his Presbyteries concurrence excommunicate If he were as Moses yet hee would haue these as the seventie Againe Ierom doth write expreslie of all in generall Et nos senatum babemus coetum Presbyterorum sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quoquam licet sicut Romani habuerun senatum cujus consilio cuncta gerebantur Epiphanius saith Bishops governed Presbyters but it doth not follow that therfore they did it alone without concurrence of their com-Presbyters As for the fixed Presbyters the proofes are more unsufficient The Bishop supplyed them therefore they were under him For colleges supply Churches yet haue they no jurisdiction over them Secondly the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur Thirdly we distinguish majoritie of rule from some jurisdiction We grant the Bishop had such a jurisdiction as concerned the Church so farre as it was in societie with others such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province but this did stand with the Rectors power of jurisdiction within his own Church Fourthly though they had power by his ministeriall interposition yet this doth not proue them dependant on him For Bishops haue their power from others ordaining them to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches In case of delinquencie they were subject to the Bishop with the Presbyterie yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other Bishops did ratifie the sentence Thus in Cyprians judgement Bishops themselves delinquent turning wolves as Samosatenus Liberius c. are subiect to their Churches Presbyters to be deposed and relinquished by them As for those that were part of his Clerks it is true they were in greater measure subject to him absolutely in a manner for their direction but for his corrective power hee could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow Bishops do any thing The Bishop indeed is onely named many times but it is a common Synecdoche familiar to the fathers who put the primarie member of the Church for the representative Church as Augustine sayth Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclesiae gessisse See concil Sardicen c. 17. conc Carth. 4. c. 2.3 Tol. 4. c. 4. Socr. l. 1. 3. Soz. l. 1. c. 14. As for such examples as Alexanders it is strange that any will bring it when hee did it not without a Synod of many Bishops yea without his Clergie as sitting in judgement with him Chrysostoms fact fact is not to be iustified for it was altogether irregular savouring of the impetuous nature to which is he was inclined though in regard of his end and unworthinesse of his Presbyters it may be excused yet it is not to be imitated As for those headlesse Clerkes it maketh nothing for the Bishops maioritie of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them For first it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop a collegiat life together Eodem refectorio dormitorio utebantur Canonicè viventes ab Episcopo instruebantur Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a maister it is no wonder if they bee called headlesse who did belong to no Bishop Secondly say it were alike of all Presbyters which will never be proved for all Presbyters in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clerks say it were yee will it not follow that those who were under some were subject to his authoritie of rule For there is a head in regard of presidencie of order as well as of power Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe Bishop of their province and to associate themselves with him So Bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbishops as heads Priests therefore as well as Clerkes did live under some iurisdiction of the Bishops but such as did permit them coercive power in their owne Churches such as made the Bishop a head in regard of dignitie and not of any power vvhereby he might sway all at his pleasure Thirdlie if the Bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchie or tyrannie it is better bee without such heads then to have them as we are more happie in being withdrawen from the headship of the Bishop of Rome then if he still were head over us To the last insinuation proving that Bishops had the government of those Churches which presbyters had because neither presbyters alone had it nor with assistents I answer they had as well the power of government as of teaching and though they had not such assistants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church yet they might have some as a deacon or other person sufficient in such small Churches When the Apostles planted a Bishop and Deacon onely how did this Bishop excommunicate When the fathers of Africa did give a Bishop unto those now multiplied who had enioyed but a Presbyter what assistants did they give him what assistants had the Chorepisâ—opi who yet had government of their churches The fifteenth Argument That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie the contrarie of that is truth But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superioritie in one minister above others Ergo the contrarie is truth Answer To the proposition we denie that it must needs be presently true the contrarie wherof is generallie condemned for heresie As the representative catholick church may propound an errour so she may condemne a particular truth and yet remain a catholick church To the assumption we deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every deniall of superioritie but that onely which Aerius run into Now his opinion I take to have been this 1. He did with Ierom denie superioritie of anie kind as due by Christs ordinance for this opinion was never counted heresie it was Ieroms plainlie 2. He did not denie the fact that Bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration he could not be so mad If he had all that a Bishop had actuallie how could he have affected to be a Bishop as a further honour Denial of superioritie such as consisteth in a further power of order then a Presbyter hath and in a kinglie monarchical majoritie of rule this deniall is not here condemned for all the fathers may be broughs as witnesses against this superioritie in the Church What then was condemned in him A denial of all superioritie in one minister before another though it were but of honor and dignitie and secondlie the denying of this in schismaticall manner so as to forsake communion with the Church wherin it is For in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it seemeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there ought to be none Howsoever he is to be conceived as apposing practicallie the difference of honour dignitie which was in the Church by Ecclesiastical institution What is this to us Denial of superioritie ia regard of honor dignitie joined with schisme was condemned Ergo deniall of superioritie in power of order and
in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Friers in his booke called The Defence of Curates For when those Friers incroached upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinarius Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Deâ— ad illud ministerium explendum electa Which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the fore said Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church then that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authoritie with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgement furnished with chancellours officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devises Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainely that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein wee are like to the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christ an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist in deed they can give a shifting ansvver that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordeyners by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papist but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by vvhole authority our English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceiue the truth and certaintie of those records which I wisse they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flie to the Kings authoritie the King himselfe will forsake them and denie that hee taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Arch-bishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselues and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacie upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Arch-bishop Cannot receiue the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of sixe pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if he will hold his place against his conscience put back those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bitshop and his Officers they must hurrie up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hand not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to be railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those Canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselues for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who haue no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symonie as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchie which in the root of it is heere overthrowen by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and third Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set down for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis insparabilis Presbytero inquantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus a sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostoiâ— cuius etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alii Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum Haec nomina Presbyter Episcopus in primitiva Ecelesia fuerunt synomina quamvis a diversis proprietatibus eidem imposita fuerint Presbyter ab aetate nomen impositum est quasi senior Episcopus vero a dignitate ceu cura super alios quasi superintendens Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to recite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrones of our Hierarchie Ierome sayth ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimonie D.
