could a custome have prevailed with all of them whom we have to Constantines time yet it might enter and steale upon them through humaine frailtie as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faithfull Martyrs the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued Thirdly say they had wittingly and willingly done it through the world they had not cospired because they might haue deemed such power in the Church and themselves to doe nothing but what they might with Christs good liking for the edification of it How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause are at this day of this iudgement that if it were but an Apostolical institution as Apostolical is cōtradistinguished to divine they might change it But if the Apostles did enact this order as Legats and Embassadors of Christ then is it not theirs but Christs own institution What an Embassador speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates did not bearing the person of Legats but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours decree this then it is certaine Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Christ As for those proofes that Bishops have been throughout all Churches from the beginning they are weak For first the Councell of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simpliciter but secundum quid in order happily to that time wherein the custome began which was better known to them then to us the phrase is so used Act. 15.8 in respect of some things which had not continued many years They cannot meane the Apostles times for then Metropolitans should haue actuallie been from the Apostles time Secondlie the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus is likewise aequivocall for they have reference to the fathers of Nice or at least the decrees of the fathers who went before the Councell of Nice For those words being added definitiones Nicenae fidei seeme to explaine the former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascribe this thing onely to ancient custome no lesse then that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the authoritie of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquitie where sacred scriptures are called Canons of the Apostles Finally if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch As for the authoritie of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops ordained in cities not universaliter as if there were no citie but had some Secondly he speaketh of Bishops who had their Churches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common deliberations They had no Diocesan Churches nor were Bishops who had majoritie of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae aptior quam pugnae Rome can recite their successours But because it hath had Bishops Ergo Oecumenicall Bishops is no consequence All who are named Bishops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sence we controvert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weak For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondly we have shewed that the Councell of Nice doth not prove this that Bishops were every where from the beginning the phrase of from the beginning beeing there respectively not absolutely used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for he doth not use those words in proprietie but by way of allusion otherwise if hee did think the Apostle had published this decree when the first to the Corinths was written how can he cite testimonies long after written to prove that Bishops were not instituted in the Apostles time but that they were ordained by the Church iure Ecclesiastico when the time served for it The sixt Argument Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches such ministers are of Christs institution But ministers hauing singularitie of preheminence and power above others are amongst them as the Superintendents in Germanie Ergo. Answ The assumption is utterly denied For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops they are of the same degree with other ministers they are onely Presidents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissolved their prerogative ceaseth they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers they are subject to the Presbyteries Zepp lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended they returne to the care of their particular Churches The seventh Argument If it were necessarie that while the Apostles lived there should be such Ministers as had preheminence and maioritie of power above others much more after their departure But they thought it necessarie and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostolicke men furnished with such power Ergo much more after their departure Answ The assumption is denied and formerly disproved for they appointed no such Apostolick men with Episcopal power in which they should be succeeded The eighth Argument Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them were lawfull For they would not have held their peace had they known unlawfull Ministers to have crept into the Churches But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops as in Rome Linus Clemens at Ierusalem Iames Simeon at Antioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Mark Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The Assumption is denied for these Bishops were but Presbyters Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting governing with common consent of their Presbyteries If they were affecting our Bishops majoritie they were in Diotrophes sufficientlie contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have been ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and maioritie of rule But Bishops have been held in a higher order by all antiquitie Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch ministers are distinguished into three orders Jgnatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys Areopag de Coelest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fuga in persecutione de Baptismo Ignatius doth often testifie it No wonder when the scripture it selfe doth call one of these a step to another 1. Timoth. 3.13 Cyprian Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc Ephes Cap. 1.2.6 Yea the Councell of Chalcedon counteth it sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter This Hierome himselfe confirmeth saying That from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters did set a Bishop over them in higher degree Answer The Proposition is not true in regard of maioritie of rule For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches But to the Assumption wee answer by distinction An order is reputed higher either because intrinsecallie it hath a higher vertue or because it hath
themselues to a Bishop and Cathedrall Consistorie and so make one But the 24 Churches of Geneva and the territories belonging to it doe subject themselues to the government of one Presbyterie and so make one For so farre as two meete in a third they are one in it Ergo. The third principall Argument is from reason If Citie Churches onely and not the Churches of Villages and Countrie Townes had Bishops Presbyters and Deacons placed in them then were those Citie Churches Diocesan Churches But Citie Churches onely had these Ergo Citie Churches were Diocesan distinguished from Parishionall Churches The Assumption is proved first by Scripture Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Secondly this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Storie They who are given to labour the conversion of the Regions rather then tend those already 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 Apostles institution Ergo. For it is plaine in the practise of all ages from the first division that no Church but the mother Church had a Presbyterie 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 haue Bishops Presbyters in everie Parish then to haue a Maior and Aldermen such as we haue in London in every Town 2 If everie Parish had a Presbyter then had they power of ordination and furnishing themselues with a Minister when now they were destitute But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the Citie Ergo there was then a Diocesan Church having governement of others Presbyters could not ordeyne sede vacante though they did at first as in the Church of Alexandria Let any shew for 400 yeares a Parishionall Church with a Presbyterie in it Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan Churches allowing onely such Churches to be 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 assembly Politically that word being alone doth signifie such a Church as