power of order he could not be an ordinarie Bishop properlie and formally so called Secondly I say power of governing ordinarie was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come Obiect But it was not in vaine that by assignation hee should have right to reside in this Church as his Church Answer If by the mutuall agreement in which they were guided by the spirit it was thought meet that Iames should abide in Ierusalem there tending both the Church of the Iewes and the whole circumcision as they by occasion resorted thither then by vertue of his Apostleship hee had no lesse right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here then the other had right to doe the same in the Provinces through which they walked But they did think it meet that he should there tend that Church and with that Church all the Circumcision as they occasionally resorted thereto Ergo. For though hee was assigned to reside there yet his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Iewes Galath 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode as hee was an Apostolicke Pastor what did hee need assignation under any other title Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person viz. of an ordinary Pastor which he could not be who did receive no such power of order as ordinarie Pastors have Fourthly That calling which hee could not exercise without beeing much abased that hee never was ordained unto as a poynt of honour for him But hee could not exercise the calling of an ordinarie Bishop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authoritie and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinarie man liable to errour Ergo hee was neuer ordained to bee a Bishop properlie If it bee sacriledgee to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter what is it to bring an Apostle to the degree of a Bishop True it is hee might have been assigned to reside constantly in that Church without travelling and bee no whit abased but then he must keepe there as Pastor of it with Apostolicall authoritie caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Iewes which he might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did not need to goe forth as the rest for the Iewes from all parts come to him But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinarie teacher and governour without becomming many degrees lower then hee was For to live without going forth in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary pastor was much lesse honour then ro travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithynia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull privat place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour hither or thither Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the â—est but in having such an honorable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling As for that question who was their ordinarie Pastor it is easily answered Their Presbyters such as Linus or Clement in Rome such as Ephesus and other Churches had Iames was their Pastor also but with extraordinary authoritie What needed they an ordinarie Bishop which grew needfull as the favourers of the Hierarchie say to supply the absence of Apostles when now they were to decease What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the proposition For had some ordinarie Pastors been so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignitie in them above other wherefore unlesse this bee interserted it is unsound viz. Those ordinarie Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminencie which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the assumption is false altogether First that Epaphroditus was an ordinarie Pastor secondly that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church Obj. But the iudgment of Ierom Theodoret Chrysostom is that he was Answ the common judgement is that he was an egregious teacher of theirs but further then this many of the testimonies doe not depose Now so he might be for he was an Evangelist and one who had visited and laboured among them and therefore might be called their teacher yea an egregious teacher or Doctor of them Nay S. Ambrose doth plainly insinuate that hee was an Evangelist for he sayth hee was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where he maketh him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the transient exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the Philippians because hee was a good man not because he was their ordinarie Pastor Ieroms testimonie on this place doth not evince For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken and as appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Theod. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists are sayd to have been bishops which how true it is in the next argument shall bee discussed For even Theodoret doth take him to have been such an Apostolick person as Timothy and Titus were Now these were as truely called bishops as the Apostles themselves Neither is the rule of Theodoret to be admitted for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should be communicated then with ordinarie Pastors where now there was danger of confounding those eminent ministers of Christ with others and when now the Apostles were deceased that then it should cease to be ascribed to them Againe how shall we know that a bishop is to be placed in a citie that hee must be a person thus and thus according to Pauls Canons qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely under the name of Apostles Angels Thirdly antiquitie doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them But if they ever had been termed by the name of Apostles before this had been a debasing of them Neither is there reason why they should be called Apostles In jurisdiction Apostolical the Apostles were not succeeded Iurisdiction Episcopal they never exercised nor had and therefore could not be succeeded in it The Apostles gave to Presbyters
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
be avoided but that the Pastor should haue it because though everie Praesul or Praelatus be not a Pastor yet everie Pastor is Praelatus in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinarie Pastor Yea when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine it were ill with everie Church if he who is resident alwaies among them as their spirituall Phisition should not haue power in administring it Thirdly I say no Minister hath majoritie of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person In the application there is a Ministerie of the Church interposed but so that Christ onely is the cause with power not onely why Presbyters are in the Church but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place A Maister onely doth out of power take everie servant into his house so God in his God did those Aarons sonns with the Levites and Christ the 70 not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authoritie applie all power Ecclesiasticall to everie particular person his sole authoritie doth it though sometime as in ordinarie callings the ministerie of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when shee taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of governement as are in their Kingdom yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant they haue a Kingly jurisdiction in them Briefly God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiasticall unto the person sometime alone by himselfe as in the Apostles and then he doth it tam immediatione suppositi quam virtutis sometime the ministerie of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarilie directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Samuel to annoint Saul Or else ordinarily when God doth by his Writ and Spirit guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church which he doth partly by his written statutes and partly by his Spirit and thus he doth make the application onely immedatione virtutis not suppositi Ob. But yet Bishops haue the Churches the care of them wholly committed to them though therfore Ministers haue equall power to them yet they cannot without their leaue haue any place within their Churches and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an errour likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom hee doth not assigne a flock which hee may attend God calleth Ministers not to a facultie of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministeriall actions if any giue them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartularios judices who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinarie Iudges who are habitu tantum judices having none under them amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction Or as the university giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physick without any patients among whom hee may practise But Gods Ministerie is the calling of a man to an actuall administration Goe teach and the power of order is nothing by the way but a relatiue respect founded in this that I am called to such an actuall administration Now there cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied otherwise God should giue them a facultie of feeding and leaue them depending on others for sheep to feed God should make them but remote potentiall Ministers and the Bishop actuall Thirdly the Holy Ghost is said to haue set the Presbyters over their flock A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth giue him a power of doing something to his familie and never thinketh of taking servants further then the necessitie of his houshold doth require so is it with God in his Church which is his house fore the exigency of his people so require he doth not cal any to the function of Ministerie Again this is enough to ground the authoritie which Antichrist assumeth For some make his soveraignetie to stand onely in this not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction but that he giveth to all Pastors Bishops the moytie of sheep on whom this their power is exercised Christ having given him the care of all his sheep feed my sheep so Vasquez Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheep in a Diocesan flock to be his that he hath power to assigne the severall flocks under him he doth usurp an Antichristian authoritie Finally if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocesse Ministers then are under them in their Churches but as a curate is whom a Parson giveth leaue to help within his Church Yea they should loose their right in their Churches when the Bishop dyeth as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church whom he assisted is once departed To conclude they are not dependant one Minister I meane on another in the exercise and use of their calling A servant that hath any place doth know from his Maister what belongeth to it The Priests and Levites had set downe what belonged to their places as well as the high Priest what belonged to his Againe God hath described the Presbyters office as amply as any other A Legate dependeth on none for instructions but on him that sendeth him now everie Minister is an Embassadour of Christ By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministerie if his exercising of it did depend on man Then also should ministers mediatly only serue God in as much as they haue done this or that to which the Bishop did direct them Moreover should the Bishop bid him not preach at all preach rarely teach onely such and such things or come and liue from his charge he should not sin in obeying him But man cannot limit that power of ministerie which he cannot giue It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are aboue others whom they command as they will such as are called servi ordinarii or praepositi some are under others to doe this or that commanded by them commonly called servi vicarii but in the Church all servants serue their Maister Christ neither having any that they can command nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them But it may be objected that God hath