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 Bishopâ— Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminency 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 Ecclesiâ—sticall preheminence and superiority of power Eâ—go 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 thâ— Church amisse or otherwise they had Majority 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 prâ—position 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 preheminency in order and greater authority without majority 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 and blamed for the misdemeanours of his Colledge not that he hath a power over-ruling all but because such is his dignity that did he doe his endeavour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may be 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 beare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall institution But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First thâ—y ordained Iames Bishop of Jerusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo. they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Clâ—ment and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our owne author Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. 33. Ambâ—os in Galath 1.9 Dorothâ—us in Synopsis Aug. contra Câ—es 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 gâ—ve him power of jurisdiction and assigâ—e him his Church So thâ—t though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might justly be called the Bâ—shop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had â—hey foâ— theâ—r Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and majority of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had oâ—her called Bishops Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Tâ—erd and Châ—yâ—ost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thiâ—her Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when thâ— Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and â—itus 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 wâ—re Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Epâ—sâ—opall authority given them to bee exercised in those Churchâ—s thâ—y are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus bee patternes 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 hee doth presuppose them bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governâ— with â—ingularity of preheminence and majority 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 bâ—shops Now that Diocâ—san bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did suâ—ceed them were their successours But Diocesan bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Counsell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were bishops Diocesan And we read of Phillip bishop of Gorâ—iâ—a the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churâ—hes 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 Hâ—gisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom so refuse to believe deserve tâ—emselves no beliefe Ergo they were there bishops Againe Jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morre Sanct. Antonius 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 Evangelicall and extraordinary or ordinary not the first â—hâ—t was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessâ—â—y to the
sacramentall 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 Certainly the act of promoting a minister of the Church is rather an act of jurisdiction then order As it belongeth to policy and government to call new Magistrates where they are wanting Object But a new spirituall officer may be instituted by a sacrament Answ. If God would so have collated the grace of spirituall callings but he hath appointed no such thing The Apostles and 72. were not instituted by a sacrament or imposition of Christs hands Now the greater the grace was which was given the more need of a sacrament whereby it should be given Object They were extraordinary Answ. They might have had some ambulatory sacrament for the time Againe imposition of hands was used in gâ—ving extraordinary graces Acts 8. Secondly were it a sacrament it should conferre the grace of office as well as grace sanctifying the person to use it holâ—ly But we see that this it could not do As for Paul and Barnâ—bas the Church did separate them at the command of God and lay hands on them and pray for them but they were already before this immediately chosen by God to the grace of their office It could be nothing then but a gesture accompanied with prayer seeking grace in their behalfe For the sacramentall collating of grace sanctifying all callings we have in these two sacraments of Christs institution Thirdly there are many kindes of imposition of hands in the old and new Testament yet cannot it be proved that it is any where a proper sacrament It is then a rite a gesture a ceremony signifying a thing or person separate presented to God prayed for to God Thus Antiquity did thinke of it as a gesture of one by prayer to God seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministery So Ecclesiastically it was used in baptising in consecrating in reconciling penitents as well as ordaining but never granted as a sacrament in those other cases by grant of all It is then a rite or gesture of one praying Tertul. de â—â—pt sheweth this saying Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans invitans spiritum sanctum Ierom also contra Luciferanos Non abâ—no hanc esse Ecclesiae consuetudinem ut Episcopus manum impositutus excurrat ad invecationem spiritus sancti Ambr. de dâ—gait sacerdot â—â—â—â—dos imponit suppicem dexiram August Quid aliua est manus impositio quam oratio c. The Greeke Churches have ever given Orders by a forme of prayer conceived with imposition of hands Hence it is that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses where it could not be otherwise considered then a deprecative gesture Neither is it like the African Fathers ever thought it a sacrament which no other had vertue and power to minister but the Bishop For then they would never have admitted Presbyters to use the same rite with them For so they had suffered them to prophane a sacrament wherein they had no power to intermeddle Object If one say they did lay on hands with them but the Bishops imposition was properly Consecrative and sacramentall thâ—iâ— Depâ—â—rative onely Answer Besides that this is spoken without foundation how absurd is it that the very selfe-same sacramentall râ—te should be a sacrament in one ministers hand and no sacrament performed by another Yea when the Bishop doth it to a Presbyter or Deacon then a sacrament when to a Subdeacon and other inferiour officers then none let any judge Austin did account no other of imposition of hands then a prayer over a man accompanied with that gesture Secondly they doe not thinke that the Bâ—shop ordaineth by divine right it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramentall power but that he onely doth ordaine quoad signum rituâ—â— extrinsecum by the Churches commission though the right of ordaining be in all the Presbytery also As in a Colledge the society have right to choose a fellow and to ordaine him also though the master doth alone lay on hands and give admission Thus Ierom speaketh of confirmation that it was reserved to the Bishop for honour sake rather then any necessity of Gods law Whence by analogie and proportion it followeth they thinke not ordination or those other Episcopall royalties to have beene reserved to him by divine right Beside there are more ancient proofes for Câ—nonicall appropriating confirmation then for this imposition of hands Cornâ—â—tus speaketh thus of Novatus he wanted thâ—se things which he should have had after Baptisme according to the Canon the sealing of our Lord from a Bishop Euseb. Lib. 6. cap. 25. So Cyprian to â—ul Neverthelesse Ierâ—m judgeth this also to have beene yeelded them for honour sake And we know that in the Bishops absence Presbyters through the East did Consignare through Grecia through Armenia Neither would Gregory the great have allowed Presbyters in the Greeke Churches to have confirmed had he judged it otherwise then Canonically to belong to the bishops Tâ—â—t therefore which is not properly a sacramentall action and that which is not appropriate to a bishop further then Presbyters hâ—ve committed it to him that cannot make him in higher degree of ministery then Presbyters are Thirdly in reconciling penitents the Presbyters did it in case of the bishops absence as is to be gathered from the third Councell of Cartiage 32. And who thinkes blessing so appropriate to a bishop that Presbyters may not solemnly blesse in the name of the Lord though antiquity reserved this to him These therefore were kept to him not as acts exceeding the Presbyters power of order but for the supposed honour of him and the Church For as Amâ—rosa saith Vt omnes eaâ—em possunt irrationalâ— vulgaris res vilisque viderâ—â—â—r It pleaseth antiquity therefore to set up one who should quoâ—d exâ—â—â—tiam doe many things alone not because that Presbyters could not but it seemed in their eyes more to the honor of the Church that some one should be interesâ—ed in them Fourthly Amalarius in a certaine booke of sacred orders doth confuâ—e the doctrine of an uncertain author who taught that one bishop onely was to lay hands on a Deacon because he was consecrated not to Priesthood but to ministery and service Nunquid scriptor libell â—â—ctioâ— sanctior Apostolis quiposuerunt plures manus super Diaconos quando consecrâ—bantur propâ—â—â—ea solus Episcopus manus ponat super Diâ—conum â—c si solus possit precari virtutem gratiarum quam plures Apostoli precabantur Op imum est bâ—nos duces sequi qui certaverunt usque ad plenam victoriâ—â— Whence it is plaine he did know no further thing in imposition then prayer which the more imposed is the more forâ—ible The fourteenth Argument Those who had jurisdiction over Presbyters assisting them and Presbyters affixed to Cures they had a superiority of power over other ministers But
bishops had so Ergo c. The Assumption is manifest Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this that he should be the governour of the Presbytery and whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psalme call them the Prâ—nces of the Church by whom she is governed The assumption is proved particularly Those who had directive power above others and corrective they had majority of rule But Bâ—shops had Ergo. The assumption proved First for directive power the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them Igâ—a ad Mag. ad Smyr They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bâ—shop Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob Tert. lib. de â—â—pt Can. Apost 38 Can. Carthâ—g 4.38 Con. Câ—r 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5. Secondly that they had corrective power it is proved Apâ—c 2 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles and is commended for it the Angel of Thiatira is reproved for suffering the like Therefore they had power over other ministers Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 9. telleth Regaâ—ian he had power to have censured his Deacon Ierom. adversus Vigilantium marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantiâ—s was did not breake the unprofitable vessell Epiphaniuâ— saith Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves they the people The Presbyters affixed to places and Churches were subject to the Bishops for when they were vacant the bishop did supply them Againe the Presbyters had their power from him and therefore were under him and they were subject to the censure of the bishop Those of his Clergie were under him for he might promote them they might not goe from one Diocesse to another without him nor travell to the citie but by his leave The bishop was their judge and might excommunicate them Cyprâ—li 1. Epist 3. Concil Carth. 4. â—ap 59. Conc. Chal. cap. 9. conc Nice cap. 4. conc Ant. cap. 4. ibid. cap. 6. cap. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. conc Afric cap. 29. conc Ephes. cap. 5. conc Chal. cap. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrisostome prove this All Presbyters were counted acepheli headlesse that lived not in subjection to a bishop The Pastors of parishes were either subject to bishops or they had associates in Parishes joyned with them or they ruled alone But they had not associates neither did they rule alone Ergo they were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop Answer The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must be thus framed Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves without the concurrence of other Presbyters as fellow judges they were greater in majority of rule Thus bishops had not jurisdiction True it is they were called governours and Princes of their Churches because they were more eminent ministers though they had not Monarchiall power in Churches but Consull-like authority and therefore when they affected this Monarchy what said Ierome Noverint se saterdotes esse non dominos noverint se non ad Principâ—tum vocatos ad servitium totius Ecclâ—siae 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 thâ—y had it over any by humane constitution infallible Presbyters were in great difference Those who are called propry sacerdotes Rectores Seniores Minorâ—m Ecclesiarum praepositi the Bâ—shop had not not challenged not that directive power over them which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Cleriâ—kes who were helpes to him in the Liturgy in Chapells and parishâ—s which did depend on him as their proper teacher though they could not so ordinarily goe out to him The first had power within their Churches to teach administer excommunicate were counted brethren to the bâ—shops and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Ancient But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy they had â—his directive power over them the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same But I take these latter to have beene but a corruption of governing Presbyters who came to bee made a humane ministery 1. by having singular acts permitted 2. by being consecrate to this and so doing ex officio what they were imployed in by the bishop But sure these are but helpes to liturgy according to the Canons Preaching did not agree to them further then it could bee delegated or permitted Finally wee read that by law it was permitted them that it was taken away from them againe by the bishops that it was stinted and limited sometimes as to the opening of the Lords Praier the Creed and ten Commandements as it is plaine to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient Secondly let us account them as Ministers of the word given by God to hâ—s Church then I say they could not have any direction but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists and this pâ—wer is gâ—ven to the bishops onely 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 Pilson himselfe These decrees were as justifiâ—ble as thâ—t which forbiddeth any to baptise who hath not gotten chrisme from the bishop Con. Carth. 4. cap. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onely a precedence of order in the bâ—shop above 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 deny this majority of corrective power to have beene in the Apostles themselves they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Christs corrective power imposed Secondly we deny that this ministeriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evangelist where Churches were constituted Neither is the writing to one above others an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others To that of Cyprian against Râ—gatian we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the consent of Bishops neighbouring but that he might in regular manner have beene bold to have done it because he might be sure quod noâ— coâ—legae tui â—mnesid ratum haberemus Cyprian was of judgement that he hâ—mselfe might doe nothing without the consent of his Presbyters unlesse he should violate his duty by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren It was not modesty in him but due observancy such as he did owe unto his brethren Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarily any thing alone He received some the people and the brethren contradicting lib. 1. epist. 3. but not till he had perswaded them and brought them to be willing Thou seest saith he what paines I have to perswade the brethren to patience So againe I hardly perswade the people yea even wring it from them that such should be received Neither did he take upon him to ordaine Presbyters
