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
Downam avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be overlong to declare all the use which may bee made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prolixitie in the Preface If the Authour had lived to haue accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would haue left all so cleare that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observations are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITVTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsiue conclusions and answer the objections made against that part we take to be the truth Those who affirme the frame of Diocesan Churches vouch their Arguments partly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finally from the congruitie it hath with reason that so they should be continued The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders Citie by Citie They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a Citie with the Suburbs and region about it should make but one Church they ordeined a Diocesan Church But the Apostles who use these phrases as aequipollent To ordaine Presbyters in every Citie and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a Citie with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Diocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a Citie with the suburbes villages and countries about it could not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleere for these phrases are used as ad aequate and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed Cities subburbs and regions into one Church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitiue times and from Paternes in our owne times yea euen from such Churches is we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the Church of the Iewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which many particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common wealth and had all but one profession that may many Christian Churches now be upon the like grounds But they then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdom and had all but one profession were all one nationall Church Ergo upon like grounds many Churches with us in a Nation or Citie may be one Nationall or Diocesan Church Secondly the Church of Ierusalem in the New-testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head Church to all Christians in Iudea that was a Diocesan Church But this they did by the Church of Ierusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionally was no parishionall but Diocesan Church But that Church was such First by growing to 3000 then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to haue millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the Church of Ierusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocesan Church Thirdly the Church of Corinth is objected to haue bene a Metropolitan Church He who writing to the Church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that Church But this doth Paul 1. Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with preheminence before the rest of Achaia doth imply that the Church of Corinth was the Metropolitan Church to which all Achaia was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother Citie of all Macedonia the Church in that Citie must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan Church But Philipi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the Churches of Asia which are thus proved at least to haue bene Diocesan 1 Those seven Churches which conteyned all other Churches in Asia strictly taken whether in Citie or Countrey those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocesan Churches But those seven did conteine all other in Asia Ergo. 2 He who writing to all Churches in Asia writeth by name but to these seven he doth imply that all the rest were conteyned in these But Christ writing to the seven writeth to all Churches in Asia not to name that two of these were Metropolitan Cities viz. Philadelphia Pergamus seates Diocesan at least 3 He who maketh the singular Church he writeth to to be a multitude of Churches not one onely as the bodie is not one member onely he doth make that one Church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan Church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every Church which he had spoken to in singular doth speak of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath cares heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo Thus leaving Sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancient Churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should be a Parishionall Congregation 200 years after Christ For if the multitude of Christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proproportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further confirmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed Churches these proue a Diocesan Church That respect which many congregations distinct may haue now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unitie of the place is but extrinsicke to the unitie of the congregation But many distinct congregations gathered in one Citie Church may make we say one Church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in diverse places may make one Church It many Churches which may subject themselves to the govornment of one Presbyterie may so make one they may subject
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
termes and lay downe conclusions whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were constistuted First the word Church we understand here not figuratively taken Metonymically for the place Synced for Ministers administring ordinances but properly for a body politick standing of people to bee taught and governed and of teachers and governours Secondly it may be asked what is meant by a Diocesan church Ans Such a frame in which many Churches are vnited with one head church as partaking in holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe church for all the other within such or such a circuit These phrases of a Diocesse a Diocesan Bishop or Church are all since the time of Constantine yea the two last much later A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have been taken up in the Church from what time Bishops had Territories ample demaines and some degree of civill iurisdiction annexed to them For a Diocesse by the Lawyers is a circuit of provinces such as the Romans Praesidents had or active an administration of those Prouinces with jurisdiction L. unica c. nt omnes iudices And in the Canon law sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously dist 50. c. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory or Countrey circuit opposed to the Citie Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesame Ecclesiae cont tur c. 8. Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra-distinguished to Parishionall These had every one a Diocesse and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani these churches had a moyite of houses dwelling in neighbourhood that belonged to them but at length by a Synecdoche the whole Church was called a Diocesse though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called seeing the Diocesse is the meaner part by much in comparison of the Citie and should not give the denomination to the whole So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had been called Ecclesia civitatis matrix nutrix Cathedralis grew to be called Diocesan But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church with which all Churches in such a circuit hath reall union and communion in some sacred things Now a Diocesan Church may be put objective that is for a Church in which are ministers and ministerie for the good of the whole Diocesse though they should never assemble as the worship in the Church of Ierusalem was for al Iudea profited though absent Or it may be put formally for a body politicke a congregation of beleevers through a Diocesse with the ministers of the same having some reall union and communion in sacred things We deny any such Church A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally Materially as it is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other This God instituted not for it is accidentall to the Church may abesse and adesse a Church remaining one If a Parishionall Church in London should dwell as the Dutch doe one farre enough from the other while the same beleevers were united with the same governours the Church were not changed though the place were altered Secondly it is put formally for a multitude which doe in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate such Churches and such onely we say God erected Now for some conclusions what wee agree in then what severs us Conclus 1. Churches of Cities Provinces Kingdomes may bee called Diocesan Provinciall National Churches as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall yea haply not without warrant of Scripture As 1. Pet. 1.1 writing to all those dispersed Churches speaketh of them singularly as of one flock 1. Pet. 5.2 The reason is things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves but according to some respect of reason under which we may apprehend them Concl. 2. That there may be a reall Diocesan Nationall or head Church wherewith others should be bound to cōmunicate more solemnly in word sacraments and in some more reserved cases concerning their government This was done in the Church of Iudea Our men are to shie that feare to come to this proposition de posse I am sure our adversaries will grant us that our parishionall frame might have been so constituted Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church but by Gods institution No Ministers can take this honour but they must as Aaron be called to it When nothing in nature can have further degree of perfection then the authour of nature putteth into it how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiasticall depend on God Wee may reason from the Church of Iudea as a pari to prove That there cannot bee such a Church but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things which may make them one Church Thus there would not have been a Church Nationall of the Iewes but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship The men onely went up so the male onely were circumcised but the female representativelie went up in them Obiect It is enough if the communion be in government which all our opposites grant necessarie Answ This maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separibili then one Church governement being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaining a Church The first Churches of Bishops when now they were divided did keep all other who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called and the people also in some communion with the head Church for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither See decret dist 3. dist 38. 4 Conclus We agree in this that Churches were in their first planting either not actually Diocesan being one congregation without any other subordinate or if they had any yet were they imperfect wanting many parts or members of particular Churches which belonged to them That wherein we contradict one another is we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually but that all Churches were singular congregations equall independent each of other in regard of subjection Secondly we say were there a Diocesan granted yet will it not follow that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves but onely subject in some more common transcendent cases As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the Iewes as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church Parishionall for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church I answer not taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church it is but a part and member and hath not perfection no more then a parochiall Church hath compared with a Diocesan Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed To the first I answer to the proposition by distinction Those who
ordained that the Civitas and Vrbs people taken in regard of the whole multitude of the one and locall bounds of the other should make but one Church they did institute a Diocesan church But those who so instituted a Church in Citie suburbs Countrey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church Againe to the assumption But those who use Citie by Citie and Church by Church as equivalent which the Apostles doe they ordained that Citie suburbs and Countrey should make but one Church I answer by the like distinction They who use Citie by Citie people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds as equivalent with Church by Church they may bee sayd to have ordained that citie suburbs and teritories should make but one Church But thus the Apostles doe not use them as of equall signification For the Citie had a reason of an ample continent the Church of a thing contained These phrases are the one proper the other metonymicall and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other Hee placed Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest wee should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds it is sayd in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church by Church because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted out of the multitude and locall limits wherewith cities were bounded Secondly there is an adaequate acception of these phrases per accidens not because the citie and church was to make but one church but because the Christians by occasion of their number not being then too great were framed into one church or because by occasion there was yet but one church not because there was to be but one Now he who thus useth them promiscuously doth imply that one church was as yet constituted not that there was to bee but one through