may to holy purposes ordinarily meete in one But the word Church which Christ and his Apostles did institute is used indefinitely 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 difference as equall one with the other Ergo it doth not know Provinciall Nationall or Diocesan Churches Let a reason be given why it should never speak in the singular number had they bene a singular Church Secondly let us come to examples the Churches the Apostles planted were such as might and did congregate First that of Hierusalem though there were in it toward 500 Synagogues yet the Christian Church was but one and such as did congregate into 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 ordinarie meeting as it is Act. 2.46 daily could not be a Panegericall meeting Againe if they might meet 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 40 yeares after they were not so great a multitude but that Pâ—lla like to the Zohar of Lot a little Towne could receiue them But more of this in the answer to the objection Secondly so the Church of Antiochia was but one church Act. 14.27 they are said to haue gathered the Church together Ob. That is the Ministers or representatiue Church Ans 1 For Ministers onely the Church is never used 2 By analogie Act. 11. Peter gave account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church which had sent the forth with prayer imposition of hands this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publicke service and worship of God 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of decrees 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 ver 26. 1. Cor. 11.17 ver 23. in uno eodem loco That whole church which was guiltie of a sinner uncast forth could not bee 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 flock that flock which Presbyters might jointly feed was but one They had no Diocesan Pastour 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 wholy meete with those who haue 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 flock 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 sister 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 numbersome to meete together often in one place Epist to the Ephesians and to the Philippians where the Bishop is let the people be gathered to him as where Christ is there is the whole host of heaven He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God which
this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might haue communion But what are all the 24 churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches Now to answer the reasons The first of them hath no part true the proposition is denyed For these churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall that is so conjoyned that they might and did meete in one Congregation The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes and the numbersome Clergie of some Cathedrall Churchâ—… but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser and congregations ampler and fuller and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth nor made so little as might not haue Presbyters and Deacons What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot bee had in every Town yet such a Towne as Cambridge may haue such a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge affoords and the meanest market Town may haue though not in degree yet in kinde like Governnours So is it in Presbyters and other Officers the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens not that a Bishop is ever to haue a like numbersome Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbersome that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance so wealthy that it can well maintaine them And beside because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiastical which the fathers had in their Presbyteries for the nursing of plants which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no what intended To come to the assumption But citie Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that S. Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to be more numbersome the assumption is false that Citie Churches onely had them For the Scripture saith they planted them Church by Church that is through every Church Then every Church had her Governours with in her selfe we must use as ample interpretations as may be Contrarily the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest we cannot without evidence receiue it in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est Ecclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference Parishionall Diocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now their interpretation beggeth every thing without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but three wayes divisim conjunctim and divisim and conjunction divisim one Presbyter in one another in another conjunctim diverse Presbyters in every Church neither of these will serue their turne the latter onely being true for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot bee governed it is sure it did giue of both kinds to every Church they planted Now they seeing some Churches in our times to haue many and some one conster it both waies Collectiue many Presbyters and Singularly one here and one there and because many Presbyters cannot be thus placed in our frame of Churches imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches But they will not seeme to speake without reason the Scripture say they placed Citie by Citie Presbyters and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie Suburbes and Countrey which Parishionall ones doe not But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a citie without occupying limits of citie suburbes and countrey and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church may they not be said to be placed in Cities Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds the case were other but the citie is not literally thus to be understood but metonymically for the Church in the Citie Neither was the church in the citie all within such bounds for the Saints of a place and Church of a place are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall historie it is true that in processe of time the Bishop onely had a company of Presbyters Before Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters Churches should so haue afterward bene divided that all should haue been alike for kind though in circumstantial excellencie some were before other What a grosse thing is it to imagine that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posteritie to imitate A fitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserue some cases in civill jurisdiction over them which the state of later Churches did expresse THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe or by his Apostles any ordinary Pastors as our Bishops having both precedencie of order and maioritie of power above others WEE will follow the same method First setting down the arguments for it with answers to them Secondly the arguments against it Thirdly lay downe conclusions The arguments for it are First taken from Scripture secondly from practise of the Churches thirdly from reason evincing the necessitie of it The first Argument Those whom the Holy Ghost instituted they are of Christs ordaining But the Holy Ghost is sayd to have placed Bishops Act 20. Ergo Bishops are of Christs ordeining Answer We deny the assumption viz. That those Presbytere of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches Yea D. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to haue had no Bishop who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome as he thinketh And others defending the Hierarchie who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops doe judge that these words belong not to Presbyters but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them to wit of Timothy Sosipater Tychicus who say they were three Bishops indeed but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company is quite besides the text The second Argument Such Pastors as the seven Angels Christ ordained But such were Diocesan Bishops Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminencie amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan Bishops
