The diocesans tryall wherein all the sinnewes of Doctor Dovvnhams defence are brought into three heads, and orderly dissolved
Baynes, Paul, d. 1617., Ames, William, d. 1662.
Page  24

THE SECOND QVESTION, WHE∣THER CHRIST ORDAINED by himselfe, or by his Apostles, any ordinary Pastor, as our Bishops, having both precedency of order, and majority of power above others.

WEE will follow the same method: First, setting downe the arguments for it, with answers to them: Secondly, the arguments aginst it. Third∣ly, lay downe conclusions. The arguments for it are: First, taken from Scripture: secondly, from practise of the Churches: thirdly, from reason evincing the ne∣cessity of it.

The fist Argument.

Those whom the holy Ghost instituted, they are of Christs ordai∣ning. But the holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops, Acts 20. Er∣go, Bshops are of Christs ordaining.

Answer. We deny the assumption: viz. That those Presbyters 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, Doct. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have 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 the Presbyters of Ephesus, but are spoken in regard of others toge∣ther then present with them, to wit, of Timothy, Sosipater, Tychicus, who, Page  25 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 Bishop. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who were of singular preheminency amongst other Pastors, and had corrective pow∣er over all others in their Churches, they were Diocesan bishops. But the Angels were singular persons in every Church, having Ecclesisticall preheminence and superiority of power. Ego, they were Diocesan bi∣shops. 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 th Church amisse, or otherwise: they had Majority 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. Se∣condly, in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the prposition is denied, That they must needs be seven singular persons. For se∣ven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites, whether singular or ag∣gregative: 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 uni∣ted multitude. Thirdly, the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed. For though we should suppose singular per∣sons written to, yet a preheminency in order and greater authority, without majority of power, is reason enough why they should be writ∣ten to singularly, and blamed, or praised above other. Thus the Ma∣ster of a Colledge, though he have no negative voyce, might be writ∣ten to, and blamed for the misdemeanours of his Colledge, not that he hath a power over-ruling all: but because such is his dignity, that did he doe his endeavour in dealing with, and perswading others, there is no disorder which he might not see redressed. Fourthly, a∣gaine the assumption may be 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 Sy∣necdoche put for the whole Church. For it was the custome in the A∣postles 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 beare what the spirit speak∣eth to the Churches.

The third Argument.

Those whom the Apostles ordained, were of Apostolicall institu∣tion. Page  26 But they ordained Bishops. Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction.

First, thy ordained Iames Bishop of Jerusalem presently after Christs ascention. Ergo. they ordained Bishops. This is testified by Eusebius, lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Clment and Hegesippus: yea, that the Church he sate in was reserved to his time, lib. 7. cap. 19. & 32. This our owne author Ierom testifieth, Catalog. Script. Epiph. ad haer. 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. & 33. Ambos. in Galath. 1.9. Dorothus in Synopsis. Aug. contra Ces. 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 gve him power of jurisdiction, and as∣sige him his Church. So tht though he were an Apostle, yet ha∣ving a singular assignation, and staying here till death, he might just∣ly be called the Bshop, as indeed he was. If he were not the Pastor, whom had hey fo ther Pastor?

Secondly, those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters; they were in order and majority of power before other. But Epaphro∣ditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, though they had oher called Bishops. Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption; that he is so cal∣led as their eminent Pastor, is manifest by authorities. Ierom. in Phil. 2. Terd. and Chyost. on the same place. Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thiher. Yea this, that he was sent, did argue him there Bi∣shop: for when th Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops.

Thirdly, Archippus they instituted at Colosse. Ergo.

