the Bishops and Presbyters First for the proposition it is not true for first of Aaron and his sonnes they were not orders different essentially in their power but onely in degree of dignitie wherein the high Priest was aboue others For every Priests power would haue reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest onely Besides when the high Priest was deceased or removed the other Priests did consecrate the successour as Sadock Finally the one had for substance the same consecration that the other neither had the high Priest any maiorite of directiue or correctiue power over others So the Apostles and 72 will not be found different in order and therefore those who resemble these cannot be concluded to be of divers orders For the Apostles and 72 differ no more then ordinary messengers who are imployed in a set course and extraordinary sent by occasion onely They were both messengers the Apostles habitu and abidingly the other in act onely and after a transitorie manner Againe had Aaron and his sonnes been divers orders differing essentially in the inward power of them yet is not the proposition true but with addition in this wise Those who are identically and formally that which Aaron and the Apostles were and that which his sonnes and the 72 were they differ in degree essentially not those who were this analogically by reason of some imperfect resemblance For things may be said to be those things wherewith they haue but imperfect similitude In this sense onely the proposition is true Now to come to the assumption First touching Aaron wee deny any Bishop is as Aaron by divine Institution or by perfect similitude answering to him But because Aaron was the first and high Priest others inferiour so it hath pleased the Church to imitate this pollicie and make the Bishop as it were Primum Presbyterum or Antistitem in primo ordine Presbyters in secundo Whence Bishops may be said to be that which Aaron was through the Churches ordination which she framed looking to this patterne of government which God himselfe had set out in the old Testament The fathers call them Aaron and his sonnes onely for some common analogie which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters and them and conceiue them to be so by humane accommodation not by divine institution But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministerie typified by them by Gods owne appointment this the fathers never thought Christs priesthood no mans was properly typified in Aaron So touching the other part of the assumption That Bishops and Presbyters are what Apostles and the 72 were The fathers many of them insist in this proportion that as the Apostles and 72 were teachers the one in a higher the other in an inferiour order so Bishops and Presbyters were by the Churches ordinance This is the fathers phrase to call them Apostles who in any manner resemble the Apostles to call them as Ambrose Prophets Euangelists Pastors Doctors who resemble these and come in some common analogie neerest them Moses and the 70 Seniors who in any sort resembled them Now the assumption granted in this sense maketh not against us For they might be said these if there were but diverse degrees of dignity amongst them though for power of order by Gods institution they were all one But some streyne it further and take it that Christ instituting those two orders did in so doing institute Bishops and Presbyters the one wherof succeeded the Apostles the other the 72 and that thus the Fathers take it To which I answer First in generall this analogie of Apostles and 72 is not generally affected by them all Ignatius ad Smyrnenses dicit Apostolis Presbyteros successisse Diaconos 72 discipulis Clem. lib. 2. Const cap. 30. saith That Bishops answer to God the Father Presbyters to Christ Deacons to the Apostles Ierom doth manifestly make Presbyters whom hee also calleth by name of Bishops in that Epistle where hee maintaineth the Presbyters dignity successours to the Apostles The like hath Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos prepositos that is ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum as Austin speaketh else it should bee all one with the former when hee maketh the Presbyter as well as the Bishop to be ordained in the Apostles Finally these Fathers who take the 72 to haue beene Apostles as well as the other could not imagine this proportion of diverse orders set up in them Secondly if Christ in these instituted those other it must bee one of these waies First hee did make these not onely Apostles but Bishops and so the 72 not onely his messengers for the time but Presbyters also Or secondly else hee did ordaine these as he did raine Manna noting and prefiguring as by a type a further thing which hee would worke viz. that he would institute Bishops and Presbyters for Teachers ordinary in his Church but both these are gatis spoken without any foundation or reason For the first we haue shewed that the Apostles could not bee Bishops ordinarily nor yet the calling of these seventie two which was to goe through all Cities Evangelizing stand with Presbyters Presbyters being given to Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there fixed Neither can the latter be true for then Christ should haue giuen a Sacrament when he ordained his Apostles and sent forth his 72. Secondly the type or the shadow is lesse then the thing typified the substance of it But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors Ergo. Thirdly I say that Christ did never ordaine that any should succeed the Apostles or the 72 in regard of their order There is a double succession in gradum or in Caput as the jurists distinguish In gradum eundem as when one brother dying another brother doth succeed him in the inheritance In caput as when one not of the same degree and line doth come after another as when a brother dying another doth inherite after him not a brother but a cosin to him Thus the Apostles haue no successors succeeding them in gradum but such onely as follow them being of other degrees and in another line as it were in which sort euery Pastor doth succeed them But then they are said to succeed them because they follow them and after a sort resemble them not because they hold the places which the Apostles did properly Apostolo in quantum est Apostolus non succeditur Legato quatenus est Legatus non succeditur Fourthly that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order succeed the Apostles no lesse fully then any other First they must needs succeed them who are spoken to in them whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes in the Supper in the commandement of teaching and baptizing Ergo Presbyters must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did
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
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