Cap. 4. Dyonis Arcepag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambrose proem in 1. Tim. 1. Ierom. 1. Tim. 1.14 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo Chrysostom in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5. Primas prefat in 1. Tim. 1.1 Theod. praefat in Tit. Oecum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is sayd in the book of histories Greg. Lib. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34. Answer We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme with all the instances brought to proue it First for Iames we deny he was ordained Bishop or that it can be proued from antiquitie that he was more then other Apostles That which Eusebius reporteth is grounded on Clement whom we know to be a forged magnifier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should haue ordeyned Peter Iohn and James the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to haue ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignitie which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus do plainly affirme Secondly as the ground is suspected so the phrase of the Fathers Calling him the Bishop of that Church doth not imply that he was a Bishop properly so called The fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict formall proprietie Ierom on the first to the Galathians and in his Epistle to Damasus affirmeth that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles So many fathers call Phillip an Apostle Clem. 5. Const cap. 7. Euseb lib. 3. cap. ult Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops not in proprietie of speech but because they did such things as Bishops doe and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them Thus Peter Paul Iohn Barnabas and all the rest are by the Ancients called Bishops Obj. This is granted true touching others but not in this instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture as well as all other Story that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Ierusalem he did still abide with them even to death Answere though this bee but very conjecturall yet it nothing bettereth the cause here It followeth not Hee did abide with this Church Ergo he was the proper Bishop of this Church For not abiding in one Church doth make a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Church secondly to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it thirdly to governe it with a power of jurisdiction limited onely to that Church But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumcision by his office as they should from all the world resort thither Secondly he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth Ergo not as an ordinary Bishop Thirdly as the rest in what Provinces soever they rested had not their jurisdiction diminished but had power occasionally as well where they were not as where they were so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more founded out of Iames that he did in this circumstance of residing more neerly expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other It is plaine Antiquitie did hold them all Bishops and gather them so to be a Priori Posteriori the Author de quaest vet nov test cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopos salvatorem Ecclesijs in◅ituisse priusquam ascenderet imponens manus Apostolis ordinavit eos in Episcopos Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could regularly doe Oecum cap. 22. in Act. It is to be noted sayth he that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops for they did not make Bishops onely but Presbyters also Now wee must conster the ancient as taking them onely eminentlie and virtuallie to have been bishops or els we must judge them to have been of this mind That the Apostles had both as extraordinary legats most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors with power of teaching and governing such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them which indeed D. Downam himselfe confuteth as Popish and not without reason though while he doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly himselfe doth confirme it not a little Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings First That which might make us doubt of all their teaching and writing is to be hissed forth as a most dangerous assertion But to make Iames so any of them haue both these offices in proprietie might make us doubt Ergo. The assumptiō proved thus That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour when they teach from one office as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infallible discerning when they teach from the other that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write But this opinion doth so Ergo. The proposition is for ought I see of necessarie truth the assumption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infalliblie as he was formally the ordinarie bishop of Ierusalem let us heare it if there were none may not I question whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour For if he taught them as an ordinary bishop and did write his Epistle so then certainly it might erre If he did not teach them so then did he not that he was ordained to neither was he properly an ordinarie Pastor but taught as an extraordinary Embassadour from Christ Secondly Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one but the one must expell the other were never by God conjoyned in one person But these doe so Ergo. The assumption is manifest Because it is plain non can be called to teach as a legat extraordinarie with infallible assistance and unlimited jurisdiction but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church teaching as an ordinarie person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner be called to doe this but at least the exercise of the other is suspended Thirdly that which is to no end is not to be thought to be ordained of God But to give one an ordinarie authoritie whereby to doe this or that in a Church who had a higher and more excellent power of office whereby to doe those same things in the same Church is to no end Ergo. Object But it will be denied that any other power of order or to teach and administer sacraments was given then that hee had as an Apostle but onely jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church Answer To this I reply first that if hee had no new
that which Christ gave them out of his power even the power of ordinary government They are bid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed as well by government as doctrine They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock What feare of tyrannie where there is no power of government But lay authorities aside consider the thing from the text it selfe First Paul seemeth but occasionallie to send him he having purposed to have sent Timothy who as yet could not bee employed I thought it necessarie to send Epaphroditus to you Secondly hee doth implie that Epaphroditus had not returned to them but that he sent him and that therefore he was not the ordinary Bishop of it It is like hee was but sent till Timothy might be dispatched to them Neither is it any thing probable he should be called an Apostle as their ordinarie and eminent Pastor In the Scriptures none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them Now this is undoubted the Philippians had sent him to Paul It is then most probabl when he is called their Apostle it is in regard he was sent by them which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words who hath ministred to me the things needfull which you sent by him Object But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelue should be used of those sent civily Not so for while the persons sending are signified they are sufficiently contradistinguished it being the Priviledge of the Apostles that they were the Apostles of Christ Iesus not simply that they were Apostles Secondly Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent For though Christ meane it of himselfe yet he implies it by a discourse a genere ad speciem Thirdly we see the like phrase 2. Cor. 8. the Apostles of the Churches For Chrysostome there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present That doth not hinder they were sent by Paul to the Churches therefore the Churches might not send them with their contributions Neither is this an argument that he was their Bishop because their Church sent him for they sent Apostles themselues and Evangelists also more ordinarily it being their office to goe from Church to Church for the edification of them For the instance of Archippus I finde it not urged Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus First we deny the Antecedent that they were instituted Bishops by Paul And in the first prosillogisme we deny the Assumption that the Epistles doe presuppose so much And to the prosillogism tending to proue this assertion denyed we answer first to the proposition by distinguishing the Episcopall authoritie which is considered both