Fourthly, Timothy and itus 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 wre Bishops in these Churches. Er∣go. The assumption proved. Those whom the Epistles presup∣pose to have had Epsopall authority given them to bee exercised in those Churchs, thy are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there. But the Epistles presuppose them to have had E∣piscopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches. Ergo. The assumption proved. 1. If the Epistles written to Ti∣mothy and Titus, bee patternes of the Episcopall function, infor∣ming them, and in them all bishops, then they were bishops. But they are so. Ergo. 2 Againe, whosoever prescribing to Ti∣mothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches, doth prescribe the very dutie of bishops, hee doth presuppose them bi∣shops. But Paul doth so: For what is the office of a bishop be∣side teaching, but to ordaine and governe: and govern with in∣gularity Page  27 of preheminence, and majority 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 Dio∣cesan bshops. Now that Diocsan bishops were their successours, is proved. 1. Either they, or Presbyters, or Congregations. Not the latter. 2. Againe, Those who did suceed them were their successours. But Diocesan bishops did. Ergo. The assumption is manifest by au∣thorities. In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Counsell of Chalcedon. And in Crete, though no one is read to have succeeded, yet there were bishops Diocesan. And we read of Phillip bishop of Goria the Metropolis. 4. Those who were ordinarily resident, and lived and died at these Churhes, 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 Hgisippus, and Clement and Eusebius out of them, whom so refuse to believe, deserve temselves no beliefe. Ergo, they were there bishops. Againe, Jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita & morre Sanct. Antonius 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 Evan∣gelicall and extraordinary, or ordinary; not the first, ht was to end. For their function as assigned to these Churches, and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction, was not to end. Ergo. As∣sumption proved. That function which was necess••y to the being of the Church, was not to end. But the functhy had as being assigned to certaine Chrches, is necessary to the beng of the Church, Ergo, &c. 6. Finally, that Antiquity 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. Cap. 4. D••∣nis. Areopag. Doroth. in Synopsi. Ambose poen. in 1. Tim. 1. Jerom. 1. Tim. 1.14. 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo. Chrysostom. in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5 Prïmas. prefat. in 1. Tim, 1.1. Theod. praefat. in Tit. Ocum. Sedulius. 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories. Greg. Lb. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34.

Answer.

We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme, with all the in∣stances brought to prove it.

F••st, for Iame, we deny he was ordained bishop, or that it can be proved from antiquity, that he was more then other Apostles. That which Eusebius reporteth, is grounded on Clement, whom wee know to be a forged magniier of Romish orders, and in this story he doth Page  28 seeme to imply, that Christ should have ordeyned Peter, Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops. Seeing he maketh these to have ordey∣ned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dig∣nity, which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus doe plaine∣ly affirme. Secondly, as the ground is suspected; so the phrase of the Fathers, Calling him the Bishop of that Church, doth not imply that he was a Bshop properly so called. The Fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply, not in their strict and formall propri∣ety. Ierom on the first to the Galathians, and in his Epistle to Da∣masus, affirmeth, that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be cal∣led Apostles. So many Fathers call Phillip an Apostle. Clem. 5. Consi. cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ul. Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others. In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops; not in propriety of speech, but because they did such things as Bishops doe, and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them. Thus Peter, Paul, Iohn, Barnabas, and all the rest, are by he Ancients called Bishops.

Object. This is granted true, touching others, but not in this in∣stance of Iames: because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture, a well as all other Story; that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Jerusalem, Iohn the Baptist did still abide with them even to death. Answer. Though this be but very conjecturall, yet it no∣thing bettereth the cause here. It followeth not, He did abide with this Church. Ergo, he was the proper Bishop of this Church. For not abiding in one Church doth mke a Bishop: but he must so abide in it, that he must from the power of his office, onely be bound to teach that Chuch: secondly, to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it: thirdly, to governe it with a power of jurisdiction, limited one∣ly to that Church. But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circum∣csion by his office, as they should from all the world resort thither. Secondly, he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinari∣ly sent from Christ, and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth. Ergo, not as an ordinary Bishop. Thirdly, as the rest in what Pro∣vinces soever they rested, had not their jurisdiction diminished, but had power occasionally, as well where they were not, as where they were; so it was with Iames. This might happily make the phrase to be more sounded out of Iames, that he did in this circumstance of residing, more neerely expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other. It is plaine, Antiquity did hold them all Bishops, and ga∣ther them so to be, a Priari & Postriori: the Author de quaest. vet. & nov. tst. cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis in∣stitiuse p••usquam escenderet: imponens manus Apostolis, ordinavit eos in Episcopus. Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church; but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could Page  29 regularly doe. Oecum. cap. 22. in Act. It is to bee noted, faith hee, thaPaul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops: for they did not make Bishops onely, but Presbyters also. Now wee must conster the ancient, as taking them onely eminently and virtually to have been Bishops, or else wee must judge them to have been of this minde, That the Apostles had both as extraordinarie Legats, most ample power of teaching and governing suting thereto, as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors, with power of teaching and govern∣ing, such as doe essentially and ministerially agree to them: which indeed Doctor Downam himselfe confuteth, as Popish, and not without reason, though while hee doth strive to have Iames both an Apostle and a Bishop properly, himselfe doth confirme it not a little.

Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to shew some reasons why the Apostles neither were nor might be in both these callings.

First, That which might make us doubt of all their teaching, and writing, is to bee hiffed forth as a most dangerous assertion. But to make Iames, and so any of them, have both these offices in proprietie, might make us doubt. Ergo. The assumption proved thus. That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to errour, when they teach from one office, as well as infallibly directed with a rule of infalli∣ble discerning, when they teach from the other, that doth make us subject to doubting in all they teach and write. But this opinion doth so. Ergo. The proposition is, for ought I see, of necessarie truth, the assuption no lesse true. For if there bee any rule to di∣rect Iames infallibly, as hee was formally the ordinary bishop of Je∣rusalem, let us heare it: if there were none, may not I question, whe∣ther all his teaching and writing were not subject to errour? For if hee taught them as an ordinarie bishop, and did write his Epistle so, then certainly it might erre. If he did not teach them so, then did hee not that hee was ordained to, neither was hee properly an ordi∣nary Pastor, but taught as an extraordinarie Embassadour from Christ.

Secondly, Those offices which cannot bee exercised by one, but the one must expell the other, were never by God conjoyned in one person. But these doe so. Ergo. The assumption is manifest. Because it is plaine, none can be called to teach as a Legat extraordi∣narie, with infallible assistance, and unlimited jurisdiction, but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church, teaching as an or∣dinary person, with jurisdiction limited to that one Church. A∣gaine, one can no sooner bee called to doe this, but at least the exer∣cise of the other is suspended. Thirdly, that which is to no end, is not to bee thought to bee ordained of God. But to give one an or∣dinarie authority whereby to doe this or that in a Church, who Page  30 had a higher and more excellent power of office, whereby to doe those same things in the same Church, is to no end. Ergo.

Object. But it will be denied that any other power of order, or to teach and administer sacraments was given, then that he had as an Apostle: but onely jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church.

Answer. To this I reply, first, that if hee had no new power of order, he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and for∣mally so called. Secondly, I say power of governing ordinary was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come. Object. 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 thy were guided by the spirit, it was thought meere, that Iames should abide in Jerusalem, there tending boh the Church of the Jewes, 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 thinke it meete that hee 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, yt his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Pe∣ters, towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Jewes, 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 o∣ther title. Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned, unlesse wee make him to sustaine another person, viz. of an ordinary Pastor, which hee could not bee who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors hve.

Fourthly▪ that calling which hee could not exercise without being much abased, that hee never was ordained unto, as a point of honour for him. But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary Bshop, but hee must bee abased. Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdicti∣on but in one Church, hee must teach as an ordinary man lia∣ble to errour. Ergo, hee was never ordained to bee a Bishp properly. If it bee sacriledge 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 beene assigned to reside con∣stantly in that Church without travelling, and be no whit aba∣sed: but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority, caring not for that Church, but the whole num∣ber of the Jewes, which hee might doe without travelling. Be∣cause Page  31 who so keeped in that Church, hee did neede to goe forh as the rest; for the Jewes from all parts come to him. But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governour, without becomming many degrees lower then hee was. For to live without goig forh, in the mother Church of all the world, as an ordinary Pator, was much lesse honour then to tra∣vaile as Peter one while into Assyria, another while through Pon∣tus, Galatia, Bithinia, as an Apostle. Even as to sit at home in wor∣shipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour ither or thither. Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes. Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the rest, but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling. As for that question, who was their ordinary Pastor, it is easily answered. Their Presbyters, such as Linus, or Cle∣mens in Rome, such as Ephesus and other Churches had. Iames was their Pastor also, but with extraordinary authority. What needed they an ordinary Bishop, which grew needfull (as the favourers of the Hierarchy say) to supply the absence of Apostles, when now they were to decease? What needed then here an ordinary Bishop where the A∣postles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together, and one to reside during his life, according to the current of the story? Thus much a∣bout the first instance.