or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which have civill authority 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 be avoided but that the Pastor should have it because though every Praesul or Pralatus be not a Pastor yet every Pastor is Pralatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinary Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with every Church if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition should not have power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house so God in his God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites and Christ the 70. not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authority apply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person his sole authority doth it though sometime as in ordinary callings the ministery of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of government as are in their Kingdome yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they have a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it 〈◊〉 immâ—diaâ—iâ—â— suppositi quâ—m virtutis sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Saâ—â—el to anoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immediatione virtutis not suppositi Object But yet Bishops have the Churches and the care of them wholly committed to them though therefore Ministers have equall power to them yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churâ—hes and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an error likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he mâ—y atâ—end God calleth Ministers not to a faculty of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartulâ—rios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary Judges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the University giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physicke without any patients among whom he may practise But Gods Ministery is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order if nothing by the way but a relative respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should give them a faculty of feeding and leave them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to have set the Presbyters over theiâ— flocke A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth give him a power of doing something to his family and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessity of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exegency of his people so require he doth not call any to the function of Ministery Againe this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignty to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors and Bishops the moity of sheepe on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheepe feed my sheepe so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheepe in a Diocesan flocke to be his and that he hath power to assigne the severall flockes under him he doth usurpe an Antichristian authority Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a Curate is whom a Parson giveth leave to helpe within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dieth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Master what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now every Minister is an Embassadour of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministery if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministerâ—mediately onely serve God in as much as they have done this or that to which the bishop did direct them Moreover should the bishop bid him not preach at al preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and live from his charge he should not sinne in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministery which he cannot give It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called
or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtually as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one person Secondly the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdly 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 â—he governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twenty Wee grant that this is true and were the word Câ—urch 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 Praesul onely be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthly 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 he repented was a rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoyned for what ye shall â—ind 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 agreed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Unlesse the Church meant were an assembly 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 churâ—h in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually but an assembly of Priests sitting together as Judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctly presuppose every particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joint authoriâ—y and joint execution of a representative Church a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practice of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to bee exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinâ—hians 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 denyed by some but â—t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumenâ—s For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast them forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si auâ—em quis potestalem non hâ—bâ—â— quim scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondly Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For hee doth not call on them to restraine him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdly 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 muâ—ct oâ— many writing to them that they would not proceed 2 Cor. 2 6. Lastly Paul doth attribâ—te power to them to forgive him and to receâ—ve him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as hâ—ve no power to binde have no power to loose So it mighâ— be provâ—d by the Church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess. 3.14 If any man waâ—k inâ—rdinatly 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 all Greek interpreters but judicially to note him â—hat all may avoid him that is excommunicate him Finally the churches of Asia as it is plaine had power of government within themselves Argum. 5. 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 many But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with concurrence of the Presbyters of the church Ergo much lesse may any ordinary Minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery For that Persons must be 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 Presbytery Secondly 〈◊〉 take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicons and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers â—ake 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 theâ—e 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 companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but he 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 Presbytery with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of these keyes doing it ex officiâ— and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth Yea the bishops called Primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Prebytery did not give them Whence have bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the bâ—shop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained Ministers As Consuls and Dâ—ctators are said to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Jesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters hâ—d
THE Diocesans Tryall WHEREIN ALL THE SINNEWES OF DOCTOR Dovvnhams Defence Are brought into three heads and orderly dissolved BY M. PAVL BAYNES Published by Dr. WILLIAM AMIS The questions discussed in this Diocesans tryall are these 1. Whether Christ 〈◊〉 â—nstitute or the Apostles frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or parishionall onely pag. 1. 2. Whether Christ ordained by himselfe or by his Apostles any ordinary Pastours as our Bishops having both precedency of order and majority of power over others pag 24. 3. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any one singular person or to an united multitude of Presbyters pag. 78. Imprinted 1621. THE PREFACE MAny writings and sermons also have cause to wish that the men from whom they come were lesse knowen then they are For then should they be free from much prejudice and find better acceptance with those that they come to But I wish nothing more unto this Treatise which is now coÌ„ming into the world then that the Author of it were throughly known unâ—o all those that shall encet with it for then his work would need no borrowed commendation the title it self carrying authority with it even to force respect from every hâ—nest Reader if either the sharpnes of wit variety of reading depth of judgment aptnes to teach holy and pleasant language heavenly conversation wise cariage or any fulnes of grace wil so far prevail with him I doe not abuse good words or load one with thhem whom they do not belong to as many pâ—inters of Sepulchrs in their funerall Orations use to do but speak that in short which M. Baines his person did largly preach unto all such as came neer unto him that which his incomparable writings wil sufficiently witnes to sutur generations Neither is this all that the Authours quality may suggest unto the considerate Reader but he may arise from this to more important thoughts especially if the remembrance of M. Baines his worth do occasion him to think of many others like unto him â—uch as M. Deeâ—ing M. More â— Greenham M. Perkins M. Rogers M. Cartwright M. Fenner M. Brightman M. Parker M. Philips M. Hieâ—on and M. Bradshaw c. to speak nothing of those which yet live nor of D. Râ—inolds D. Fulk and D. Whitakers with many others For all these being appreheÌ„ded as meÌ„ agreeing in one spirit having had indeed the spirit of glory resting on them as their works do shew together with those letters testimonial which they left written in the hearts of many thousand Christians it must needs cause at the least an inquiry what the reason should be what such famous men of God could never like wel of our Bishoply courses in England nor ever be favoured of them The case is plaine to all and the cause is as evident to those that have eyes to see but no where more apparant then in the person of M. Baines and the place where he and otherâ— like him were made signes of this antipathie Cambridge is or should be as an eye to all our land so that the alterations that fall out there cannot but be felt of all parts It is thâ— place of light the spirituall oppressions whiâ—h in other corners are covered with darknesse as all the works of darknesse would be when past all shame they come to confront the Sunne it selfe how can they then be hidden When M. Perkins had there for many yeares held forth a burning and shining light the sparks wherof did flie abroad into all corners of the land and after he had served his time was taken up into heaven there was none found so meet for to receive as it were the torch out of his hand and succeed him in that great office of bearing it before such a people as this M. Bains upon whom also the spirit of that Elias was by experience found to be doubled In this station he so demeaned himself for some years that impietie only had cause to complaine for all that favoured the waies of God rejoyced and gloried in him and his Ministâ—ry asa spirituall treasure But at length the hower of darknes came from Lambeth when Arch. Bancroft sent M. Harsenet to Visite as they call it that is if termes may be interpreted by common practise to pick the purses of poore men and to supprâ—sse those that are not fâ—iends to the Bâ—shops Kingdome For though in that circuit there were a multitude of unable and notoriously scandalous Ministers yet none were fouÌ„d worthy of censure but only M. Bâ—inâ—s of whom the world was not worthy and one other Preacher like unto him Now it is hard to say whether the silencing of him was more odious or the manner of it shameles There must be a Sermon ye know at such Visitations for fashion sake though the Visiter himself can seldom find leasure to make it This part was therfore appointed to M. Bains by the Visiters that he might either be insnared in his words if he did not apply himself to their humours or else grace their ungratious courses if he did But it did not succeed handsomly either way For he delivered wholesome docttrine appertaining to the present audience in such warie manner that no specious occasion could be taken therby of questioning his liberty Yet fairely or fouly the mischievous intention must not faile M. Baines having heat his weak body by straining to speak unto a great audience retired himselfe presently upon his comming down from the Pulpit to provide for his health which otherwise would have bin indangered They in the meaÌ„ time going on with their businesse as they are wont in the masterly forme of a master called for M. Baines amongst the rest and upon his not answering though he was not cited thither as to a Court but only intreated to preach as he did yet for not appearing he was immediately silenced Afterward in deed the Chancellor being informed of that grosse nullity which was in the sentence urged him about subscription and conformity and so to make sure work silenced him over again In which businesse he was so conscious unto himself of unreasonable and ridiculous dealing that when M. Bâ—inâ—s standing to receive the sentence of a corrupt man did lift up his heart and eies unto God with a heavenly smiling countenance as he used he interpreted that gesture to be a skorne of his authority This being don M. Baines was perswaded by his friends to try the Archbishops courtesie unto whom when he presented himself at the very first salutation the gravity and severity of B. Bancroft led him sharply to rebuke the good man for a little black-worke which was upon the edges of his cuffes asking him how he durst come before him with such cuffs telling him very bishoplike that it were a good turn to lay him by the heels for so doing After this he would have no more to do with such absurd unreasonable men but preached somtime
church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in divers places may make one church If many churches which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery may so make one they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory and so make one But the 24. churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery and so make one For so farre as two meete in a thâ—rd they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If city churches onely and not the churches of Villages and counâ—ry Townes had bishopâ— Presbyters and Deaâ—ons placed in them then were those city churchâ—s Diocesan churches But city churâ—hes onely had thâ—se Ergo city churches were Diocesan distinguâ—shed from Paâ—â—shiâ—nall churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripâ—ure Tâ—tus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secâ—ndly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Stoâ—y Thâ—y who are gâ—ven to lâ—bour the convertion of the Regions raâ—her then tenâ— those alreâ—â—y converted they were not given to a Parishionall church But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so Ergo. They who were set in a church before Parishes were could not be given to a Parishionall church But such were the Presbyters of the Apostlâ—s institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages from the first division that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery and a bishop but Presbyters onely Nay it was ever by councels condemned and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden that in Townes or Villages any but a Presbyter should be planted 3. This is also proved by reason for it was no more possible to have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish then to have a Maior and Aldermen such as we have in London â—n every Towne 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselves with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city Ergo there was then a Dâ—ocesan church having government of others Presbyters could not ordaine sede vacante though thâ—y did at first as in the church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches allowing onely such churches to bee instituted of Christ which may meet in one congregation ordinarily The word which without some modification super-added doth signifie onely such a company as called forth may assemble Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a church as may to holy puâ—poses ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitâ—ly and signifieth no more Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit non est distinguendum 2. The Scripture speaketh of the churches in a Kingdome or Province alwaies in the plurall number without any note of diffâ—rence â—s â—quall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nâ—tionâ—ll or Diocesan churches Let a reason be given why it should never speake in the singular number had they beene a singulâ—r church Secâ—ndly let us come to exâ—mples the churches the Apostles plâ—â—â—ed were suâ—h 〈◊〉 niâ—hâ— and did congregate Fiâ—sâ— that of Hâ—â—rusalem though there were in it toward 500. â—â—nogogues yet the christâ—â—n church was but one and such as did congreâ—ate â—nâ—o one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000. to it Act 2.46 5.12 6.1 15.25 21.22 25.22 For their ordinary meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericâ—ll meeting Againe if they might meete Synodically why might they not meete then in daily course though the universall meeting of a church is not so fitly called Synodicall And though they are said to be millions of beleevers yet that was by accident of a circumstance happily the Passeover We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations They had not a setled state there by which they did get the right of being set members Yea it is likely they were and continued but one congregation For forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude but that Pella like to the Zâ—har of Lot a little Towne could receive them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one Church Acts 14.27 they are said to have gathered the Church together Object That is the Ministers or representative Church Ans. 1. For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Acts 11. Peter gâ—ve account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thirdly the Church of Corinth was one congregation which did for the service of God or exercise of Discipline meet together 1 Cor. 5.4 1 Cor. 14.25 vers 26. 1 Cor. 11.17 vers 23. in uno eodem loco That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth could not be a Diocesan Church neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming together ever be shewed to signifie any thing else besides one particular Assembly Fourthly the Church of Ephesus was but one flocke First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Secondly it was but one flocke that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Bâ—shop If Presbyters onely then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus There may be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholly meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5.2 calleth all those he writeth to one flocke but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flocke is but one congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added but a greater number of â—ister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Colosse There might be many churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches Examples Ecclesiasticall 1. Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians though numberlesse to meete together often
