it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whâ—tsoever Secoâ—ly wee deny Diocesan bishops are de jure successours As for equivocall Catalogue which maketh all who are read bishops to have beene Diocesan we shall speake of them hereafter The bishops betweene Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedon Councell were not all of one cut and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations Therâ— is no more to prove Phillip of Gortina a Metropolitan then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria For what doth story relate but that Phillip was amongst other a bishop of those Churches which were in Crete There are many Churches in England a Minister of which Churches is such an one that is one Minister amongst others of those Churches To that of their residing there and dying in these Churches First the proposition is not necessary For as Iames might reside exercising an Apostolicall inspection in a particular Church so might these exercâ—se an Evangelicall function how long soever they resided Secondly the assumption will not bee found true for ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers For Timothy though he be exhorted to stay at Ephesus yet this doth not argue it that he was enjoyned ordinary residence For first it was a signe he was not bishop because Paul did exhort him for he would well have knowne he might not being their ordinary Pastor leave them further then the more important good of the Church should occasion 2. He is bid to stay there not finally but till the Apostle should come to him which though he might be delayed it is plaine he then intended So Titus is placed in Crete not to stay there and set downe his rest but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 further to set as it were and exedisie the fabricke which Paul had begun God gave Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not ever a correcting of any thing amisse but a setling every thing right by erecting the substance foreshadowed But say it were correcting it were but such a correction as one might performe in transitu with a little longer stay though not ordinary residence By Scripture the contrary is manifest For first it is not like that Timothy was placed bishop after Pauls being at Rome for when Paul saith he prayed him when now hee was going to Macedonia to stay at Ephesus he doth intimate that when hee left him they were there both together Secondly when he wished him to abide there hee had a meaning to come unto Timothy thâ—ther where he left him so as at least to call on him and see the Church But Paul after his parting from the Presbyters knew he should never see the Ephesians more Act. 20. If wee say he doth foretell it for likely so we may say that of wolves aâ—ising was and call all into question Neither is it likely but that teares would have broke his heart and made hâ—m yeeld in the pâ—remptories of his speech had not his soule beene divinely perswaded Thirdly he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Timothy to be their Bishop for he would not have omitted sue hâ—aâ— argument of consolation to hearts so heavy Not he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle Hee telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them or to send others Fourthly Timothy was with Paul while hee was in bonds at Rome as witnesse those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Câ—llâ—â—â—ins and Philippians yea Timothy was so with him as to bee imployed by him sent forth and returne to him which is manifest Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus yet he was not placed to be resident for in the end of the Epistle he doth bid Timothy come to him and bring Markâ— that they might minister to him Againe when hee did write the 2. Epistle Timothy was not Ephesus for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Priscilla and Onesiphorâ—â— Object But is like these were at Ephesus for there Paul left Aquila and Priscilla They came occasionally they did not fiâ—e there which Chrysostome also judgeth And the house of Onesiphorus Bernard taketh it was at Iconium in Lycaonia so that it is like he was in his native countrey at this time even Iconium Listra Derbe which happily is the cause why the Scholasticall story doth make him Bishop of Lystra because hither he was last senâ— He was so here as that the Apostle did but send him to see them for hee biddeth him come bâ—fore winter Besides there are many probalities he was not at Ephesus for he speaketh of it through the Epistle as a place now remote from him Thou knowest what Onesiphâ—rus did for mee at Ephesus not where now thou art I have sent Tychius to Ephesus not to thee to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent Finally after Paules death hee did not returne to Ephesus but by common consent went to Iohn the Apostle and very little before his death came to Ephesus if ever As for the Fathers therefore in this point if they testifie ordinary residence which they doe not wee have liberty to renounce them but they testifie onely that he remained in that Church because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make and he is thought to have suffered martyrdome there So for Titus when Paul sent him to Crete to doe that worke is uncertaine but this is certaine it was before his writing to the Corinths the second time and going to Rome This likewise that Paul was then in travelling and as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there for hee doth bid him to meete him at Nicopolis where he meant to be as it is likely but Titus comming did not meete him there but at length foâ—nd him in Macedonia whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians thanking God for his promptnesse even of his owne â—â—cord to be imployed amongst them 2 Cor. 8.16 which doth shew he had not beene made an ordinary bishop any where We find that he did accompany Paul at Rome 2 Tim. 4.10 and when Paul writ his second Epistle to Timothy he was in Dalâ—atia Whence Aquinaâ— doth thinke him to have beene bishop of that place Wherefore wee thinke him that will bee carried from such presumptions yea manifest arguments by Hegesippus Clemens and history grounded on them to be too much affected to so weake authors and wish not credit with him who counts him unworthy credit that will not sweare what such men depose Touching the proofe that followeth That either function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary or ordinary But their function as assigned to those Churchâ—s was not extraordinary We deny this assumption with the proofe of it That the function that these exercised as assigned to certaine Churches these two by name was necessary to the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
of bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their origâ—nall to have beene in thâ— Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall councell For long before the first generall councell we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Churches Yea Ierom himselfe is of opinion that no councell of after times but the Apostles themselves did ordaine bishops for even since those contentions wherein some said I am Pauls others I am Apollos they were set up by generall decree whâ—ch could not bee made but by the Apostles themselves And in Psal. 44. hee maketh David to prophecy of bishops who should be set up as the Apostles Successors Answer First we deny the proposition For first this doth presuppose such an assistance of Gods Spirit with the Church that she cannot generally take up any custome or opinion but what hath Apostolicall warrant whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Churches before any councell enacted it yet was no Apostolicall tradition Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc ut dies festi observentur sed homines ipsi suu quique lâ—cis ex more quodem introduxerant Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on Wednesday and Saturday fasting â—n some fashion before Eâ—ster ceremonies in baptising the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any councell established 2. It doth presuppose that the Church cannot generally conspire in taking up any custome if she be not led into it by some generall proponent as a generall representative councell or the Apostles who wert Oecumenicall Doctors but I see no reason for such a presumption 3. Thâ—â— doth presuppose that something may be which is of Aposâ—licall authâ—â—ity which neither directly nor consequently is included in thâ— woâ—â—d written For when there are some customes which have beene generall which yet canot be grounded in the word written it is necessary by this proposition that some things may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall as being delivered by word unwritten For they cannot have warrant from the Apostles but by word written or unwritten To the proofe we answer That of Tertullian maketh not to the purpose for hee speaketh of that which was in Churches Apostolicall as they were now planted by them which the sentence at large set downe wâ—ll make cleare Si cor stat id bonum quod pâ—ius id prius quod estaâ— initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariterutique constabil id â—sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would aâ—ke what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creâ—itur If thâ—y say his meaning is that such a thing cannot but in their writings be delivered they doe pervert his meaning as is apparent by that Cont. Don. lib. 2.27 Confuetudinem ex Apostoloâ—em traditions venâ—entem siâ—ut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum tamen quia custodiuntâ— per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsit tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what â—hey say is contained in it If thâ—y yeeld he doth meane as he doth of nowritten tradition we hope thâ—y will not justifie him in this we will take that liberty in him which himselfe doth in all others and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings Now count him in thâ—s to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelâ—sly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the lâ—titude of all traditions yâ—t wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begunne by Councells an argument of Divine and Apostolicall authority yet dealing against Donatists Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee saith he will not use this argument because it was but humane and uncertaine ne videâ—r humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certu documentâ— Wee answer to the assumption two things First it canot bee proved that unâ—versâ—lly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church and some Parochiall Churches Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters and that but one congregation they could not be like our Diocesan bâ—shops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaristus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripaâ—titâ— story testâ—fieth that till the time of Sozomeh they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly those Bâ—shops which had no more but one Deacon â—o helpe them in their ministery toward their Churches they could not be Dâ—ocesan Bâ—shops But such in many parts the Apostles planted as Epiphanius doth testifie Ergo. Thirdly such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes could not have Diocesan bâ—shops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sâ—zom in his 7. booke cap. 10. testifieth Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so universally received Secondly bishops came to be common by a Councell saith Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dâ—cree pâ—ssing through the world toto orbe decretum est saith Ierom ad Evag. which is to bee considered not of one Oecumeniall Councell but distributively in that singular Churches did in their Presbyteries decree and that so that one for the most part followed another in it This interpretative though not formalitèr is a generall decree But to thinke this was a decree of Pauls is too too absurd For besides that the Scripture would not have omitted a decree of such importance as tended to the alteration of and consummation of the frame of Churches begun through all the world How could Ierom if this decree were the Apostles conclude that bishops were above Presbyters magii consuetudine Ecclesia then Dominicae dispositionis veritate If the Doct. do except that custome is here put for Apostolicall institution let him put in one for the other and see how well it will become the sense Let Bishops know they are greater theâ— Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle then by the truth of Christs disposition Is it not fine that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites facing Christ their Lord And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thâ—nke that decretum est imported no more then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world Which is elegantly said to be a decree because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis the force of a decree But Ambâ—ose his place is plain Prospiciente Concilio he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles For he maketh this provision by councell to have come in when now in Egypt Alexandria Presbyters according to the custome of that Church were not found fit to