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
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
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
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
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
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