no members in that Presbytery yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocrasie another to the Bishops Monarchicall government For while his Presbyters are but as Counsellours to a King though he consulteth with them he alone governeth Geneva made this consociation not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect and to make one Church by this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion But what are all the foure and twenty 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 meet in one Congregation The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes and the numbersome Clergy of some Cathedrall Churches 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 have Presbyters and Deacons What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot be had in every Towne yet such a Towne as Cambridge may have a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge affâ—ords and the meanest market Towne may have though not in degâ—ee yet in kinde like Governours So is it in Presbyters and other Officers the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens not that a Bishop is ever to have a lâ—ke numbeâ—some Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbeâ—some that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance and so wealthy that it can well maintaine them And beside because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiasticall 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 whit intended To come to the assumption But city Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that Saint Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to bee 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 within her selfe wee must use as ample interpretations as may be Contrarily the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest wee cannot without evidence receive it in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est Eclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference Parishionall Dâ—ocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 everything without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but there waâ—es divisim conjuctâ—m and divisim and conjunctim divisim one Presbyter in one another in another conjunctim diverse Presbyters in every Church neither of these will serve their turne the latter onely being true for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot be governed it is sure it did give of both kinds to every Church they pâ—anted Now they seeing some Churches in our times to have many and some one conster it both waies Collective many Presbyters Singularly one here and one there and because many Presbyters cannot be thuâ— 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 City by City 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 bee 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 city 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 history 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 have afterward beene divided that all should have beene alike for kinde though in circumstantiall excellency some were before other What a grosse thing is it to imagine that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posterity to imitate A sitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserve some cases in civil 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 Pastor as our Bishops having both precedency of order and majority of power above others WEE will follow the same method First setting downe the arguments for it with answers to them Secondly the arguments agâ—inst 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 necessity of it The fiâ—st Argument Those whom the holy Ghost instituted they are of Christs ordaining But the holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops Acts 20. Ergo Bâ—shops are of Christs ordaining Answer We deny the assumption viz. That those Presbyters 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 Doct. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have 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 the Presbyters of Ephesus 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
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 he 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 ordinary Bishop properly and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinary was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Object 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 thâ—y were guided by the spirit it was thought meere that Iames should abide in Jerusalem there tending boâ—h the Church of the Jewes 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 thinke it meete that hee 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 yâ—t his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Jewes 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 hee could not bee who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors hâ—ve Fourthly that calling which hee could not exercise without being much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a point of honour for him But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary Bâ—shop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinary man liable to errour Ergo hee was never ordained to bee a Bishâ—p properly If it bee sacriledge 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 beene assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and be no whit abased but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Jewes which hee might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did neede to goe forâ—h as the rest for the Jewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without goiâ—g forâ—h in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary Paâ—tor was much lesse honour then to travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithinia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour â—ither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the rest but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinary Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clemens in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authority What needed they an ordinary Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchy 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 pâ—oposition For had some ordinary Pastors beene so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other wherefore unlesse this be interâ—erted it is unsound viz. Those ordinary Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminency which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the Assumption is false altogether First thâ—t Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor Secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obi. But the judgement of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostome 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 Saint Ambrose doth plainely insinuate that he was an Evangelist for he saith he 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 hee makâ—th him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the â—ransunt exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because hee was their ordinary Pastor Ieroms testimony 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 Thâ—â—d doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are said to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have beene such an Apostolicke person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truly called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoreâ— to bee admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee 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 bee ascribed to them Againe how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie that hee must bee 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 uâ—der the name of Apostles and Angels Thirdly antiquity doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was
a bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of majority of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption we answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecally it hath a higher vertue or because it hath a higher degree of dignity and honour Now wee deny that ever antiquity did take the bishop above his Presbyters to be in a higher order then a Presbyter further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignity and honor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Sardica speaketh Which is further proved because 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 sacerdotum vocaâ—i 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 thâ—se must be circumstantially not so essentiall as betwixt the other Thus bishops and Archbishops are divers ordâ—rs of bishops not that one exceedeth the other as a power of higher vertue but of higher dignity then then the other More plainely There may be a fourefold difference in gradu 1. in potestate graaus 2. in Exercito 3. in Dignitate 4. in amplitudiâ—e Iurisdictionis The first difference is not betweene a bishop and a Presbyter according to the common tenent of antiquity or the Schoole but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardly 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 Bâ—shops c. but a bishop can doe also So neither doth a Presbyter from a bishop Object But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter and confirme as the bâ—shop doth and therefore differeth Potestate gradus To this I answer that these authours meane not thâ—s difference in power de fundamentali rem ta potestate sed ampliata immediata jam actu hor um effictuam productiva as if Presbyters had not a remote and fundamentall power to doe those things but that they have not before they be ordained bishops their power so enlarged as to produce thâ—se effects actually As a boy hath a generative faculty whâ—le 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 defective in regard of them further then they be with-held from the exercise of it For that cause which standeth in compleat actuality 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 sacramentall power standing in full actuality to higher sacramentall actions therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in hâ—s power further then they are excepted kept from being applied to him And therefore power sacramentall cannot be in a Presbyter as the generative faculty is in a child for this is inchoate onely and imperfect such as cannot produce that effect The power of the Priest is compleat Secondly I say these are no sacramentall actions Thirdly were they yet as much may be 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 joine with their bishops If that rule stand not major ad minori nor yet equalie ab equall I marvel how bishops can beget bishops equall yea superior to them as in consecrating the Lord Archbishop yet a Presbyter may not ordaine a Presbyter It doth not stand with their Episcopall majority that the rule every one may give that which he hath should hold here in the exercise of their power Those who are in one order may differ jure divino or humans Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall for they might all offer incense and make intercession But the solemne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priests would have 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 â—hough God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other yet commonly confiâ—mation ordination absolution by imposiâ—g hands in receiving Penitents consecrating Churches and Virines have beene referred to the bâ—shop for the honor of Priesthood rather then any necessiâ—y of law as Ierom speaketh Finally in dignity those may differ many waies 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 aâ—other But were it manifest that God did give bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse and an Archbishop through his Province though but when hee visiteth this would make one differ in order from the other as in this regard Evangelists deffered from ordinary Pastors But that jurisdiction is in one more then another is not established nor hath apparency in any Scripture To the proofes thereof 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 have not deserved it As for that of Ierom it is most plaine hee did meane no further order but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their bishop or first Prebyter as that they did mount him up in a higher seat the rest sitting lower about him and gave him this preheminence to sit first as a Consull in the Senate and moderate the carriage of things amongst them this Celfiori gradu being nothing but his honourable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not importing sole authority For by a Canon of Councell of Laodicea wee finde that the bishop hâ—d this priviledge to sit first though Presbyters did together with him enter and sit as Judges of equall commission For though Deacons stood Presbyters did alwaies sit incircuitu Episcopi 10. Argument If bishops be that whiâ—h Aaron and the Apostles were and Presbyters be that which the Priests and the 72. Disciples were then the one are
above the other in preheminence and power But they are so See Ierom to Nepotian Ergo. Answer If bishops c. and Pâ—esbyters 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 the bishops and Presbyters First for the proposition it is not true for first of Aaron and his sonnes they were not orders different essenally in their power but onely in degree of dignity wherein the high Priest was above others For every Priests power would have reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest oneâ—y 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 majority of directive or corrective 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 impolyed in a set course and extraordinary sent by occasion onely They were both messengers the Apostles babitu and abidingly the other in act onely and after a transitory manner Againe had Aaron and his sonnes beene divers orders differing essentially in the inward power of them yeâ— is not the proposition true but with addition in this wife Those who are indentically 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 have 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 pollicy and make the bishop as it were Primum Presbyterum or Antistuem in primo ordine Presbyters in secundo Whence Bâ—shops 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 conmon analogy which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the bishops and Presbyters and them and conceive them to be so by humane accommodation not by divine institution But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministery typified by them by Gods owne appointment this the fathers never thoâ—ght 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 Evangelists 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 thâ—y 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 straine it further and take it that Christ instituting those two orders did in so doing institute Bâ—shops and Presbyters the one whereof succeeded the Apostles the other the 72. and that thus the Fathers take it To which I answer First in generall this analogy 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 Apostolus id est Episcopos preposiros that is ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum as Austin speaketh else it should bee all one with the former when hee maketh the Presbyâ—er as well as the Bishop to bee ordained in the Apostles Finally these Fathers who take the 72. to have beene Apostles as well as the other could not imagine this porportion of diverse orders let 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 Nanna noting and prefiguring as by a type a further thing which hee would worke viz. that he would institute Bâ—shops and Presbyters for Teachers ordinary in his Church but both these are gratis spoken without any foundation or reason For the first wee have shewed that the Apostles could not bee Bishops ordinarily nor yet the calling of these seventy 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 have given a Sacrament when he ordained his Apostles and sent forth his 72. Secondly the type or the shadow iâ— lesse then the thing â—ypified the substance of it But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors Ergo. Thirâ—ly 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 gâ—adum or in Capat as the jâ—rists distinguish In gradum tundem 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 inherit after him not a brother but a cosin to him Thus the Apostles have 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 every 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 quitenus est Legatus non succeditur Fourthly that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order succeed the Apostles nâ— lessâ— fully then any other First