in regard of that which is materiall and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it The Propsition is true understanding it of authority in both these regards those who are presupposed to haue had authority Episcopall given them both for the substance of it and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary Bishop they are presupposed Bishops but this is denyed For they are presupposed to haue and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it as Apostles had also but not to haue and exercise in that manner and formallitie which doth agree to a Bishop but which doth agree to an Euangelist and therefore they are bidden to doe the worke of an Euangelist to exercise all that power they did exercise as Euangelists There is nothing that Paul writeth to Timothy to doe in Ephesus or to Titus Crete which himselfe present in person might not and would not haue done If we should reason then thus He who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches he is presupposed to haue been Bishop in them This proposition is not true but with limitation He who exercised Episcopall power after that formall manner which doth agree to the office of a Bishop he was Bishop but not he who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem modum viz. after such a manner as doth agree to an Apostle To the second maine proofe wee denie the proposition If patternes for Bishops then written to Bishops The reason is Apostles Euangelists ordinarie Pastors haue many things common in their administration Hence is it that the example of the one may be a patterne to another though they are not identically and formally of one calling Councels haue enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles as being patternes for them Vide Aug. De doctrin Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4. To the third reason Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the verie duties of Bishops hee doeth take them to haue beene Bishops The Proposition is not true without a double limitation If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped he doth not therfore presuppose them Bishops because these are duties of Euangelists agreeing to Bishops onely by usurpation Againe should he propose those duties which say they the word doth ascribe and appropriate to Bishops yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them it will not follow that he doth take them for Bishops nor that Paul doth propose the verie duties of Bishops both in substance and manner of performance Secondly wee deny him to propose for substance the duties of Bishops For hee doth not bid him ordaine as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers nor governe with power directiue and correctiue over others This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power Thirdly Timothie is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act when now churches were constituted but with concurrence of those churches salvo uniuscujusque Ecclesiae jure the Apostles did not otherwise For though Paul wrote to him alone that was because he was occupied not onely in Churches perfectly framed but also in the erecting framing of others Secondly because they were in degree and dignity aboue all other ordinary governours of the Church which their Consul-like preheminence was sufficient why they should be written to alone To the fourth reason Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Ergo The Proposition is not true because it presupposeth that nothing written to any persons can informe Diocesan Bishops unlesse the persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same order For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apostolique it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whatsoever Secondly we deny Diocesan Bishops are de jure successours As for the equivocal Catalogue which maketh all who are read Bishops to haue been Diocesan we shall speake of them hereafter The Bishops between Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedom Councell were not all of one cut and there are no
institute in the Churches which they had planted for their further building them up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo these were their successors most proper and immediate Thirdly these to whom now taking their farewels they resigned the Churches these were their successours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20 Peter neere death 1. Pet. 5.2 Ergo. Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more properly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath some power Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for First their power of teaching and ministring the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office but a Bishops or at least that a more rudimentall preaching belongs to a Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bishop which are both too absurd Secondly for government the Apostles did no more giue the power of government to one then to another Obj. This is denyed for the Apostles are said to haue kept the power of ordination and the coerciue power in their own hands to haue committed these in the end onely to Apostolique men as Timothy Titus who were their successors succeeding them in it Ans A notable fiction for it is most plain by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise haue provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men aboue others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinarie Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legare Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselues in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselues urged with this that the Apostles haue none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could haue a successour The other of Bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops National or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to haue other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we haue proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first in all that is spoken to the 72 the full dutie and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinarie power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinarie office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtful Thirdly it is not read that tney ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministerie of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselues could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinarie gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Euangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from Citie to Citie without limitation to Euangelize and after we reade of some as Phillip that he was an Euangelist the same is in Ecclesiasticall storie testified of some others Thus we Presbyters should succeed Euangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Euangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armachanus doth take these 72 to haue been ordinary disciples in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receiue a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is hee not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers whereof there may bee but one onely during life in a Church they are in sigularity of preheminence aboue others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothie one Titus one Archippus one Epaphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conc. Nice cap. 8. Conc. Calced cap. 4. Possidonius in vita Augustine Ierom. Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Theod. Oecumen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to bee the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to bee but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates with in the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divine institution Now the assumption is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to haue placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Act. 20. and that there were Bishops at Philippi True it is the Scripture doth not distinguish how manie of the one sort nor how many of the other because no doubt for the number of the Congregations a single Presbyter labouring in the Word or two the one coadjutor to the other might be placed Secondly it is testified by Epiphanius that ordinarilie all Cities but
