching and governing was illimitted Ergo. The assumption proved Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle there an Euangelist might doe that which belonged to him But that part of Gods work which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation Ergo. Secondly Every Minister by how much â—e doth more approximate to the highest by so much he is higher But the companions coadjutors of the Apostles were neerer then ordinarie Pastors Ergo. Who are next the King in his Kingdome but those who are Regis Comites The Euangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes 4. That the Euangelists in an ambulatorie course spreading the Gospell were aboue any Bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certain Church Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weake conceite For every Presbyter properly so called was constituted in a certain Church to doe the work of the Lord in a certaine Church But Euangelists were not but to doe the worke of the Lord in any Church as they should be occasioned Ergo they were no Presbyters properly so called Now for their ordination Timothie received none as the Doctor conceiveth but what hee had from the hand of the Apostle and Presbyters when now he was taken of Paul to be his companion For no doubt but the Church which gaue him a good testimony did by her Presbyters concurre with Paul in his promoting to that office Obj. What could they lay on hands with the Apostles which Philip could not and could they enter one into an extraordinary office Ans They did lay on hands with the Apostles as it is expresly read both of the Apostles and them It is one thing to use precatorie imposition another to use miraculous imposition such as the Apostles did whereby the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred In the first Presbyters haue power Neither is it certaine that Phillip could not haue imposed hands and given the Holy Ghost For though he could he might choose in wisedom for their greater confirmation and edification to let that bee done by persons more eminent Finally imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinarie office For every extraordinarie office is not attended with immediate vocation from God As the calling of Evangelists though extraordinarie was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets Secondly men called immediatly may be promoted to the more fruitfull exercise of their immediate and extraordinarie callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours as Paul and Barnabas were Howsoever it is plaine that Timothie by imposition of hands was ordained to no calling but the calling of an Evangelist For that calling he was ordained to which he is called on by Paul to exercise and fully execute But hee is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist Ergo that calling he was ordained to That work which exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie Bishop was not put upon an ordinarie Bishop But Titus his work did so for it was to plant Presbyters towne by towne through a Nation Ergo. For the ordinarie plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie Bishop But this was Titus his worke Ergo. Bishops are given to particular Churches when now they are framed that they may keepe them winde and wether tight they are not to lay foundations or to exedifie some imperfect beginnings But say Titus had been a Bishop he is no warrant for ordinarie Bishops but for Primates whose authoritie did reach through whole Ilands Nay if the Doctors rule out of Theodoret were good it would serve for a Bishop of the pluralitie cut For it is sayd he placed Presbyters citie by citie or town by towne who are in name onely Bishops but not that hee placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it He therefore was the sole Bishop of them the test were but Presbyters such as had the name not the office and government of Bishops Finally were it granted that they were ordinarie Bishops and written to doe the things that Bishops doe yet would it not bee a ground for their majoritie of power in matter sacramentall and jurisdiction as is aboue excepted The fifth Argument The Ministers which the Church had generally and perpetually the first 300. yeares after Christ and his Apostles and was not ordained by any generall Councell were undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution But the Church ever had Diocesan Bishops in singularitie of preheminence during life and in maioritie of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others and these not instituted by generall Councels Ergo. The proposition is plain both by Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. Epist 118. and by Tertul. Constaâ— id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuit sacrosanctum For who can thinke that all the Churches generally would conspire to abolish the order of Christ planted by the Apostles and set up other ministers then Christ had ordained The assumption is plaine for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently and from the beginning as the Councell of Nice testifieth much more Bishops For Diocesan Bishops must be before them they rising of combination of Cities and Diocies And the councell of Ephesus testifieth the government of those Bishops of Cyprus to haue been ever from the beginning according to the custom of old received Yea that the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch was against the Canons of the Apostles Again Cyprian doth testifie that long before his time Bishops were placed in all provinces and Cities besides the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their originall to haue been in the Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall Councell For long before the first generall Councell we read Metropolitans to have been ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no Councell of after times but the Apostles themselues did ordaine
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
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
Apostles in exercise of it being to reteine it onely untill such time as more eminent Pastors should be given I answer all this is spoken gratis without any foundation and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected The Presbyters so had this power that they did commit it to the Bishops as we shall shew after and therefore it must haue been in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinarie office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the Holy Ghost who onely had out of authoritie trusted them with it If the Apostles and they did concurre in doing one and the same thing they did it as inferiour to the Apostles and servants of a lower order not with any subjection to them as heads of derivation serving Christ their onely Lord no lesse immediately then the Apostles themselues Argument 3. That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors but in all other orders there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power aboue other No Apostle Prophet Euangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition bee denyed upon supposall of a different reason because that though paritie in a few extraordinarie Ministers might bee admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinarie Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therfore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest and other secondary ones so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be divided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the paritie is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yet this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should be in degree inferiour to other the governing Elders to the Pastors and the Deacons to them Thirdly if every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body should haue governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of government sufficient to preserue order But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it selfe Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled and to the civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directiue and correctiue power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyrannie subject it As for the distinction of Priests we grant it but as man could not haue made that distinction had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament no more can we under the new Howbeit that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule as our Bishops now challenge Argument 4. If some be inferiour unto othersome in degree of power it must be in regard of their power to teach or their power to govern or in the application of this power to their persons or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe or finally in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on any other but Christ for any of these Ergo. The proposition standeth on a sufficient enumeration the assumption may be proved in the severall parts of it The former branch is thus cleared First the power we haue is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee haue it as immediately from Christ as they I shew them both thus The power of order is the power which inableth us to preach and deliver the whole counsell of God and to minister all Sacraments sealing Gods covenant Now unlesse we will with the Papists say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office or that his power is a rudimentall limited power as to open the creed Lords prayer and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacramentall there being other sacraments of ordination and confirmation which we may not minister all which are grosse we must yeeld their power of order to be the same Yea were these sacraments properly they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath Ordination in doe this in remembrance of me confirmation in power to baptize The power being the same it is happily in one immediately and in the other by derivation from him Nothing lesse All grant that Christ doth immediately giue it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she giue this power might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order no sacrament no preaching The Pope doth not if we follow the common tenent callenge so much as to giue the power of order to any Bishop or Priest whatsoever If you say the Presbyter is ordained by the Bishop that is nothing so is the Bishop by other Bishops from whom notwithstanding he receiveth not this power We will take this as granted of all though the truth is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can haue none but what is derived to him from the Bishop who hath the fulnesse of it within his Diocesan Church But this is false and grounded on many false presumptions As first that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors for to make a Pastor and giue him no help against the Wolfe is to furnish him forth imperfectly Secondly it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church and so to others whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representatiue Church that they might Aristocratically administer it Thirdly this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the Bishop and from him to be derived to other which maketh him a head of virtuall influence that in his Church which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all Bishops For his headship and spirituall soveraigntie standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in fore externo is committed to him Not to mention how Bishops while they were Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the slower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicitie and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistorie did carie all the credite everie office in the Church being counted a dignitie as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which haue civill authoritie in lesse or greater measure conjoyned The truth is it cannot be shewed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors or as they are Prelats in the Church it cannot
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
and Regall such as is in Christ or it is ministeriall and servile such as is in the Church and the principall members of it The power therfore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service as doth make the ministers having it so servants that they are no way Lords Many ministers one Lord we preach Christ ourselves your servants for Iesus sake S. Paul maketh his power steward-like not regall Now as that is regall power which doth any thing from the authoritie one hath in himselfe or from ones pleasure so that is ministeriall power which doth nothing but eying the will and power of him that is principall a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ex mero altâ—rius obsequio Conclus 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or qualitie inherent in the foule but a relative respect founded on this that I am called by God to this or that actuall admimnistration in his Church For it is not a power simply whereby a man is made able to doe some supernaturall act which he could not before in any manner performe but it is respectively sayd a power in as much as it doth inable him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully and ex officio vvith vvhich before hee might not intermedle The power of a Deacon Pastor Evangelist Apostle belong to one predicament in regard of that which is the genus or common nature of them the power of the Church cannot be other Naturall and civill power doth vvith vertue and efficacie reach those effects and ends to vvhich they are designed because they are proportioned to them and exceed not their activitie but Ecclesiastical power cannot thus concurre to the end and effects for which it is ordained because they are such as the omnipotencie of God onely can produce as the converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner to vvhich no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall though instrumentarie efficacie conduce any thing Conclus 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any vvhich himselfe is not personally to discharge nor in further plenitude then that by himselfe it may be performed The reason is because God cannot give one the charge of doing more then a mans proper industry can atchieve but hee must withall put it in a mans power to take others and to impart with them power of teaâ—hing and governing so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone Hee that will have the end will have that vvithout vvhich the end cannot be