the circuit of citie suburbs and countrey Thus likewise it is easily answered to the proofe of the proposition For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted could not bee a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in citie suburbs and territories were actually converted was no more then might be ordered into one church and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same locall bounds To the second Argument and First to the objection from the Nationall church of the Iewes I answer denying the assumption That the Synagogues being many made one Church because they were all one kingdome one possession For thus there was one Occumenicall Church when the world was under one Emperour and of one profession It is accidentall to the unitie of a Church whether the kingdom be one or no. If Israell when God had divided the kingdome into two had gone up to Hierusalem and kept there communion in the worshipp of that Church they had still beene one Church though two Kingdomes If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have been in England so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church should bee one Church though many Kingdomes The truth is they were one Church because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worship which were in that one Church to which they all belonged The high Priest was their proper Priest hee made intercession for them blessed them they were not to offer any where but there If any think this cannot bee the cause why they were one Church under the government of one high Priest for then should Aaron have been as well as Melchisedeck a type of Christs kingly office I answer there is Priestly Prelacie and government as well as Princely They were under Aaron in the former regard in which hee was a shadow of Christ To the second instance of Hierusalem wee deny the proposition It might bee intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order and yet not bee a Nationall Church having power over others If it should have been a head having power accordingly as it was a mother Church it should have been head to all the world Secondly Wee deny the Assumption That the Apostles ever intended that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Iudea as it had been before under the High Priest That constitution was typicall and may better plead for an universall Christian Church then for a Nationall Secondly there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way Thirdly had this Divinitie been knowne the Fathers would not have suffered that it should have been made a Diocesan church and subjected to Caesarea To the Prosillogisme The Church which was so numbersome that it could not meet ordinarily could not bee a parishionall Church This was so Ergo c. To the proposition I answer That which was by inhabitants who had fixum domicilium so numbersome that it could not meet I grant it But so this was not by accident often many others were there in transitu Secondly nay wee read that they did meet ordinarily as is aboue said and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them as Irenaeus affirmeth l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam eam convenisse Luke affirmeth the same As for that of millions of beleevers it is certaine they were not fixed members of this Church For would Luke who reckoneth the growth of them to 5000. have concealed so notable accessions whereby they say they grew up to I know not how many thousands there is no likelihood Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned Iohn 2. or whether by occasion of the Passover or Pentecost or such like feast they were in transitu onely there for the present How ever it is there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church Nevertelesse say they were more then could fitly meet yet might they bee tollerated as in one Congregation The Apostles seeing such times to ensue wherein many of them should translate themselves and bee dispersed hither and thither God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to bee because it was Ecclesia surcularis many of whose branches were to bee transplanted in their time Yea had there been five thousand setled members we read of some ordinarie Auditories spoken to by ordinarie Pastors as great as Chrysostome on Math. 24. doth signifie to his esteeme they might be five thousand that then heard his voyce Touching the third instance As to the first reason The proposition is denyed for naming the rest of Achaia with them doth no more signifie the subiection of all Achaians then in the 1. Corinth 1.2 naming all Saints in every place doth signifie their subiection The second reason hath the sequell of the proposition denied for the contrary is rather true He who without any note of difference calleth the Church of
this union but because though they were intire Churches and had the power of Churches yet they needed this support in exercising of it and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might haue communion But what are all the 24 churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches Now to answer the reasons The first of them hath no part true the proposition is denyed For these churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall that is so conjoyned that they might and did meete in one Congregation The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Parishes and the numbersome Clergie of some Cathedrall Churchâ—… but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser and congregations ampler and fuller and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth nor made so little as might not haue Presbyters and Deacons What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot bee had in every Town yet such a Towne as Cambridge may haue such a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge affoords and the meanest market Town may haue though not in degree yet in kinde like Governnours So is it in Presbyters and other Officers the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens not that a Bishop is ever to haue a like numbersome Presbyterie but because the Church is so numbersome that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance so wealthy that it can well maintaine them And beside because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiastical which the fathers had in their Presbyteries for the nursing of plants which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no what intended To come to the assumption But citie Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons Answer First not to stand upon this that S. Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters but Presbyters onely and they say Bishops were given when the Presbyters had brought the Church to be more numbersome the assumption is false that Citie Churches onely had them For the Scripture saith they planted them Church by Church that is through every Church Then every Church had her Governours with in her selfe we must use as ample interpretations as may be Contrarily the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest we cannot without evidence receiue it in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est Ecclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference Parishionall Diocesan or Provinciall but onely a company orderly assembling not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now their interpretation beggeth every thing without any ground For when Presbyters may be taken but three wayes divisim conjunctim and divisim and conjunction divisim one Presbyter in one another in another conjunctim diverse Presbyters in every Church neither of these will serue their turne the latter onely being true for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot bee governed it is sure it did giue of both kinds to every Church they planted Now they seeing some Churches in our times to haue many and some one conster it both waies Collectiue many Presbyters and Singularly one here and one there and because many Presbyters cannot be thus placed in our frame of Churches imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches But they will not seeme to speake without reason the Scripture say they placed Citie by Citie Presbyters and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie Suburbes and Countrey which Parishionall ones doe not But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a citie without occupying limits of citie suburbes and countrey and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church may they not be said to be placed in Cities Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds the case were other but the citie is not literally thus to be understood but metonymically for the Church in the Citie Neither was the church in the citie all within such bounds for the Saints of a place and Church of a place are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall historie it is true that in processe of time the Bishop onely had a company of Presbyters Before Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters Churches should so haue afterward bene divided that all should haue been alike for kind though in circumstantial excellencie some were before other What a grosse thing is it to imagine that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posteritie to imitate A fitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies doe use to reserue some cases in civill jurisdiction over them which the state of later Churches did expresse THE SECOND QVESTION WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe or by his Apostles any ordinary Pastors as our Bishops having both precedencie of order and maioritie of power above others WEE will follow the same method First setting down the arguments for it with answers to them Secondly the arguments against it Thirdly lay downe conclusions The arguments for it are First taken from Scripture secondly from practise of the Churches thirdly from reason evincing the necessitie of it The first Argument Those whom the Holy Ghost instituted they are of Christs ordaining But the Holy Ghost is sayd to have placed Bishops Act 20. Ergo Bishops are of Christs ordeining Answer We deny the assumption viz. That those Presbytere of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches Yea D. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to haue had no Bishop who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome as he thinketh And others defending the Hierarchie who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops doe judge that these words belong not to Presbyters but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them to wit of Timothy Sosipater Tychicus who say they were three Bishops indeed but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company is quite besides the text The second Argument Such Pastors as the seven Angels Christ ordained But such were Diocesan Bishops Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminencie amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan Bishops
But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiasticall preheminencie and superioritie of power Ergo they were Diocesan Bishops The assumption is proved Those who were shadowed by seven singular Starres were seven singular persons But the Angels were so Ergo. Againe Those to whom onely Christ did write who onely bare the praise dispraise threatning in regard of what was in the Church amisse or otherwise they had Majoritie of power above others But these Angels are written to onely they are onely praised dispraised threatned Ergo. c. Answ 1. In the two first syllogismes the assumption is denyed Secondly in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the proposition is denied That they must needs be seven singular persons For seven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites whether singular or aggregative seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity a united multitude Thirdly the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed For though we should suppose singular persons written to yet a preheminencie in order and greater authoritie without majoritie of power is reason enough why they should be written to singularly and blamed or praised above other Thus the master of a Colledge though he have no negative voyce might be written to blamed for the misdemeanors of his colledg not that hee hath a power overruling all but because such is his dignitie that did he doe his endevour in dealing with and perswading others there is no disorder which he might not see redressed Fourthly againe the assumption may bee denyed That they are onely written to For though they are onely named yet the whole Churches are written to in them the supereminent member of the Church by a Synecdoche put for the whole Church For it was the custome in the Apostles times and long after that not any singular persons but the whole Churches were written unto as in Pauls Epistles is manifest and in many examples Ecclesiasticall And that this was done by Christ here the Epiphonemaes testifie Let every one heare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall instituon But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First they ordained Iames Bishop of Ierusalem presently after Christs ascention Ergo they ordained Bishops This is testified by Eusebius lib. 2. Histo cap. 1. out of Clement and Hegesippus yea that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time lib. 7. cap. 19. 32. This our own authour Ierom testifieth Catalog Script Epiph. ad haer 66. Chrysost in Act. 3. 