they must needs succeed theâ— who are spoken to in them whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes in the Supper in the commandement of teaching and baptizâ—ng Ergo Presbyteâ—s must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chuâ—ches which they had planted for theâ—r fuâ—ther building thâ—m up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo tâ—â—se were thâ—ir successors most proper and immediate Thirdly tâ—ese to whom now tâ—king their farewells they resigned the Churches these were thâ—ir succâ—ssours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to sâ—e Ephesus more Act. 20. Peter neere death 1 Pet. 5.2 Erâ—o Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more propâ—rly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath same powâ—r Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for first their power of teachâ—â—g and ministring the Sacraments doth â—s fully and propâ—rly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Pâ—eaching not necâ—issarily câ—nnexâ—d to a Presbyters office but a bishopâ— or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs 〈◊〉 Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bâ—shop which are both too absurd Secondly for governement the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to one then to another Object This is denyed for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination and the coercive power in their owne hands and to have committed these in the end onely to Apostolike men as Timothy Titus who were their successours succeeding them in it Answ. A notable fiction for it is most plaine by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise have provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men above others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinary Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legarâ— Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselves urged with this that the Apostles have none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could have a successour The other of bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we have proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two For first in all that is spoken to the seventy two the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinary office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtfull Thirdly it is not read that they ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministery of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Evangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from City to City without limitation to Evangelâ—ze and after we read of some as Philip that he was an Evangelist the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others Thus wâ— Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples in his 7. Book Armenicâ—râ—m quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receive a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is he not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers where of there may be but one onely during life in a Church they are in singularity of preheminence above others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothy one Titus one Archippus one Eâ—aphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conâ— Nice cap 8. Conc. Calud cap 4. Pâ—ssidonius in vita Augustine Ieremâ— Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Tâ—eoâ— Orcâ—umen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to be the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divâ—nâ— institution Now the assumptâ—on is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Actâ— 20. and that there were
Bishops at Philippi True it is the Scripture doth not distinguish how many 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 ordinarâ—ly all Cities but Alexandria had two Thirdly Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. doth say that now indeed there may be but one Bishop meaning Canonically making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique Fourthly Austin did not know it was unlawfull Yea he did onely in regard of the decree of Nice account it so Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contraâ—y but as a point against Canon which mâ—ght in some cases be dispensed with as the story of Narcissus and Alexander and Liberius and Foelix did more then manifest For though the people of Rome cried out one God one Christ one Bishop yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite whereas had it beene a thing they had all thought to have been against Christs institution they would not have done Vide Sâ—z lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly Ieroms peerelesse power is nothing but Consul-like presidence above others for this he pleaded for writing against Iovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselves that schisme might be avoided Wherefore 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 above others in ordination and jurisdiction they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others But the former is due to Bishops Unlesse this singularity of power were yeelded there would be as many schismes as Priests Ergo. The assumption proved Those who have a peculiar power of oâ—dination above others they are in preheminence and power before others But Bishops have 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 doâ— 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 ordeâ— nor as one Ergo it was the peculiar right of the Bishop and the Bishop onely He onely by Canon was punishable for irregularity in ordination And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fâ—thers by ordination aâ— the Presbyters doth sonnes by baptisme And Ierom doth except ordination as the bâ—shops peculiar wherein he is most unequall to them Answer I answer the proposition of the first syllogâ—sme by distinction Those who have 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 have a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others have they are above others in degree Againe peerelesse power in a bishâ—p over Presbyters may be said in comparison to them distributively or collectively considered He that hath peerelesse power given him which no one of the other hath is not presently of a greater degree nor hath not majority of rule amongst others as a Consul in the Senate but if he have a peerelâ—â—â—e power such as they all collectively 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 mâ—y be reserved for honour sake to one by those who otherwise have equall power with him Thaâ— bâ—shops have this power in order the thing it selfe agreeing to them Vt proprii offuii not by commission from others we deny The assumption is wholly denyed As for the proofe of it First we that deny that Evangelists hâ—d not power to ordeine as well as Apostles Secondly that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they Every one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination The Evâ—ngelists power did not derogate from the Apostles the Preâ—byters from neither of them But power of imposing hands solitarily whereas 〈◊〉 Churches were not constituted this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Evangelists 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 contrary to that in Timothy The grace given thee by â—aying 〈◊〉 of the hands of the Presbytery Thirdly it is false in presupposing others then Presbyters to have beene Timothy and Titus their successours To the proofe of this assumption The proposition is not true For it might be convenient that the same thâ—ng should be done by Evangelists 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 be placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters or where there were as yet none In the first Churcher ' they are bid ordaine if any need further but salvâ— jâ—re Ecclesiae not without the concurrence of others In the latter Churches which were to be constituted they may be conceived as Evangelists with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands We hold Apostles might doe it Evangelists might and the Presbyteries also Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was dâ—ceased did ordaine the following For the Canon of three bishops and Metropolitans added by the Niâ—ene 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 appropriate to the Bâ—sh We grant therefore that antiquity doth sometime speake 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 therefore by their Canons be punishable because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to them This is all that Epiphanius or Ierome 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
alone but propounded made request for them confessing that further then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them they had the right of suffrage no lesse then himselfe as by these epistles may â—ppeare lib. 1. â—pist 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom though grandilâ— quenâ— sometimes did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet he would have these as the seventy Againe Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall Et nos senâ—cum habemus coetum Presbyteroâ—â—m sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam licet â— ut Romani habuerunt senâ—tum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius sâ—ith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsâ—fficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For Colleges supply Churches yet have they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we â—iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bâ—shop had such a jurisdiction as concerâ—ing the Church so farre as it was in society with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not prove them dependant on him For bishops have their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence Thus in Cyprians judgement bishops themselves delinquent turning wolves as Samosatenus Liberius c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries to be deposed and relinquished by them As for those that were part of his clerks it is true they were in greater measure subject to him absolutely in a manner for their direction but for his corrective power he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow bishops do any thing The bishop indeed is onely named many times but it is a common Synecdoche familiar to the Fathers who put the primary member of the church for the representative church as Austine saith Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclâ—siae gâ—ssisse See concil Sardicen cap. 17. conc Carth 4. cap. 2.3 Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3 Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Châ—ysostomes fact is not to be justified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which he was inclined though in regard of his end and unworthinesse of his Presbyters it may be excused yet it is not to be imitated As for those headlesse Clerkes it mâ—keâ—h nothing for the Bâ—shops majority of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them For first it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop a collegâ—at life together Eode refectorio dormitori utehantur Canonice viventes ab Episcopo instruâ—bontur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master it is no wonder if thâ—y be called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyâ—ers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clâ—rkes say it were yet will it not follow â—hat those who were under some were subject to his authority of rule For there is a head in regard of presidency of order as well as of power Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe bishop of their Province and to associate themselves with him So bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbishâ—ps as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes diâ— lâ—ve under some jurisdiction of the bishops but such as did permit them coerâ—ive power in their owne Churches such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity and not of any power whereby he might swâ—y all at his pleasure Thirdly if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny it is better to be without such heads then to have them as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome then if he still were head over us To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had because neitheir Presbyters alone had it nor with assistents I answer they had as well the power of government as of teaching and though they had not such assistants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church yet they might have some as a deacon or other person sufficient in such small Churches When the Apostles planted a bishop and Deacon onely how did this bishop excommunicate When the fathers of Africa did give a bishop unto those now multiplied who had enjoyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepiscopi who yet had government of their Churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrary of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others Ergo the contrary is truth Answer To the proposition we deny that it must needs be presently true the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie As the representative catholicke Church may propound an error so she mâ—y condemne a particular truth and yet remaine a catholicke church To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority but that onely which Aerius runne into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom deny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainely 2. Hee did not deny the fact that bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration hâ— could not be so mad If he had all that a bishop had actually how could he have affected to be a bishop as a further honouâ— Deniall of superiority such as consisteth in a further power of ordâ—r then a Pâ—eâ—byter hath and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule this denyall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be â—rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church What then was condemned in him A deniall of all superiority in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignity and secondly the deâ—ying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsâ—kâ— communion with the Church wherein it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should bee read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Acts 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to have beene in the churches 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 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 have beene in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinary office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the holy Ghost who onely had out of authority 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 themselves 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 above other No Apostle Prophet Evangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition be denied upon supposall of a different reason because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therefore 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 devided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the parity is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yâ—t this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should bee 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 have governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracy especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of gouernment sufficient to preserve 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 delinquency hath directive and corrective power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyranny subject it As for the distinction of Priests wee grant it but as man could not have made that distiction 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 poweâ— 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 an 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 have is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee have it as imediately 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 praier and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacraâ—entall there being other sacraments of ordination and â—onfirmation which wee may not minister all which are groâ—â—e weâ— 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 doâ— 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 give it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she give 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 challenge so much as to give 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 truâ—h is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can have 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 give him no help against the Wolfe is to furniâ—h 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 and exercitative to the representative 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 soveraignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in forâ— externo is committed to him Not to mention how bishops while they were bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicity and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistory did carry all the credite every office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more
Fervi â—rdinarli or praepofiti some are under others to do this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serve their Master Christ neither having any that they can command nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them But it may be objected that God hath ordained some to be helpes and assistants to othersome It is said that God hath ordained powers helps governours 1 Cor. 12.8 and were not the Evangelists 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 Evangelists they were companions and assistanâ—s to the Apostles but it was in order to the work of God in their hands which they were to serve not in order to their persons as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferiority Observe how Paul speaketh of them 2 Cor. 8.23 Vituâ— wâ—s his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his worke and fellow souldier 1 Thess. 3.2 Timothy was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2 Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministery The truth is this was servitus 〈◊〉 porfâ—â—â—lis 〈◊〉 reâ—lis the Evangelists did serve the worke the Apostles had in hand with out being servants to their persons When brick-layers worke some mixe line and make mortar some beare up tile and mortar some sit on the house and there lay that which is bâ—ought them These are all fellow servants yet the one doth serve to set forward the worke of the other But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles wholly in exercise of their calling I answer as Christ gave some to be Evangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any There is a double direction one pâ—tesâ—atiue which is made from majority of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other socialis such as one servant having fit knowledge of his masters will and ripe experience may give to another The latter kinde of direction it was not the former by which the Evangelists 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 be 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 whâ—ch the Church hath not over any member the bishop hath not over other ministers But they had not over any inferior officers any majority of directive or corrective power neither hath the Church it selfe any such power Ergo. The assumption is proved for majority 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 ministery to signifie and execute what Christ out of majority 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 majority of power in regard of order and jurisdiction doth so Ergo. That which maketh the bishop a head as doth in sâ—uere derive the power of externall government to other his assistants 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 be head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of externall 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 be said that his power is Antichristian because it is universall it is not so For were the power lawfull the universality could not make it Antichristian The Apostles had an universality of authority yet no Antichrists because it did not make them heads deriving to others from their fulnesse it was not prince-like majority of power but steward like and ministeriall onely If one doe usurpe a kingly power in Kent onely he were an Anti-king to our Soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Sâ—otland and Ireland There is but one Lord and many 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 Secondly though he be subject yet that doth not hinder but he may usurpe a kingly government for a King may have a kingly 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 unsufficiency who cannot weâ—ld so great a matter The seventh Argument Those Ministers who are made by one patent in the same words have equall authority but all Ministers of the Word are made by the same patent in the same words Receive the holy Ghost whose staâ— 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 Answ If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the Word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then we would grant the excepâ—ion 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 thâ—mselves of the same degree Secondly were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bâ—shop haâ—h 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 some unto some conclusions or assertions which may leâ—d light unto the deciding of this question Conclus