attained If God vvould have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the vvorld hee must needs allow him power to substitute Pastors here and there deriving unto them power both to teach and governe so far as may supply his absence in the Pastorall care If I will have one keep my flocks vvhich goe in 20 sheep-gates if I commit them them to one I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under-sheepheards to him Thus if God giue a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Parashionall Churches through a Diocesse hee must needs together allovv him this povver of being a head of internall influence even a head virtually communicating vvith others part of pastorall power vvhether teaching or government Thus should none but Bishops be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God all others should bee immediatly and formally servants to the Bishop and doe everie thing in the name of the Bishop being immediatly onely and in a remote sense the servants of God as in the former comparison of one servant receiving from his master the care of all the flockes he is the masters servant to vvhom the master committeth the trust from vvhom he onely looketh to see it performed but those whom this sheepheard taketh to himselfe for his aide they come under his dominion and are servants to him If it be sayd that God doth not thus make the Bishop Pastor but that he will likewise that there be parish Pastors under him and helpes of government To this I answer if God will have them then either after his own designement or else leaving it to the Bishops arbitrement if hee leave it to the Bishops arbitrement then the objection before is in force God will looke for the cure from him onely he shall take according to his judgement such as may help him If God will have them after his own designment then he giveth the Bishop no more Pastorall power then he can discharge himselfe others having their right in all the Bishop cannot execute as well as the Bishop and as immediatly from Christ Some write as if the Apostles had the plenitude of all Pastorall power that from them it might be derived to the Church it being seen through nature that inferiour things receive iufluence from the superiour But they misconceive the matter they had only a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apostleship The Pastorall power of Evangelists or of ordinarie Pastors and teachers they never had For as Christ gave the one order so the two other also for the gathering of the Saints and exaedifying of the body of Christ and no person in any ranke had any power to do this or that in the Church further then himselfe might performe in person The steward in a house hath ful power of a steward but not the power of all other officers as Clark of the kitchin Butler Chamberlaine c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house his Church If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall cure they should then have ordained others Evangelists and Pastors not onely by ministeriall mediation of their persons calling them but also by mediation of vertue Conclus 4. One ministeriall power may bee in degree of dignitie aboue another For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another or in the same kind the power of one may be more extended and the power of another more contracted Thus the Deacons had for the object of their power and care not so excellent a thing as that of Pastors Evangelists and Apostles Thus the power of ordinarie Pastors was not so universall as the Apostles even as in the orders of servants domesticall some are implied about lesser some about greater and more honorable subjects Concl. 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majoritie of directive and corrective power over those who are in inferiour order of ministerie and service The reason is because this exceedeth the bounds of ministeriall power and is a participation of that despoticall power which is appropriate to the master of the familie Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signifie their masters direction and to execute ministerially what their master out of his
person Secondlie the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdlie the gradation doth shew it First by thy selfe Then shew a witnes or two Then to the Church as the sinne increaseth the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured increaseth also If one say though the Church signifie one governour yet the gradation holdeth for to tell it to the governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twentie Wee grant that this is true and were the word Church taken here to note some eminent governour it might be brought in as a further degree though one onely were enforced But how can Peter be complainaint if Peter the Praeful onely be the iudge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthlie the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person was not any one but many Their rebuke upon which it is like hee repented was a rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoined for what ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven Sixtly if the church did not note an assembly how could he assure them from hence that God would do what they â—…ed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Vnlesse the Church meant were an assemblie this argument could not be so correspondent Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on But where the Church is binding or loosing there are some assembled in the name of Christ Ergo. Lastly the church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assemblie of Priests sitting together as iudges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practise of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to be exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinthians that power with the exercise of it was committed by Christ to many not to one But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many and to be performed by many assembled Ergo. The proposition is plaine For Paul would not have called for nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall other then Christ had ordained The assertion is denied by some but it is a plain truth by many invincible arguments For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast him forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si autem quis potestatem non habet quem scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondlie Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For he doth not call on them to restrain him him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdlie Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within those who were called brethren and lived otherwise Fourthly Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or mulct of many writing to them that they would not proceed 2. Cor. 2.6 Lastly Paul doth attribute power to them to forgive him and to receive him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as have no power to bind have no power to loose So it might be proved by the Church of the Thessalonians 2. Thess 3.14 If any man walk inorninatly note him that others may refraine him Noting being not a signification by letter which doth wrest the word against all copies and the current of al Greek interpreters but judicially to note him that all may avoyd him that is excomunicate him Finallie the churches of Asia as it is plain had power of government within themselves Argum. 3. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the Churches nor Evangelists but with concurrence of the Churches and Presbyteries that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour but by manie But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with cocurrence of the Presbyters of the Church Ergo much lesse may any ordinarie minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbyterie For that Persons must bee understood here is apparant by the like place when it is said by the laying on of my hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person and so here a Presbyterie Secondly to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicous and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy neuer received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers take it a company of Bishops For neither was that Canon of 3 Bishops and the Metropolitan or all the Bishops in a Province in the Apostles time neither were these who are now called Bishops then called Presbyters as they say but Apostles men that had received Apostolick grace Angels c. Finally it is very absurd to think of coÌ„panies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but hee placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from Bishops which is the grant of our adversaries Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence besides testimonie of Scripture Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone haue infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and dutie of confession the truth Yea the Bishops called primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Presbyterie did not give them Whence have Bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the Bishop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are sayd to have ordained ministers As Consuls and Dictators are sayd to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Iesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therfore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of
Bishops received from their Churches And Atbanasius yet a Deacon is read to have been at the Councell of Nice and to have had right of suffrage in it Finally the Presbyteries did a long time execute joyntly all actions of Church government as is before declared Other arguments we shall touch in answer of these which have been objected Now to come to the conclusions let this be first Conclus 1. Extraordinarie power was committed to some singular persons so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other This I speak in regard of Apostles and Evangelists whose power in many things could not have concurrence of particular Churches which in the former question is sufficiently declared Conclus 2. That ordinarie power and the execution thereof was not committed to any singular governors whereof there was to be one onely in each Church This is against the Iesuits who make account the most of them â—hat as all civill power of government is given to kings to be executed by them within their common-wealth so Ecclesiasticall power say they is given to the Pope and to Bishops in their particular Churches to be executed by them and derived from them to the whole Church Conclus 3. Ordinarie power with the execution thereof was not given to the communitie of the Church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melancthon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians errour for in his booke de pudicitia he maketh Christ to haue left all Christians with like power but the Church for her honor did dispose it as we see The proportion of a pollitick body and naturall deceived them while they will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omni simile for then should should it be the same with the analogatum True it is all civill power is in the body politicke the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the care and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the communitie or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the communitie in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the Church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake Therfore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole communitie which are the Queen of Christ For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly but to haue persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in naturall bodies the power of seeing is first immediatly in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediatly in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediatly in the personall beleever for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole every man being to live by his own faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israell so derived to the Priest but immediatly from Christ seated in Aaron and his sonnes Obiect Yea they were given the Church intuitu eiusdem tanquam finis totius Answ I but this is not enough that power may be sayd to be immediatly received by the Church as the first receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intuitu hominis as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subiect from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary ministers is not in the Church For as all are sayd not to have been Apostles so not to have been Doctors But if the power of ordinarie teaching had been given to every beleever all should have been made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the Church the Church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her ministers Besides there are many in the communitie of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgment Victoria Soto others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus 4. Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbyterie of the Church If any faile in any office the Church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the communitie have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to be executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellencie Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have ioynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with without open dishonor in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Now to answer the arguments first propounded The Proposition of the first Syllogisme is denyed That what was committed to the Church was committed to some principall member And we deny the second part of the next Syllogisme proving this part denyed For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church Which is so farre from absurditie that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacred Doe we not see in Parliament a representatiue Common-wealth within our Common-wealth having the greatest authority Not to mention that a Church within a Church should not be strange to them who imagine many Parishionall Churches within one Diocesan Church To the proofes which prevent as it were an objection shewing that the Church Math. 18.17 may be put for one chiefe Governour The proposition is denyed Jf that Peter one Governour may be in type and figure the Church to whom the jurisdiction is promised