Alexandria had two Thirdly Ierom on 1. Tim. 3. doth saie that now indeed there may be but one Bishop meaning Canonicallie making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique Fourthlie Austin did not know it was unlawfull Yea he did onelie in regard of the decree of Nice account it so Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contrary but as a point against Canon which might in some cases be dispensed with as the storie of Narcissus and Alexander and Liberius and Foelix doth more then manifest For though the people of Rome cried out one God one Christ one Bishop yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite wheras had it been a thing they had all thought to haue been against Christs institution they would not haue done Vide Soz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly Ieroms peerelesse power is nothing but Consul-like presidence aboue others for this he pleaded for writing against Iovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselues that schisme might be avoided Wherfore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense that the Bishop jure humano hath a singularity of preheminence before others as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onely Archbishop 13 Argument Those who had peerelesse power aboue others in ordination and jurisdiction they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others But the former is due to Bishops Vnlesse this singularitie of power were yeelded there would be as many schismes as Priests Ergo. The assumption proved Those who haue a peculiar power of ordination aboue others they are in preheminence and power before others But Bishops haue Ergo they are in c. The assumption proved That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent but in the Apostles and after in Timothy and Titus and their successours that is a peculiar of Bishops But ordination was not in the Presbyters c. Ergo. The assumption proved That which these were sent to doe Presbyters had not power to doe It was therefore in them and such as succeeded them the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete Againe the Scriptures Councels Fathers speake of the ordeyner as one Ergo it was the peculiar right of the Bishop and the Bishop onely Hee onely by Canon was punishable for irregularitie in ordination And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fathers by ordination as tho Presbyters doth sonnes by Baptisme And Ierom doth except ordination as the Bishops peculiar wherein hee is most unequall to them Answer I answer the Proposition of the first Sillogisme by distinction Those who haue peerelesse power in regard of the simple right to ordeine viz. in regard of exercising the act and sole performing the rite of it those who haue a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others haue they are aboue others in degree Againe peerelesse power in a Bishop over Presbyters may be said in comparison to them distributiuely or collectiuely considered Hee that hath peerelesse power given him which no one of the other hath is not presently of a greater degree nor hath not majoritie of rule amongst others as a Consul in the Senate But if he haue a peerelesse power such as they all collectiuely considered cannot controule then the Proposition is true but the Assumption will then be found to halt To the proofe of the assumption The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing it selfe not to ministring the rite and executing the act which may be reserved for honour sake to one by those who otherwise haue equall power with him That Bishops haue this power in order the thing it selfe agreeing to them Viproprii officii not by commission from others we deny The assumption is wholly denyed As for the proofe of it First we that deny that Euangelists had not power to ordeyne as well as Apostles Secondly that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they Euery one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination The Euangelists power did not derogate from the Apostles the Presbyters from neither of them But power of imposing hands solitarily whereas yet Churches were not constituted this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Euangelists whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of churches Secondly the assumption is false in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands contrarie to that in Timothie The grace given thee by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Thirdly it is false in presupposing others then Presbyters to haue been Timothy and Titus their successors To the proofe of this assumption The proposition is not true For it might be convenient that the same thing should be done by Euangelists and by ordinary Pastors each concurring in their severall orders to the same service of Christ the Lord. Secondly I answer to the assumption That Presbyters were to bee placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters or where there were as yet none In the first Churches they are bid ordaine if any need further but salvo jure Ecclesia not without the concurrence of others In the latter Churches which were to be constituted they may be conceived sa Evangelists with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands Wee hold Apostles might doe it Evangelists might and the Presbyteries also Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was deceased did ordaine the following For the Canon of three Bishops and Metropolitans added by the Nicene Councell was not knowne yet Neverthelesse it grew timely to be restrained to Bishops the performing I meane of the outward rite and signe but onely by Canon as Consignation was also for which there is as ancient testimonies as this that it was appropriat to the Bish We grant therfore that antiquitie doth sometime speak of the ordainer as one In the Churches of Affrica one did not lay on hands yet in some other churches the rite was by one administred And it is to be noted by the way that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters but to the number of Three or many Bishops required in the ordination of a Bishop They might therfore by their canons be punishable because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to thē This is all that Epiphanius or Ieroms excepta ordinatione can prove But these two conclusions we would see proved out of Scriptures and Fathers First that ordination is an action of power of order a power sacramental which a Presbyter hath not Secondly that by vertue of this power the Bishop doth ordaine and not by Ecclesiasticall right or commission from the Church Certainlie the act of promoting a minister of the Church is rather an act of iurisdiction then order As it belongeth to policie and government to call new Magistrates where they are wanting Obiect
kinglie majoritie of rule keeping the bond of loue was condemned The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall then can it not conclude against us Ergo it is a truth that some Ministers may be aboue othersome in order honor and dignity But they understand not by order such an order onely as is distinct because some degree of dignitie is appropriate to it which is not to other Though this argument therefore touch us not yet to speake a little further about it this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too severely neither our authors D. Whitakerus D. Reinolds Danaeus to be blamed who doe in some sort excuse him For Bishops were grown such that many good persons were offended at them as the Audiani Yea it was so ordinarie that Ierome distinguisheth schisme from heresie because the one conteined assertions against the faith the other severed from the Church by reason of dissenting from Bishops See him on Tit. 3.10 Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian Epiphanius reporteth it but no other though writing of this subject and storie of these time Sure it is Eustathius was a strong Arian whom Aerius did oppose Neither is it strange for Bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion Are not we traduced as Donatists Anabaptists Puritanes As for his opinion they thought it rather schismatical then hereticall therfore happily called it heresie because it included errour in their understanding which with schismaticall pertinacie was made heresie Neither is it likely that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie nor Austin following him For though Austine was aged yet he was so humble that hee saith Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri Neither was it prejudice to his worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe who in likelyhood should know this matter also better As for his calling it heresie it is certaine he would not haue this in rigour streined For he doth protest in his preface unto that book of heresies that none to his thought can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie Though therefore he doubted not of