and service The reason is because this exceedeth the â—ounds of ministeriall power and is a participation of that despoticall power which is appropriate to the master of the family Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signifie their masters direction and to execute ministerially what their master out of his 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 meane singularity without concurrence of any others This without doubt was in the Apostles and Evangelists and it was needfull it should be so first because it might be behovefull there to excommunicate whereas 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 company of others constituting a representative Church which is the point next to bee shewed Yea where Churches were constituted the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power without the minsteriall concurrence of the Churches as in the story of the Corinthians is manifest THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any singular person or to united multitude or 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 be super-added we will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. Thaâ— which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church Matâ— 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to â—ome one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to be 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 representatively a Church when jurisdiction iâ— promised then one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of jurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia saith that the bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the bishop â— that they cannot be severed Finally as the kingdome of England may be 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 Thâ—t 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 withhold it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his judgeâ—ent 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 excommunicaâ—ed Hymenâ—us 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 jurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Tituâ— in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of jurisdiction that Christ did ordaine But the order of one chiefe governour is sitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fifth Argument If all authority 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 authority which the Church never had shee cannot convey But the Pastorall authority 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 jurisdiction and execution be 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 whâ—ch 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 wâ—s committed by Christ to one and the execution of aâ—y one But Mat. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many and that exercitative so as by them being many it is to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plaine in the place Where first mâ—rke â—hat Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particulâ—r Church tâ—ken in distinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Thâ—refore no universâ—ll or provinciall or Diocesan Church gâ—thered in a Câ—uncell Secondly it is not any particular Châ—rch that he doth send â—ll Christiâ—ns to for â—hâ—â— all Christâ—ans in the world should come to one particular at Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Church where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntâ—ation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speake it of any ordinary 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 orderly complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinary 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
wher he might have liberty as his weakenesse of body would suffer and spent the rest of his time in reading meditating praying and writing saving that upon occasion hee did instruct or comfort those which came to him in private wherin he had a heavenly gift He was indeed all his life after beside the weakenes of his body pressed with want no having as he often complained to his friends a place to rest his head in which me thought was an upbraidâ—ng of the age and place where he lived with base regardlesnes of piety learning yet he never so much as consulted with himselfe of denying his sinceritie by pleasing the Bishops of whom and their courses he was wont to say They are a generation of the earth earthly and savour not the waies of God Which saying of his they and some Doctors of Cambridge have since made good in that they could not indure that the place from whence they thrust him should be supplied by othâ—r honest men though they were coÌ„formable but with absolute authority at length forbad it alledging that Puritanes were made by that lecture wheras the truth is that one lecture hath done more good to the Church of God in England then all the doctors of Cambridge though I doe not deny but some of them have wrought a good work By this one instance of which kind I would there were not a 100 in our land it may easily appeare to the understanding Reader that here is as much agreement betwixt our Bishâ—ps in their managing of Religion except some 2 or 3 which went out of their elements when they ventered on those places those powerful Preachers who have bin the chief means of revealing Gods arme unto salvation as there is betwixt the light which commeth down from hâ—aven that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit But wee need not seeke for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchie from this opposition look but at the fruits of it wher it hath alâ— fulnes of consent as Cathedrall Pallaces or Parishes of Bishops and Archbishops residence sucâ— as Lambeth is where all their canons are in force aâ—d have their full sway without contradiction nay come neerer unto them and take a view of their families even to them that wait in their chambers and see what godlinesse there is to be found Have there not more of God and his Kingdome appeared in some one Congregation of those Ministers which they have silenced for unconformity then in all the Bishops families that are now in England Was there ever any of them that could endure such a Parish as Lambeth is if they had such power of reforming it as the Archbishops haue To returne therfore unto our Authour whilst he lived a private life being thus strucken with the Bishops Planet he had time to apply his able wit and judgement unto the discussing of many questions which if the Prelates had not forced such leasure upon him it may be he would have passed by with others And among the rest by Gods providence he was directed to these Ecclesiastical Controversies which concerne our Diocesan state in England wherin as in all other questions which he dealt in he hath shewed such distinct and piercing understanding together with evidence of truth as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light He might indeed have chosen other particular corruptions to have written on if it had bene his purpose either to have taught men what they daily see and feel or to have laboured about the branches and leave the root untouched But it was no delight unto him for to prove that which no man doubted of as that the common course and practise of our Prelates their courts their urging of sâ—bscriptions with human superstitious ceremonies are presumptuous insolencies against God and his Church or preposterously to beginne at the end of the streame for to cleanse the water He chose rather to search the fountain of all that foulnes wherwith our Churâ—he are soiled which he judged to be found in the constituâ—ions here in this Treatise examined And if these few questions be wel considered it will appear that a multitude of pernitious abuses doe depend on those positions which in them are confuted One fundamentall abuse in our Ecclesiasticall oppression in the disposing of charges our placing of Ministers over Congregations it is called usually bestowing of BeÌ„efices or Livings in an earthy phrase which â—avoureth of the base corruption commonly practised For Congregations ought not to be bestowed on Ministers but Ministers on Congregations the benefit or benefice of the Minister is not so much to be regarded as of the Congregation It is the calling and charge which every Minister should looke at not his living and benefice Now these Benefiâ—es are bestowed ordinarily by the PatroÌ„ whether Popish prophane or religious all is one the Bishop without any regard of the peoples call or consent so as no lawful mariage is made no servant placed against all Scripture Councels and antient examples Wherby it commeth ordinarily to passe that Lawyers must determine of Ministers callings after long sutes and great charges as if Congregations and Farms were held by one title and right And sometime it is found that the Minister is a continuall plague unto his people living in contention spiâ—e hatred with them as many law-suits do too too plainly witnes What is the reason Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches that ever were ordained by Christ or received any power and priviledges from him but as mans creatures and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him Another practice of like nature with the former is that the minister being called to one Congregation becommeth a Pluralist by taking another or more livings in spite of that Congregation to which he was first and is still personally tied And after this he may be a nonresident abiding or Preaching at none of his many livings Nay he may chop and change sell and buy like a marchant so he do it closely which is such an abomination as Rome and Trent condemneth and hell it selfe will scarse defend What is the ground Because forsooth Christ hath not appointed Parishes their officeâ—s offices and therfore no man is bound further in this kinde then mens Laws canons customes and injunctions do prescribe unto them For a grave Doctor of Cambridge answered one that questioned him for his grosse non-residencie viz. that Parishes were divided by a Pope insinuating as it seemeth that he accounted it a point of Poperie for to tie Ministers unto their particular charges A third grosse corruption is that the officers in Congregations Ministers Church-wardens c. are made servants to the Bishops Chancellours Archdeacons c. being as it were their promotors informers and executioners in all matters of jurisdiction and government for to bring in mony into their purses for performance also of which service to them the Church-wardens
a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrons of our Hierarchy Ierome saith ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordinatiâ—n which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimony D. Downan avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be over long to declare all the use which may be made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prâ—lixity in the Preface If the Author had lived to have accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would have left all so clear that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observationâ— are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader W. Ames THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsive conclusions and answer the objâ—ctions made against that part we take to be the truth Thâ—se who affirme the frâ—â—e of Diocesan Churches vouâ—h their Arguments pâ—râ—ly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finâ—lly from the congruity it hâ—â—h with reason thâ—t so thâ—y should be constitute The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders City by City They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a City with the Suburbs and â—egions about it should make but one Church they ordained a Diocesan Church But â—he Apostles who use these phrases as aequâ—pollent To ordaine Presbyâ—ers in every City and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a city with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Dâ—ocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a City with the suburbes villages and countries about it â—â—uld not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleare for these phrases are used as ad aequaâ—e and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities suburbs and regions into one church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitive times and from Patternes in our owne times yea even from such churches as we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the church of the Jewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which maâ—y particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common-wealâ—h and had all but one profeâ—siâ—n that mâ—y many christian churâ—hes now bee upon the lâ—ke grounds But thâ—y then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdome and had all but one profession were all one nationall church Ergo upon like grounds many churchâ—s with us in a nation or city may be one nationall or Diocesan church Secondly the church of Jerusalem in the New Testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head church to all Christians in Judea that was a Diocesan church But this they did by the church of Jerusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionâ—lly was no Parishional but Diocesan church But that church was such First by growing to 3000. then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to have millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocâ—san church Thirdly the church of Corinth is objected to have beene a Metropolitan church He who writing to the church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that church But thâ—s doth Paul 1 Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with prâ—heminence before the rest of Achâ—ia doth imply thâ—t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Achaâ—a was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother city of all Macedonia the church in that city must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan church But Philippi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the churâ—hes of Asia which are thus proved at least to have beene Diocesan 1. Those seven churches which contained all other churches in Asia strictly tâ—ken whether in city or countâ—â—y those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocâ—san churches But those seven did containe all other in Asâ—â— Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia writeth by name but to thâ—se seven he doth impâ—y that all the rest were contâ—ined in these Buâ— Christ writing to the seven writeth to all churches in Asia not to name that five of these were Metropolitan cities viz. Philadelphia and Peâ—gâ—mus two Diocesan at least 3. He who makâ—th the singular church he writeth to to â—e a multitude of churches not one onely as the body is not one member onely hee doth make that one church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every church which he had spoken to in singular doth speake of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath eares beare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo. Thus leaving sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancienâ— churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For â—f the multitude of christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one congregation how much more likely is it that christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200. yeares that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further coâ—firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed churchâ—s these prove a Diocesan church That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congregâ—tion But maâ—y distincâ— congregations gathered in one city may make wee say one