33. Ambros in Galath 1.9 Dorotheus in Synopsis Aug. contra Cris lib. 2. cap. 37. the generall Councell of Const in Trull cap. 32. For though hee could not receive power of order yet they might give him power of jurisdiction and assigne him his Church So that though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might iustly be called the Bishop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had they for their Pastor Secondly those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters they were in order and maioritie of power before other But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had other called Bishops Chap. 1.14 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Theod. and Chrysost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thither Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when the Churches had to send any where they did usually intreat their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and Titus were instituted Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Crete Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus That which is presupposed in their Epistles is true But it is presupposed that they were Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches they are presupposed to have been ordained Bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authoritie given them to bee exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus be the paternes of the Episcopall function informing them and in them all Bishops then they were Bishops But they are so Ergo. 2 Againe whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches doth prescribe the very dutie of Bishops he doth presuppose them Bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a Bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governe with singularitie of preheminence and maioritie of power in comparison of other Now these are the things which they have in charge Tit. 1.5 1. Tim. 5.22 1. Tim. 1.3.11 2. Tim. 2.16 Ergo. 3 Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops those were written to Diocesan Bishops But these were so Ergo to Diocesan Bishops Now that Diocesan Bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did succeed them were their successours But Diocesan Bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Councell of Chalcedon And in Crete though no one is read to have succeeded yet there were Bishops Diocesan And we read of Philip Bishop of Gortina the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churches were were there Bishops But Timothy was bid abide here Titus to stay to correct all things and they lived and died here For Timothy it is testified by Hegisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom who so refuse to beleeve deserve themselues no beliefe Ergo they were there Bishops Againe Ierom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita morte Sanct. Antoninus par 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these doe depose that they lived and died there Further to prove them Bishops 5. Their function was Evangelisticall and extraordinarie or ordinarie not the first that was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and iurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessarie to the beeing of the Church was not to end But the function they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is necessarie to the beeing of the Church Ergo. c. 6 Finally that which Antiquitie testifieth agreeing with Scripture is true But they testifie that they were Bishops which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirme Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5.
churches read in Crete which were not Congregations There is no more to proue Phillip of Gortina a Metropolitan then to proue Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria For what doth storie 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 necessarie For as Iames might reside exercising an Apostolicall inspection in a particular Church so might these exercise an Euangelisticall function how long soever they resided Secondly the assumption will not be found true for ordinarie constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers For Timothie 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 haue known he might not being their ordinary Pastor leaue 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 plain 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 exedifie the fabricke which Paul had begunne God gaue Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not euer 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 whē now he 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 he had a meaning to come unto Timothy thither 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 wee may say that of wolues arising was and call all into question Neither is it likely but that teares would haue broke his heart and made him yeeld in the peremptories of his speech had not his soule been divinely perswaded Thirdly he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Timothy to be their Bishop for he would not haue omitted such an argument of consolation to hearts so heavie Nor he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle He telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them or to send others Fourthly Timothie was with Paul while he was in bonds at Rome as witnes those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Collossians and Philippians yea Timothy was so with him as to bee imployed by him sent forth and returne to him which is manifest Phillip 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 Marke that they might minister to him Againe when he did write the 2 Epistle Timothie was not Ephesus for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Pricilla and Onesiphorus Obj. But is like these were at Ephesus for their Paul left Aquila and Priscilla They came occasionally they did not fixe 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 natiue countrey at this time even Iconium Listra Derbe which happily is the cause why the Scholasticall storie doth make him Bishop of Lystra because hither he was last sent He was so here as that the Apostle did but send him to see them for hee biddeth him come before winter Besides there are many probabilities hee was not at Ephesus for he speaketh of it through the Epistle as a place now remote from him Thou knowest what Onesiphorus did for me at Ephesus not where now thou are I haue sent Tychius to Ephesus not to thee to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent Finally after Paules death he 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 therfore in this point if they testifie ordinarie residence which they doe not wee haue libertie to renounce them but they testifie onely that he remained in that Church because his stay was longer there then Euangelists did use to make and he is thought to haue 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 as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did meane to winter at Nicopolis When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there for he doth bid him to meet him at Nicopolis where he meant to be as it is likely but Titus comming did not meet him there but at length found him in Macedonia whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians thanking God for his promptnesse even of his own accord to be imployed amongst them 2. Cor. 8.16 which doth shew he had not been made an ordinarie 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 Dalmatia Whence Aquinas doth thinke him to haue been Bishop of that place Wherefore we thinke him that will be carried from such presumptions yea manifest arguments by Hegesippus Clemens and historie grounded on them to be too much affected to so weak 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 their function was Euangelisticall and extraordinarie or ordinarie But their function as assigned to those Churches was not extraordinary We deny this assumption with the proofe of it That the function that these exercised as assigned to certain Churches these two by name was necessary to the being of the Church The reason is because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner viz. as Euangelists and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner was not necessarie to perpetuate the being of the Church Assignation to churches to