this that Aerius was in errour such as all Catholickes should decline yet it doth not argue that he thought this errour in rigour and formall propriety to haue been heresie Thus much for this last Argument On the contrarie side I propound these Arguments following to be seriously considered Argument 1. Those whom the Apostles placed as chiefe in their first constituting of Churches and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gaue to the Churches they had none superiour to them in the Churches But they first placed Presbyters feeding with the Word and governing and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches Ergo. The assumption is denied they did not place them as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those Churches but placed them to teach and governe in fore interno with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction they gaue to Presbyters power of order power to teach minister sacraments and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted but kept the coerciue power in their own hands meaning when now by the Presbyters labour the Churches were grown to a greater multitude meaning I say then to set over them some more eminent Pastors Apostolicall men to whom they would commit the power of government that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches and to these with their successours not to the Presbyters were the Churches recommended All which is an audacious fiction without any warrant of Scripture or shew of good reason For it is confessed that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution as the Pastors and Teachers of the Churches Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour they would haue intimated somewhere this their intention but this they doe not yea the contrary purpose is by them declared For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ the Arch-shepheard of them all Againe the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government There may be governours without pastorall power but not a Pastor without power of governing For the power of the Pedum or shepheards staffe doth intrinsecally follow the Pastorall office What likelyhood is there that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith children now begotten are to be nurtured and kept in awe beseeming them If it be said every one fit for the office of a Teacher was not fit for a Governour I answer hee that is fit to be a Pastor teaching and governing in foro interno is much more fit to be a Governour externally hee vvho is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser It vvas a greater and more Apostolicall vvorke to labour conversion and bring the Churches a handfull in the planting as some thinke to become numbersome in people then it is to govern them being converted And it is absurd to think that those who were fit to gather a Church and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings should not be fit to governe it but stand in need to haue some one sent who might rule them and the Churches they had collected Secondly these Presbyters vvere as themthemselues confesse qualified vvith the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost and chosen by speciall designation so that to impute insufficiencie unto them is harsh and injurious to God as well as to man Finally by the twentie of the Acts and the first Epistle of Peter ch 5. it is plaine they doe in their last farewels commit the Churches unto the Presbyters not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to bee sent vvho should supply their roomes vvhich yet they would not haue forgotten being a thing of so great consolation had it been intended by them Argument 2. Those vvho haue the name and office of Bishops common to them they haue no superiour Pastors over them But the Presbyters Pastorall haue that name and office attributed to them For first they are sayd to governe in generall Secondly there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Act. 15. power of excommunication which is manifest to haue been in the Church of Corinth when it had no Bishop power of ordination 1. Tim. 4. If any say that this their power was but by commission in them and that they were subordinate to the
ordained some to be helps and assistants to othersome It is sayd that God hath ordained powers helps governours 1. Cor. 12.8 and were not the Euangelists assistants to the Apostles doing that to which they directed them To this I answer that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons and such as ministred to the infirme ones As for Euangelists they were companions and assistants to the Apostles but it was in order to the work of God in their hands which they were to serue not in order to their persons as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferioritie Obserue how Paul speaketh of them 2. Cor. 8.23 Titus was his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his work and fellow souldier 1. Thess 3.2 Timothie was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2. Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministerie The truth is this was servitus non personalis sed realis the Euangelists did serue the work the Apostles had in hand without being servants to their persons When brickelayers worke some mixe lime and make mortar some beare up tile and mortar some sit on the house and there lay that which is brought them These are all fellow servants yet the one doth serve to set forward the work of the other But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles wholly in exercise of their calling I answer as Christ gaue some to be Euangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them Hee did not therefore wholly leaue them to the direction of any There is a double direction one potestativa which is made from majoritie of rule ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other socialis such as one servant having fit knowledge of his maisters will and ripe experience may giue to another The latter kinde of direction it was not the former by which the Euangelists were directed Which though commonly Paul used yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords hither and thither as may bee gathered 2. Cor. 8.16.17 and 2.7.14.15 The fift Argument That which the Apostles had not over Prophets Evangelists Presbyters nor Deacons themselves that power which the Church hath not over any member the Bishop hath not over other ministers But they had not over any inferior officers any majoritie of directive or corrective power neither hath the Church it selfe any such power Ergo. The assumption is proved For majoritie of directive and corrective power is a Lord-like and Regall power now there is no such power in the Church or in the Apostles or in any but onely in that one Lord all other power being but a declarative and executive ministerie to signifie and execute what Christ out of majoritie of power would have signified and put in execution The sixth Argument That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation never was of Christs institution But Bishops Maioritie of power in regard of order and jurisdiction doth so Ergo. That which maketh the Bishop a head as doth influere derive the power of externall government to other his assistents that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation But to claime the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church doth so for he must needs substitute helpers to him because it is more then by himselfe he can performe But this is it which maketh Antichrist he doth take upon him to bee head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of external government and the Bishop doth no lesse in his Diocesan Church that which he usurpeth differing in degree onely and extension not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth If it bee said that his power is Antichristian because it is universall it is not so For were the power lawfull the universalitie could not make it Antichristian The Apostles had an universalitie of authoritie yet no Antichrists because it did not make them heads deriving to others from their fulnesse it was not prince-like majoritie of power but steward like and ministeriall onely If one doe usurpe a kingly power in Kent onelie he were an Anti-king to our soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Scotland and Ireland There is but one Lord and manie ministrations Neither doth this make the Popes power papall because it is not under a Synod for the best of the Papists hold and it is the most common tenent that he is subject to an oecumenicall Councell Secondlie though he be subject yet that doth not hinder but