the ordinances of worship But a Diocesan Church cannot ordinarily assemble Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the Sabboth is for man he will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and impossible as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude If any distinguish the assumption and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts or as she is a torum standing of her parts now collected together and say she may and doth meet and communicate and edifie her selfe in the first respect I answer This is nothing and doth prove her to be nothing as she is a Diocesan Church quia quid quid est â—git secundum quoâ—est If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church she must have the effect of such a Church to wit assembling as she is Diocesan The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth but were no Nationall Church in this regard that is to say as it is a Nationall Church it had her Nationall reall meetings I reason thirdly from the subject 3 That Church which doth per se essentially require locall bounds of place that must have locall limits set forth of God But a Diocesan Church doth so Ergo. Whence I thus inferre He who institutes a Diocesan Church must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church But God hath not set out any locall bounds of the Church in the New Testament Ergo. He hath not instituted any Diocesan Church The proposition is certaine for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church as also of a Nationall And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Jewes did as in a map set forth the limits of that Nation So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provinciall Churches he would have appointed locall bounds if not particularly described yet knowne and certaine But God hath not done this For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places it being so with the power of teaching and the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that it doth respicere subditos onely perse not terminos locales Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily the subjects on it in the second place As for that commandement of appointing Presbyters Citie by Citie it is too weake a sparre for this building Againe that Church which may be said to be in a Citie is not Diocesan But the Churches which the Apostles planted are said to be in Cities Ergo. If one say to the proposition they may because the head Church is in the Citie Answer The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiasticall But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie Ergo. The soule may be said to be in the head though it be in other parts and God in heaven God because of his most infinite and indivisible nature And so the soule because it is indivisible and is as all of it in every part not as a thing placed in a place containing it but as a forme in that which is informed by it But in things which have quantity and are part out of another there is not the like reason 4 From the adjuncts That Church which hath no time set wherein to assemble is no Church I suppose the ground above that nothing but union of a Diocesse in worship can make a Diocesan Church But this Church hath no time Ordinary it cannot have extraordinary solemnities God hath not commanded Ergo there is no such Church For if it be a reall Dâ—ocesan Church it must have a reall action according to that nature of which it is The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship Of a Nationall Church is to meet nationally and communicate in 〈◊〉 If then it must meet it must have some time set downe ordinary or extraordinary But God hath done neither The Churcheâ— which the Apostles planted were in their times most perfect and flourishing But Diocesan Churches were not for in those times they were but in seminali infolded not explicated as the adversaries confesse 4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers is absurd But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times when now they had but one congregation and give ordinary gifts onely when now they had 800. churches under them is absurd But this doth the Diocesan frame Ergo. 5 The churches throughout which a Presbyter might doe the office of a teaching Presbyter and a Deacon the office of a Deacon were not Diocesan But every Presbyter might minister in the Word and Sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church whereof he was a Deacon Ergo these were not Diocesan The reason of the proposition is No Pesbyter can through many congregations performe ordinary ministery In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches cap. 10. quaest 3. Vna plures Ecclesiae vni nâ—quaquam committantur Pesbyterâ— quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere nec rebus carum necessariam curam impendere 6 If God had planted Diocesan churches that is ordeined that all within citie suburbs and regions should make but one Dâ—ocesan Church then may not two Diocesses be united into one Church or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Dâ—ocesan Church But neither of these are so The judgement of the African fathers shew the one and the Canon law doth shew the other pag. 2. cap. 16.41 Ergo 7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church oâ—hers united in subjection then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop requiring a number of Presbyters and Deacons to minister unto them there may be the perfection of a church But in some one congregation may be such a multitude Ergo 8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops are such churches as God instituted But churches in Townes populous Villages have had and may have their Bishops Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Towne such as our market townes and others yeâ— by a synudâ—cht villages for there they taught as well as in Cities There were Synogogues in Villages as well as in Cities They excepted against them afterward in unconformity to Law The testimony of Zozomen sheweth what kinde of congregations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth And the fathers of Africa did not require that a Dâ—ocesan multitude but a sufficient multitude not through eveâ—y part for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onely had served the turne should have their Bishop If
this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it whose care and industry we may guesse by their ordination of Dâ—acons that they might not be distracted Thirdly the confluence and concourse to Hâ—erusalem was of much people who though explicately they did not beleeve in Christ yet had in them the faith of the Messiah and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen The state of this Church was such that it was to send out light to all other a common nursery to the world Finally the time being now the beginnings of planting that heavenly Kingdome seeing beginnings of things are difficult no wonder if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily It doth not therefore follow from this particular to the so great encreasing of these churches in tract of time Nay if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings it would not follow as thus Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them how numbersome wâ—re they many yeares after Because the growing of things hath a Period set after which even those things which a great while encreased doe decrease and goe downward as it was in Jerusalem Not to mention that we deny the assumption But though the Argument is but Topicall and can but breed an opinion onely yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians And Cornelius that there was besides himselfe and 45. Presbyters a number-some Clergie I answer That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall for who can beleeve that more then halfe the Citie and world after a sort were Christians But he speaketh this and truely in some regard because they were so potent through the world that if â—hey would have made head they might have troubled happily their perâ—ecutors Or else â—he might sâ—y they were halfe of them Christians not because there were so many members of the Church â—ut because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause and were it as safe as otherwise would not sticke to â—urne to them But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet having prayers exhortations and ministering all kindes of censures If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time it will make little for Diocesan Churches Touching Cornelius we answer It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries Cornelius keeping the Catherall Church and being sole Bishop of them but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church For first the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie in which regard he is said Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae Neither was his Church as ample as the Province which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently reacheth Secondly we say that these Parochiall churches were to tâ—e mother church as chappels of ease are to these churches in metrocomiis they had communion with the moâ—her church going to the same for Sacraments and heâ—ring the Word and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them Porsome of them were not suâ—h as had liberty of Baptizing and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church Now to answer further it is beyond 200. yeares for which our defence is taken For there is reason why people which had beene held togeâ—her for 200. yeares as a Congregatâ—on might now fifty yeares after be exceedingly encreased The Ecclesiasticall story noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius Neiâ—her must we thinke that an Emperour as Philippus favouring the faith did not bring on multitudes to the like profession Secondly weâ— say there is nothing in this of Cornâ—lius which may not well stand that the Church of Rome though now much increased did not keepe together as one Church For the whole people are said to have prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop who had ordeyned Novaetus and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Novaeâ—us his pertinacie From hence that none of the numerous Clergie nor yet of the people very great and innumerable could turne him or recall him which argueth that the Church was not so aboâ—ndant but that all the members of it had union and communion for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another And I would faine know whether the seven Deacons seven Subdeacons two and forty Acolouthes whether those exorcistes Lâ—ctors Porters about two and fifty are so many as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twenty thousand Surely the time might well require them when many were to be sent forth to doe some part of ministery more privately Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters to vilifying of them as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons There were sixâ—y in the church of Sâ—phia for the helpe of the Liturgie True it is the Congregation could not but be exceeding great and might well be called in a manner innumerable though it were but of a twenty thousand people But because of that which is reported touching division by Evaristus Hyginus Dionisius and Marcellinus though there is no authenticke authour for it neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement Let it be yeelded that thâ—re were some Parochiall divisions they were not many and within the Citie and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church Concerning the objection from the Churches of Belgia or the low Countries we deny the proposition for we cannot reason thus If many Masters and distinct formeâ— of Schollers in one freeâ— Schoole be but one Schoole then many Masters and company of Schollers severed in many Schooles are but one Schoole Secondly they have communion in the community of their Teachers though not in the same individuall word tended by them But it is one thing when sheepe feed together in one common Pasture though â—hey bite not on the same individuall grasse Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe-gates Not to urge that in the Sacraments and Discipline they may communicate as one Congregation Touching the objection from Geneva I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who subject themselves to a Presbyterie as not having power of governing themselves within themselves as being under it by subordination these may in effect as well be subject to a Consistorie But thus the twenty foure Churches of Geneva doe not They or have power of governing themselves but for greater edification voluntarily confederate not to use nor exercise their power but with mutuall communication one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbytery Secondly it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein thâ—y shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherin themselves are members and Judges with others Thirdly say they had no power nor were
being of the Church was not to end But the functâ—oÌ„â—hâ—y had as being assigned to certaine Châ—rches is necessary to the beâ—ng of the Church Ergo c. 6. Finally that Antiquity 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. Dâ—â—nis Areopag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambâ—ose pâ—oeâ—n in 1. Tim. 1. Jerom. 1. Tim. 1.14 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5 Prïmas prefat in 1. Tim 1.1 Theod. praefat in Tit. Oâ—cum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories Greg. Lâ—b 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 prove it Fâ—â—st for Iameâ— we deny he was ordained bishop or that it can be proved from antiquity that he was more then other Apostles That which Eusebius reporteth is grounded on Clement whom wee know to be a forged magniâ—ier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should have ordeyned Peter Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to have ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignity which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus doe plainely 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 Bâ—shop properly so called The Fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict and formall propriety 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. Consi cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ulâ— Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops not in propriety 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 he Ancients called Bishops Object This is granted true touching others but not in this instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture aâ— well as all other Story that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Jerusalem Iohn the Baptist did still abide with them even to death Answer Though this be but very conjecturall yet it nothing bettereth the cause here It followeth not He did abide with this Church Ergo he was the proper Bishop of this Church For not abiding in one Church doth mâ—ke a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Chuâ—ch 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 Circumcâ—sion 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 sounded out of Iames that he did in this circumstance of residing more neerely expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other It is plaine Antiquity did hold them all Bishops and gather them so to be a Priari Postâ—riori the Author de quaest vet nov tâ—st cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis institiusâ—e pâ—â—usquam escenderet imponens manus Apostolis ordinavit eos in Episcopus 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 bee noted faith hee thaâ— Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops for they did not make Bishops onely but Presbyters also Now wee must conster the ancient as taking them onely eminently and virtually to have been Bishops or else wee must judge them to have been of this minde That the Apostles had both as extraordinarie 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 Doctor Downam himselfe confuteth as Popish and not without reason though while hee 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 bee hiffed forth as a most dangerous assertion But to make Iames and so any of them have both these offices in proprietie might make us doubt Ergo. The assumption 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 assuâ—ption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infallibly as hee was formally the ordinary bishop of Jerusalem 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 hee taught them as an ordinarie bishop and did write his Epistle so then certainly it might erre If he did not teach them so then did hee not that hee was ordained to neither was hee properly an ordinary Pastor but taught as an extraordinarie 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 plaine none 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 ordinary person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner bee called to doe this but at least the exercise of the other is suspended Thirdly that which is to no end is not to bee thought to bee ordained of God But to give one an ordinarie authority whereby to doe this or that in a Church who had a higher and more excellent power of office
Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been teaâ—med by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised nor had and therefore could not bee succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters thaâ— 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 tyranny where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him hee having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee imployed I thought it necessary to send Spaâ—brâ—dit us to you Secondly hee doth imply that Epaphraditus had not returned to them but that hee sent him and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might bee dispatched to them Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle as their ordinary 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 probable when he is â—â—lled 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 â—eâ—dfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve should be used of those sent civilie 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 Jâ—sus 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 Chrysostâ—me there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were 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 themselves and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from church to church for the edification of them For the instance of Archipus 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 presillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogisme tending to prove this assertion denyed we answer first to the propoâ—ition by distinguishing the Episcopall authority which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Proposition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to have 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 have and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to have and exercise in that manner and formallity which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Evangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Evangelist to exercise all that power â—hey did exercise as Evangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth 〈◊〉 Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crâ—te which himselfe present in person might not and would not have done If wee should reason then thus Hee who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to have beene bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation Hee who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop hee was Bishop but not â—ee who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner at doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee deny the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Evangelists ordinary Pastors have 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 Councells have 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 very duties of Bishops bee doth take them to have 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 therefore presuppose them bishops because thâ—se are duties of Evangelists agreeing to bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the wâ—ord 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 not that Paul doth purpose the very duties of bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly we deny him to purpose 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 directive and corrective over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvâ— uni useuiusque Ecclesiae iure the Apostles did not otherwise For thougâ— Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting and framinâ— of othâ—rs Secondly because they were in degree and dignity abovâ— all other ordinarâ— governours of the Church which their Consâ—â— like preheminencye was sufficient why they should be written alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to inform not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesâ— Bishops thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Eâ—â— The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothâ—â—â— written to any persons can informe Diocesan bishops unlesse 〈◊〉 persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same ordâ—â— For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apâ—stolique
continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as â—usebius reporteth Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certaine place and a calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would have debased Timothy and Titus that Paul did not put upon them But to have 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 Object The assumption it denyed it was no abasement For before they were but Presbyters and afterward by imposition of hands were made bishops why should they receive imposition of hands and a new ordination if they did not receive an ordinary calling we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands I answer This deny all with all whereon it is builded 〈◊〉 grosse For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour is to abase them But the Evangelists 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 Evangelists power of reaching and governing was illimited Ergo. The assumption proved Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle there an Evangelist might doe that which belonged to him But that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation Ergo. Secondly every Minister by how much he doth more approximate to the highest by so much he is hâ—gher But the companions coadjutors of the Apostles were neerer then ordinary Pastors Ergo. Who are next the King in his Kingdome but those who are Regis Comites The Evangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes. 4. That the Evangelists in an ambulatory course spreading the Gospell were above any bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certaine Church Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weake conceite For every Prsbyter properly so called was constituted in a certaine Church to doe the worke of the Lord in a certaine Church But Evangelists 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 Timothy 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 gave 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 Phillip could noâ— and could they enter one into an extraordinary office Answ. 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 precatory 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 have power Neither is it certaine that Phillip could not have imposed hands and given the Holy Ghost For though he could he might choose in wisedome for their greater confirmation and edification to let that be done by persons more eminent Finally imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinary office For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vocation from God As the calling of Evangelists though extraordinary was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets Secondly men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruitfull exercise of their immediate and extraordinary callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours as Paul and Barnabas were Howsoever it is plaine that Timothy by impâ—sition 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 he is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist Ergo that calling he was ordained to That worke which exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop was not put upon an ordinary bishop But Titus his worke did so for it was to plant Presbyters Towne by Towne through a Nation Ergo. For the ordinary plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame exceedeth the calling of an ordinary 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 beene a bishop he is no warrant for ordinary bishops but for Primates whose authority did reach through whole Ilands Nay if the Doctors rule out of Theodorâ—t were good it would serve for a bishop of the plurality cut For it is said he placed Presbyters city by city or Towne by Towne who are in name onely bishops but not that he placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it He therefore was the sole bishop of them the rest were but Presbyters such as had the name not the office and government of Bishops Finally were it granted that they were ordinary bishops and written to doe the things that bishops doe yet would it not be a ground for their majority of power in matter sacramentall and jurisdiction as is above excepted The fifth Argument The Ministers which the Church hâ—d 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 singularity of preheminence during life and in majority of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others and these not instituted by generall Councells Ergo The proposition is plaine both by Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. Epist. 118. and by Terâ—ul Constat id ob Apostolis traditum quod apuâ— 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 it plaine for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently and from the beginning as the Councell of Nice testâ—fieth much more bishops For Dioces in bishops must bee before thâ—m they rising of combination of Cities and Dioces And the councell of Ephesus testâ—fieth the government of those bishops of Cyprus to have been ever from the beginning according to the custome of old received Yea that the attempt of the bishop of Antioch was against the Canons of the Apostles Againe Cyprian doth testifie that long before his time bâ—shops wâ—re placed in all Provinces and Cities besides the sâ—ccâ—ssion
succeed each other but they chose out of their presbyteries men of best desert Now to Heraclas and Donysius there were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria as Eusebius and Ierom both affirme Wherefore briefly seeing no such universall custome can be proved all the godly â—athers never conspired to abolish Christs institution Secondly could a custome have prevailed with all of them whom we have to Constantines time yet it might enter and steale upon them through humane frailty as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faâ—thfull Martyrs the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued Thirdly say they had wittingly and wittingly done it through the world they had not conspired because they might have 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 judgement that if it were but an Apostolicall institution as Apostolicall is contradistinguished to divine they might change it But if the Apostles did enact this order as Legats and Embassadours of Christ then is it not theirs but Christs owne institution What an Embassadour speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates dâ—d 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 Châ—ist As for those proofes that Bishops have beene throughout all Châ—rches from the beginning they are weake For first the Councell of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simpliciter but secundum quid in order hâ—pply to thâ—t time wherein the custome began which was better knowne to them then to us the phrase is so used Act. 15.8 in respect of some things which had not continued many yeares They cannot meane the Apostles times for then Metropolitans should have actually beene from the Apostles time Secondly 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 tâ—e former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascâ—ibe this thâ—ng onely to ancient custome no lesse thâ—n that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the auâ—hoâ—ity of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquity 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 authâ—rity of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops odained in cities not universâ—liter as if thâ—re were no city but had some Secondâ—y hee speaketh of Bishâ—ps who had their Chuâ—ches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common delâ—berations They had no Dâ—ocesan Churches nâ—r were bishops who had majority of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae apâ—ior quam pugnae Râ—me can recite their successors But because it hath hâ—d bishops Erâ—o Oecumenicall bâ—shops is no consequence All who are named bâ—shops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sense we conâ—rovert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weâ—ke For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondâ—y 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 being there respectively not absolutely used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for hee doth not use those words in propireâ—y 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 jure 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 having singularitie of preheminence and power above others are amongst them as the Superintendents in Germany 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 Presiâ—ents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissâ—lved their prerogative ceaseâ—h 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 necessary that while the Apostles lived there should bee such Ministers as had preheminence and majority of power above others much more after their departure But they thought it necessity and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostoliâ—ke men furnished with such power Ergo much more after their departure Answ. The assumption is denyed and formerly disproved for they appointed no such Apostolicke men with Episcopall 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 knowne 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 Jâ—rusalem Iames Simeon at Aâ—tioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Maâ—k Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The assumption is denyed 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 majority they were in Diotrophes sufficiently contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have beene ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and majority of rule But bishops have beene held in a higher order by all antiquity Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch Ministers are distinguished into three orders Ignatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys. Arcopâ—g de Coolest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fugâ— 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 Heraclâ—s and Dionysius the Presbyters did see
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there ought to be none Howsoâ—ver hee is to bee conceived as apposing practically the difference of honour dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiasticall institutâ—on What is this to us Deniall of superiority in regard of honor dignity joyned with schisme was condemned Ergo deniall of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule keeping the bond of love was condemned The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall then can it not conclude against us Ergo it is a truth that some Ministers may be above othersome in order honor and dignity But â—hâ—y understand not by order such an order onely as is distinct because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it which is not to other Though thâ—s argument therefore touch us not yet to speake a little further about it this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too severely neither our authors D. Whitakerus D. Reynolds Danaeus to be blamed who doe in some sort excuse him For bishops were growne such that many good persons were offended at them as the Audiani Yea it was so ordinary that Ierom distinguisheth schisme from heresie because the one conteined assertions against the faith the other served from the Church by reason of dissenting from Bishops See him on Tit. 3.10 Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian Epiphanius reporteth it but no other though writing of this subject and story of these times Sure it is Eustathius was a strong Arian whom Aerius did oppose Neither is it strange to bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion Are not we traduced as Donatists Anabaptists Puritanes As for this opinion thâ—y thought it rather schismaticall then hereticall therfore happily called it heresie because it included errour in their understanding which with schismaticall pertinacy was made heresie Neither is it like that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie nor Austin following him For thouâ—h Austine was aged yet he was so humble that hee saiâ—h Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri Neither was it prejudice to hâ—s worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe who in likelihood should know this matter also better As for his calling it heresie it is certaine he would not have this in rigour streined Fâ—r he doth protest in his preface unto that booke of heresie that none to his thought can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie Though thâ—refore he doubted not of this that Aâ—rius was in errour such as Catholickes should decline yet it doth not argue that hee thought this errour in rigour and former propriety to have beene heresie Thus much for this last Argument On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be serioâ—sly considered Argument 1. Those whom the Apostles placed as â—hiefe in their first constituting of Churches and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gave to the Churches they had none sâ—periour to them in the Châ—rches But they first placed Presâ—yâ—eâ—s feeâ—ing with the Word and governing and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches Ergo. The assumption is denied they did not place them as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those churches but placed them to teach and governe in fore interno with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction they give to Presbyters power of order power to teach minister sacraments and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted but kept the coercive power in their owne hands meaning when now by the Presbyters labour the churches were growne to a greater multitude meaning I say then to set over them some more eminent Pastors Apostolicall men to whom they would commit the power of government that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches and to these with their successours not to the Presbyters were the churches recommended All which is an audacious fiction without any warrant of Scripture or shew of good reason For it is confessed that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution as the Pastors and teachers of the Churches Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour they would have intimated somewhere this their intention but this they doe not yea the contrary purpose is by them declared For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ the Arch shepheard of them all Againe the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government There may be governours without pastorall power but not a Pastor without power of governing For the power of the Pedum or shepheards staffe doth intrinsecally follow the Pastorall office What likelihood is there that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith châ—ldren now begotten are to be nurtâ—red and kepâ— iâ— awe beseeming them If it be said every one sit for the office of a Teacher was not sit for a Governour I answer he that is fit to be a Pastor â—eaching and govâ—rning in foro interno is much more fit to be a Governour externally he who is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser It was a greater and more Apostolicall worke to labour conversion and bring the churches a handfull in tâ—e plantiâ—g as some thinke to become numbersome in people then it is to governe them being converted And it is absurd to thinke that those who were fit to gather a church and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings should not be fit to governe it but stand in need to have somâ— one sent who â—ight rule them and the churches they had collected Secondly these Presbyters were as themselves confesse qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost and chosen by speciall designation so that to impute insufficiency unto them is harsh and injurious to God as well as to man Finally by the twenty of the Acts and the first Epistle of Peter cha 5. it is plaine they doe in their last farewels commit the Churches unto the Presbyters not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to be sent who would supply their roomes which yet they would not have forgotten being a thing of so great consolation had it been intended by them Argument 2. Those who have the name and office of Bishopscommon to them they have no superiour Pastors over them but the Presbyters Pastorall have that name and office attributed to them For first they are said to governe in generall Secondly there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro