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
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
Apostles in exercise of it being to reteine it onely untill such time as more eminent Pastors should be given I answer all this is spoken gratis without any foundation and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected The Presbyters so had this power that they did commit it to the Bishops as we shall shew after and therefore it must haue been in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinarie office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the Holy Ghost who onely had out of authoritie trusted them with it If the Apostles and they did concurre in doing one and the same thing they did it as inferiour to the Apostles and servants of a lower order not with any subjection to them as heads of derivation serving Christ their onely Lord no lesse immediately then the Apostles themselues Argument 3. That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors but in all other orders there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power aboue other No Apostle Prophet Euangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition bee denyed upon supposall of a different reason because that though paritie in a few extraordinarie Ministers might bee admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinarie Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therfore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest and other secondary ones so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be divided some being in the first and some in the second ranke To this I answer the paritie is the more dangerous by how much the places are supereminent Secondly though Pastors should be equall yet this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church some whereof should be in degree inferiour to other the governing Elders to the Pastors and the Deacons to them Thirdly if every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body should haue governours every way equall there were no feare of confusion seeing Aristocracie especially where God ordaineth it is a forme of government sufficient to preserue order But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it selfe Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled and to the civill Magistrate who in case of delinquencie hath directiue and correctiue power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity doth by tyrannie subject it As for the distinction of Priests we grant it but as man could not haue made that distinction had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament no more can we under the new Howbeit that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule as our Bishops now challenge Argument 4. If some be inferiour unto othersome in degree of power it must be in regard of their power to teach or their power to govern or in the application of this power to their persons or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe or finally in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on any other but Christ for any of these Ergo. The proposition standeth on a sufficient enumeration the assumption may be proved in the severall parts of it The former branch is thus cleared First the power we haue is the same essentially with theirs yea every way the same Secondly wee haue it as immediately from Christ as they I shew them both thus The power of order is the power which inableth us to preach and deliver the whole counsell of God and to minister all Sacraments sealing Gods covenant Now unlesse we will with the Papists say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office or that his power is a rudimentall limited power as to open the creed Lords prayer and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacramentall there being other sacraments of ordination and confirmation which we may not minister all which are grosse we must yeeld their power of order to be the same Yea were these sacraments properly they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath Ordination in doe this in remembrance of me confirmation in power to baptize The power being the same it is happily in one immediately and in the other by derivation from him Nothing lesse All grant that Christ doth immediately giue it even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth principally from him The Church did she giue this power might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order no sacrament no preaching The Pope doth not if we follow the common tenent callenge so much as to giue the power of order to any Bishop or Priest whatsoever If you say the Presbyter is ordained by the Bishop that is nothing so is the Bishop by other Bishops from whom notwithstanding he receiveth not this power We will take this as granted of all though the truth is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can haue none but what is derived to him from the Bishop who hath the fulnesse of it within his Diocesan Church But this is false and grounded on many false presumptions As first that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors for to make a Pastor and giue him no help against the Wolfe is to furnish him forth imperfectly Secondly it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church and so to others whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter exercitative to the representatiue Church that they might Aristocratically administer it Thirdly this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the Bishop and from him to be derived to other which maketh him a head of virtuall influence that in his Church which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all Bishops For his headship and spirituall soveraigntie standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in fore externo is committed to him Not to mention how Bishops while they were Bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the slower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicitie and infected with secular smoke then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters then their jurisdiction and consistorie did carie all the credite everie office in the Church being counted a dignitie as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth which haue civill authoritie in lesse or greater measure conjoyned The truth is it cannot be shewed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors or as they are Prelats in the Church it cannot