bee may usurpe a kinglie government for a King may haue a kinglie power and yet confesse himselfe accountable to all his people collectively considered Neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church because one may manage it and the Popes unlawfull because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church for then all the power the Pope doth challenge is not per se but per accidens unlawfull by reason of mans unsufficiencie who cannot weild so great a matter The seventh Argument Those ministers who are made by one patent in the same words have equall authoritie but all ministers of the word are made by the same patent in the same words Receiue the holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive c. Ergo. The proposition is denied because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken These words spoken to Apostles they gave them larger power then to a Bishop and so spoken to a Presbyter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop Answer If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastorall feeding with the word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then wee would grant the exception but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assistent but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists who were among themselves equall in degree Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power then another so no Pastor or Teacher but must receive the same power as who are among themselves of the same degree Secondlie were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bishop hath as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde which the Apostles had though not so universall but contracted to particular churches Now to come unto some conclusions or assertions which may lend light unto the deciding of this question Conclus 1. Let this be the first No minister of the word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church Power is naturall or morall Morall is Civill or Ecclesiastical Civill is either Lord-like and ruling or ministeriall and servile So Ecclesiasticall taken largelie for all power subjectivelie in or objectiuelie about the Church is either Lord-like
base regardlessnesse of pietie and 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 supplyed by other honest men though they were conformable but with absolute authoritie at length forbad it alledging that Puritanes were made by that lecture whereas 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 worke By this one instance of which kind I would there were not a hundred in our land it may easily appeare to the understanding Reader that there is as much agreement betwixt our Bishops in their managing of Religion except some two or three which went out of their elements when they ventered on those places and those powerfull Preachers who haue bene the chiefe meanes of revealing Gods arme unto salvation as there is betwixt the light which commeth down from heaven and that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit But we need not seeke for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchie from this opposition look but at the fruits of it where it hath all fulnesse of consent as in Cathedrall Pallaces or Parishes of Bishops and Archbishops residence such as Lambeth is where all their canons are in force and haue their full sway without contradiction nay come neerer unto them and take a view of their families even to them that wayt in their chambers and see what godlinesse there is to be found Haue there not more of God and his Kingdome appeared in some one Congregation of those Ministers which they haue 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 haue passed by with others And among the rest by Gods providence hee vvas directed to these Ecclesiasticall Controversies which concerne our Diocesan state in England wherein as in all other questions which he dealt in he hath shewed such distinct and pearcing understanding together with evidence of truth as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light He might in deed have chosen other particular corruptions to have vvritten on if it had bene his purpose either to haue taught men vvhat they daily see and feele or to haue laboured about the branches and leaue the root untouched But it vvas no delight unto him for to proue that vvhich no man doubted of as that the common course and practise of our Prelates their courts their urging of subscriptions with humane superstitious ceremonies are presumptuous insolencies against God and his Church or preposterously to beginne at the end of the streame for to cleanse the vvater He chose rather to search the fountaine of all that foulnesse vvhervvith our Churches are soiled vvhich he judged to be found in the constitutions here in this Treatise examined And if these fevv questions be vvell considered it vvill appeare that a multitude of pernicious abuses doe depend on those positions vvhich in them are confuted One fundamentall abuse in our Ecclesiasticall oppression is in the disposing of charges or placing of Ministers over Congregations It is called usually bestovving of Benefices or Livings in an earthy phrase vvhich savoureth of the base corruption commonly practised For Congregations ought not to be bestovved 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 Benefices are bestowed ordinarily by the Patron whether Popish prophane or religious all is one and the Bishop without any regard of the peoples call or consent so as no lawfull mariage is made no servant placed against all Scripture Councels and ancient examples Whereby it commeth ordinarily to passe that Lawyers must determine of Ministers callings after long suits and great charges as if Congregations and Farmes 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 spight and hatred with them as many law-suits doe too too plainely witnesse What is the reason Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches that ever were ordeined by Christ or recived any power and priviledges from him but as mans creatures and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him Another practise 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 spight of that Congregation to which hee was first and is still personally tied And after all this he may be a non-resident abiding or preaching at none of his many livings Nay he may chop and change sell and buy like a marchant so he doe 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 officers and offices and therfore no man is bound further in this kinde then mens Lawes canons customes and injunctions doe 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 money into their purses for performance also of which service to them the Church-wardens upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many other of the same kinde how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Baines heere sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church
Bishops for even since those contentions wherein some said I am Pauls others I am Apollos they were set up by generall decree which could not be made but by the Apostles themselues And in Psal 44. he maketh David to prophesie 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 suis quique locis ex more quodam introduxerunt Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on wednesday and Saturday fasting in some fashion before Easter ceremonies in Baptising the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any Councel 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 were Oecumenicall Doctors but I see no reason for such a presumption 3 This doth presuppose that something may bee which is of Apostolicall authoritie which neither directly nor consequentlie is included in the word written For when there are some customes which haue been generall which yet cannot bee grounded in the word written it is necessarie by this proposition that some things may be in the Church having authoritie Apostolicall as being delivered by word unwritten For they cannot haue warrant from the 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 will make cleare Si constat id bonum quod prius id prius quod est ab initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would ask what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissimè creditur If they 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 Consuetudinem ex Apostolorum traditione venientem sicut multa non inveniuntur in literis eorum tamen quia custodiuntur per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsis tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what they say is contained in it If they yeeld he