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
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
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
doe the work of ordinarie Pastors is indeed necessarie not assignation to doe the worke of Euangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be taken What they speak so agreeing that it is virtually conteyned in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to be beleeved and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainly contradicted but yet no way included may be admitted fide humana if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it is in effect of light credulity A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declyning To the assumption we answer What doe not some ancient enough call Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while and in like sense a Primate and a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to haue been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in proprietie of speech all these were absurd Obj. I but they call him Bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Ans They call him Bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordeyne Deacons Presbyters For wheresoever they found this done and by whomsoever they did call them Bishops as I noted before from Oecumen The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these Bishops because they made longer stay in these Churches then Euangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishops in their time used to doe But that he was not an Euangelist and more then an ordinary Bishop they doe not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1. Tim. pag. 405. Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusqnam Episcopus etiamsi ad tempus in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit unde quidem vocant eum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinarie Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I haue shewed contrary to Scripture yea contrarie to that text which maketh him to haue done the worke of an Euangelist As for the shew from the Subscriptions we haue spoken sufficiently Now to shew that they were not properly Bishops First we haue shewed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Epistopall duties a while but were not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therfore not Bishops properly Secondly they who did the work of an Euangelist in all that they did did not perform formally the worke of a Bishop But these did so As is vouched of Timothy Doe the worke of an Euangelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Euangelist Bishop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Euangelist and the act of an ordinarie Pastor or Bishop cannot be formally one For when everie thing doth agere secundum quod actu est those things which are not the same formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Euangelist and the ordinarie Pastor or Bishops are not formally the same Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gaue now ascending by the work of the Ministerie to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet a Prophet from an Euangelist so an Euangelist from an ordinary Teacher Object But it may be said they were not distinct but that the superiour contained the inferiour and Apostles might be Euangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Answ That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently in as much as they could doe altiori tamen ratione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formallie the power of all other offices suites which the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Iustice of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospell but this maketh not an Euangelist no more then an Apostle but doth per accidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this cometh per accedens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Marke and Luke was not therefore Euangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should haue been Euangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowmed then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that we call them Euangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospels whom the Scriptures never call Euangelists These Euangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension but the first writer of the Gospell being an Apostle was at least eight yeares after Secondly they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles Thirdly they were such as by labour of ministerie common for the generall of it to all the other did gather Saints and build Christs Bodie Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministerie common to Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly giue to othersome and othersome those he did not giue conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gaue to some one to others another Else he must haue said he gaue the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Euangelists and Pastors Ergo. That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an Euangelist that Paul never annexed to an Euangelist But the Calling of a Bishop is such For a Bishop is tyed to a particular Church The Calling of an Euangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministerie to gather Saints and edifie Christs body without any limitation to any particular Church Ergo Paul never annexed the Calling of a Bishop to an Euangelist The Calling of an Euangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Euangelist But this doth difference them to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church Thus Phillip thus all those who were the Apostles helpers working the work of the Lord as they did were Euang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as Eusebius reporteth Euseb hist li. 5. cap. 9. Now a Calling wherby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certain place and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would haue debased Timothy and