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 Ecclesiasticall Civill is either Lord-like and ruling or ministeriall and servile So Ecclesiasticall taken largely for all power subjectively in or objectively 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 therefore 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 our selves 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 authority 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 priâ—cipall a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ix merâ— alâ—erium obsequiâ— Conclus 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or quality inherent in the soule but a relative respect founded on this that I am called by God to this or that actuall administration in his Church For it is not a power simply whereby a man is made able to doe some supernatural act which he could not before in any manner performe but it is respectively said a power in as much as it doth inable him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully and ex officio with which before he might not intermeddle 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 with vertue and efficacy reach those effects and ends to which they are designed because they are proportioned to them and exceed not their activity but Ecclesiasticall power cannot thus concur to the end and effects for which it is ordained because they are such as the omnipotenty of God onely can produce asthe converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner to which no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall though instrumentary efficacy conduce any thing Conclus 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any which 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 he must withall put it in a mans power to take others and to impart with them power of teaching and governing so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone He that will have the end will have that without which the end cannot be attained If God would have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the world he 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 cure If I will have one keepe my flockes which goe in twenty sheepe-gates if I commit them to one I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under shepheards to him Thus if God give a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Parishionall Churches through a Diocesse he must needs together allow him this power of being a head of internall influence even a head virtually communicating with others part of pastorall power whether teaching or government Thus should none but Bishopâ— be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God all others should be immediately and formally servants to the bishop and doe every thing in the name of the bishop being immediately 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 â—tockes he is the masters servant to whom the master committeth the trust from whom he onely looketh to see it performed but those whom this shepheard taketh to himselfe for his aid they come under his dominion and are servants to him If it be said that God doth not thus make the bishop Pastor but that he wil likewise that there be parish Pastors under him and helps of government To this I answer If God will have them then either after his owne deâ—ignement or else leaving it to the bishops arbitrement if he leave it to the bishops arbitrement then the objection before is in force God will looke for the cure from him onely he shal take according to his judgment such as may helpe him If God will have them after his owne 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 seene through nature that inferiour things receive influence from the superiour But they misconceive the matter they had onely a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apoâ—tleship The Pastorall power of Evangelists or of ordinary Paâ—tours 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 full power of a steward but not the power of all other officers as Clark of the kitchin Bâ—tler Chamberlaine c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house his Church If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall câ—re 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 be in degree of dignity above another For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another or in the same kinde 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 Evangelistâ— and Apostles Thus the power of ordinary Pastors was not so univerâ—all as the Apostles even as in the orders of servants domesticall some are implied about lesser some about greater and more honorable subjects Coâ—cl 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of â—â—â—â—ctive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order oâ— Ministery
right of suâ—â—rage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oâ—cumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instructiâ—n of bishops received from their Churches And Aâ—hanasius yet a Deacon is read to have beene at the Counsell of Nice and to have had right of suffrage in it Finally the Presbyteries did a long time execute jointly all actions of Church government as is before declared Other arguments we shall touch in answer of theâ—e which have beene objected Now to come to the conclusioâ—s let this be first Conclus 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singular persons so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other This I speake in regard of Apostles and Evangelists whose power in many things could not have concurrance of particular Churches which in the former question is sufficiently declared Conclus 2. That ordinary power and the execution therof was not committed to any singular governors whereof there was to be one onely in each Church This is against the Jesuits who make account the most of them that as all civill power of government is given to Kings to bee 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. Ordinary power with the execution thereof was not given to the community 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 Melanâ—thon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have beene Tertullians errour for in his bookâ— de pâ—dicitia he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power but the church for her honor did dispose it as we see The proposition of a pollitick body and naturall deceived them while thâ—y will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omnisimile for then should it bee the same with the â—nâ—logaâ—um 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 eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the community or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannnot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the community 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 Therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole community which are the Queene of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly but to have persons who in regard of his relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in natuâ—â—ll bodies the power of seeing is first immediately 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 person all beleever for whose good it servâ—th more properly thâ—n for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so deriâ—ed to the Priestâ—s but immediaâ—ly from Christ feared in Aaron and his sonnes Oâ—ject Yea they were given the church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ. I but this is not enough that power may be said 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 intâ—itu hominâ— as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the church For as all are said not to have beene Apstoles so not to hâ—ve beene Doctors But if the power of ordinary teachiâ—g had been given to every beleever all should have beene 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 community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus â— Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbytery of the church If any fâ—â—e 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 community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to bee executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellency 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 joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot bee otherwise dealt wiâ—h without open dishonour 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 Chuâ—ch 〈◊〉 committed to sâ—me principall member And are deny the second part of the next Syllogisme proving this parâ— denyed For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church Which is so farre from absurdity that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacrâ—d Doe we not see in Parliament a representative 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 Mat. 18.17 may be put for one chiefe Governour The proposition is denyed If that Peter one Governour may be in type and figure the Church to whâ—m the jurisdiction is premised then the Church receiving and execucing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the church typified by Peter is properly and really a church not figuratively and improperly for then Peter should have beene a figure or type of a type or figurative church The figure therefore and type being of the church which is properly taken and the church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Matth. 18.17 the church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratively and improperly a church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the church Matth. 18. Ergo that church Matth. 18. is not a virtuall church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastour and people by mutuall love which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocent the third that the Bishop was counted the church or this dreame of a virtuall church once imagined The Clerkes of the church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carry the name of the church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up above generall councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall churches As for a Kingdome I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratively but the church typified by Peter must needs be a church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power whereby the whole Kingdome is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Coriâ—th who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I have 〈◊〉 or jâ—dged leaving nothing to the Church but ouâ— of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith Foâ— this 〈◊〉 I have writtâ—â— to you that I may proove whether you will in all things 〈◊〉 obedient What Argumentâ— are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated hee leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing hee leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to give sentence The truth is the Apostle might have judged him to be excommunicate and an Evangelist if present might have judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles have and the same man should bee excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans. Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante Without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as shee cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example shee is provoked Yes where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him hee should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had beene just and the peoples favour had beene unjust Ionathan had beene under condemnation but execution had beene prevented by the peoples heâ—dstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans. As though one may not exercise power of government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superior Touching the place in the Thessaloniâ—ns those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greeke Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to bee avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Pauls excommunicating 〈◊〉 and Alexaâ—der It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but aâ— he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his 〈◊〉 â— Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbytery joyned 1 Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath beene sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a University having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authority of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his owne order this is the fittest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeeres expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this deprivation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessityof one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by joynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular
governour Truely that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestive is true It is unlikely that God will be present with one inspiring him with his spirit and not be present with many who are in his name and with his warrant assembled As for those comparisons they hold not in all they hold in that which the Consull doth in calling the assembly propounding things c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Senators nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate To the fift argument to the proposition by distinction if they have all power both of ministeriall application and instituting others out of vertue and authority then Pastours derive But this is denyed She hath no power but of Ministery and no plenitude but so farre as they in their owne persons can discharge It presupposeth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not But to let the proposition passe because of some derivation it is true If she have but all power of Ministeriall application then Bishops 〈◊〉 fâ—om 〈◊〉 But â—hey doe not We say they doe And whereâ—â— it i◠〈◊〉 thâ—â— which the Church neâ—er had she cannot conve◠〈…〉 which the Church never had she cannot virtually convey it but she may aâ— ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving iâ— Nothing can give that which it hath not either formally or virtually unlesse it give it as an instrument to one who hath it A man not having a penny of his owne may give aâ— hundred pounds if the King make him his Almoner A Steward may give all offices in his masters house as ministerially exâ—cuting his masters pleasure Thus the Church deriveth as taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church This answereth to the last suggestion For if the Church did virtually and out of power make an officer it is true as we see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth But if she doe it in Steward-like manner ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house then is not he so taken in to doe in his name but in his masters name As a Butler taken in by a servant doth execute his office not in master Stewards name but in his masters who onely out of power did confer it on him The last objection I answer That the particular Church may depose their Bishop What member soever in the Church is the offending person may be complained of to the Church The Church of Philippi if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop and so power of instituting him then of destituting also Instituere destituere ejusdem esâ—â—otestates But he is given the onely judge in Christs roome and though they elect him yet as you have said and truely they have not the power of thâ—t authority in them to which he is elected No more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the Imperiall dignity Answer We say therefore that as the Church hath onely ministeriall power of application that is as they cannot out of power call a Pastour but onely call one whom Christ pointeth out and to whom Christ out of power giâ—eth the place of Pastour So she cannot censure or depose but onely ministerially executing the censure of Christ who will have such a one turned ouâ— or otherwise censured But the Bishop never was sole judge though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may be said so Christ instituted â— Presbytery in which all had equall power of judgement Cyprian Ep. 68. in the case of Besâ—â—â—des and Martialis doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy so of refusing unworthy He speaketh of an ordinary power as by choosing is manifest not extraordinary and in case of necessitie And Mr. Field maintaineth that Lâ—â—erius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church Unlesse they will say with some Schoolmen Sotâ— viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the generall Church with whom in his calling the Church Oecumenicall hath nothing to doe To that which is objected touching Fathers Pastors the similitudes hold not in all things Naturall parents are no wayes children nor in state of subjection to their children but spirituall fathers are so fathers that in some respect they are children to the whole Church So shepherds are no way sheepe but ministers are in regard of the whole Church Secondly Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds be they good or evill but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accordingly behave themselves Besides are not civill Kings Parents and Pastors of their people yet if they be not absolute Monarches it was never esteemed as absurd to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them If their owne Churches have no power over them it will be hard to shew wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches But Lord Bishops must take state on them and not subject themselves unto any triall but by their Peeres onely which is by a Councell of Bishopâ— FINIS