doth mean as he doth of unwritten tradition we hope they will not iustifie him in this we will take that libertie in him which himselfe doth in all others and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings Now count him in this to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelesly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the latitude of all traditions yet wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begun by Councels an argument of Divine and Apostolicall authoritie yet dealing against Donatists Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee sayth he will not use this argument because it was but humane and uncertaine ne videar humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certa documenta Wee answer to the assumption two things First it cannot bee proved that universally there were such Diocesan Bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot bee 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 bee like our Diocesan Bishops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaâ—istus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripartite story testifieth that till the time of Sozomen they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist lib. 1. cap. 19. Secondly those Bishops which had no more but one Deacon to helpe them in their ministerie toward their Churches they could not be Diocesan Bishops 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 towns could not have Diocesan Bishops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sozom. in his 7. book cap. 10. testifieth Ergo Diocesan Bishops were never so universally received Secondly Bishops came to bee common by a Councell sayth Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Decree passing through the world toto orbe decretum est sayth Ierom ad Evag. which is to be considered not of one Oecumenicall 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 interpretativè 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 aboue Presbyters magis consuetudine Ecclesiae 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 then 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 think that decretum est imported no more then that it was took 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 Ambrose his place is plain Prospiciente CoÌ„cilio he meaneth not a councel held by Apostles For he maketh this provision by CouÌ„cel to haue come in when now in Egypt Alexandria Presbyters according to the custome of that Church were not found fit to succeed each other but they chose out of their presbyteries men of best desert Now to Heraclas and Donysius ther were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria as Eusebius and Jerom both affirme Wherefore briefly seeing no such universall custome can be proved all the godly fathers never conspired to abolish Christs institution Secondly
person Secondlie the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdlie the gradation doth shew it First by thy selfe Then shew a witnes or two Then to the Church as the sinne increaseth the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured increaseth also If one say though the Church signifie one governour yet the gradation holdeth for to tell it to the governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twentie Wee grant that this is true and were the word Church taken here to note some eminent governour it might be brought in as a further degree though one onely were enforced But how can Peter be complainaint if Peter the Praeful onely be the iudge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthlie the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person was not any one but many Their rebuke upon which it is like hee repented was a rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoined for what ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven Sixtly if the church did not note an assembly how could he assure them from hence that God would do what they â—…ed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Vnlesse the Church meant were an assemblie this argument could not be so correspondent Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on But where the Church is binding or loosing there are some assembled in the name of Christ Ergo. Lastly the church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtuallie but an assemblie of Priests sitting together as iudges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose everie particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joynt authoritie joynt execution of a representative Church a Presbyterie of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practise of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to be exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinthians that power with the exercise of it was committed by Christ to many not to one But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many and to be performed by many assembled Ergo. The proposition is plaine For Paul would not have called for nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall other then Christ had ordained The assertion is denied by some but it is a plain truth by many invincible arguments For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast him forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si autem quis potestatem non habet quem scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondlie Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For he doth not call on them to restrain him him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdlie Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within those who were called brethren and lived otherwise Fourthly Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or mulct of many writing to them that they would not proceed 2. Cor. 2.6 Lastly Paul doth attribute power to them to forgive him and to receive him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as have no power to bind have no power to loose So it might be proved by the Church of the Thessalonians 2. Thess 3.14 If any man walk inorninatly note him that others may refraine him Noting being not a signification by letter which doth wrest the word against all copies and the current of al Greek interpreters but judicially to note him that all may avoyd him that is excomunicate him Finallie the churches of Asia as it is plain had power of government within themselves Argum. 3. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the Churches nor Evangelists but with concurrence of the Churches and Presbyteries that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour but by manie But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with cocurrence of the Presbyters of the Church Ergo much lesse may any ordinarie minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbyterie For that Persons must bee understood here is apparant by the like place when it is said by the laying on of my hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person and so here a Presbyterie Secondly to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicous and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy neuer received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers take it a company of Bishops For neither was that Canon of 3 Bishops and the Metropolitan or all the Bishops in a Province in the Apostles time neither were these who are now called Bishops then called Presbyters as they say but Apostles men that had received Apostolick grace Angels c. Finally it is very absurd to think of coÌ„panies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but hee placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from Bishops which is the grant of our adversaries Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence besides testimonie of Scripture Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbyterie with them Not because they could not alone haue infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of the keyes doing it ex officio and others from discretion and dutie of confession the truth Yea the Bishops called primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Presbyterie did not give them Whence have Bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the Bishop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are sayd to have ordained ministers As Consuls and Dictators are sayd to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Iesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters had right of suffrage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therfore in Oecumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instruction of