To the second instance of Epaphroditus, and the argument dra∣wen from it. First, we deny the poposition. For had some ordina∣ry Pastors beene so stiled, it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other: wherefore unlesse this be interer∣ted, it is unsound, viz. Those ordinary Pastors, who are called Apo∣stles in comparison of others, because the Apostles did give to them po∣wer of ordination, jurisdiction, and peerelesse preheminency, which they did not give to others, they are above others. Secondly, the Assump∣tion is false altogether: First, tht Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor: Secondly, that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church. Obi. But the judgement of Ierom, Theodoret, Chrysostome, 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, Saint Ambrose doth plainely insinu∣ate, that he was an Evangelist: for he saith he was made their A∣postle by the Apostle, while he sent him to exhort them, and because he was a good man, he was desired of the people. Where hee makth him sent, not for perpetuall residence amongst them, but for the ransunt exhorting of them, and maketh him so desired of the Page  32 Philippians, because hee was a good man, not because hee was their ordinary Pastor. Ieroms testimony on this place doth not evince. For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken, and as ap∣pliable to one, who as an Evangelist did instruct them, as to any o∣ther. Th••d. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop, but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus, and other Evange∣lists are said to have been bishops: which how true it is, in the next argument shall bee discussed. For even Theodoret doth take him to have beene such an Apostolicke person as Timothy and Titus were. Now these were as truly called bishops as the Apostles themselves. Neither is the rule of Theodore to bee admitted: for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee 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 bee ascribed to them. Againe, how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie, that hee must bee a person thus and thus (according to Pauls Canons) quali∣fied: 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 uder the name of Apostles and Angels. Thirdly, antiquity doth testifie, that this was an honour to bishops, when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them. But if they ever had been teamed by the name of Apostles before, this had been a debasing of them. Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles. In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded. Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised, nor had, and therefore could not bee succeeded in it. The Apostles gave to Presbyters tha which Christ gave them out of his power; even the power of ordinary government. They are bid 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to feed as well by government as doctrine. They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock. What feare of tyranny where there is no power of government? But lay authorities aside, consider the thing from the text it selfe. First, Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him, hee having purposed to have sent Timothy, who as yet could not bee imployed. I thought it necessary to send Spabrdit us to you. Secondly, hee doth imply, that Epaphraditus had not returned to them, but that hee sent him; and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it. It is like, hee was but sent till Timo∣thy might bee dispatched to them. Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle, as their ordinary and eminent Pa∣stor. In the Scriptures, none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them. Now this is undoubted, the Philippians had sent him to Paul. It is then most probable when he is Page  33••lled their Apostle, it is in regard he was sent by them, which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words, who hath ministred to me the things edfull which you sent by him. Object. But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve, should be used of those sent civilie. Not so, for while the persons sending are signified, they are sufficiently contradistinguished; it being the Priviledge of the Apostles, that they were the Apostles of Christ Jsus, not simply that they were Apostles. Secondly, Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent. For though Christ meane it of himselfe, yet he implies it by a discourse, a genere ad speciem. Thirdly, we see the like phrase, 2 Cor. 8 The Apostles of the Churches. For Chrysostme there un∣derstandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present. That doth not hinder, they were by Paul to the Churches, therefore the churches might not send them with their contributions. Neither is this an argument that he was their bishop, because their church sent him: for they sent Apostles themselves and Evangelists also more or∣dinarily, it being their office to goe from church to church, for the edification of them.

For the instance of Archipus I finde it not urged.

Now to come to the last instances of Timotheus and Titus.

First, we deny the Antecedent, that they were instituted bishops by Paul. And in the first presillogisme we deny the Assumption: that the Epistles doe presuppose so much. And to the prosillogisme, ten∣ding to prove this assertion denyed, we answer: first, to the propo∣ition, by distinguishing the Episcopall authority, which is consi∣dered both in regard of that which is materiall, and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it. The Proposition is true, un∣derstanding it of authority in both these regards; those who are pre∣supposed to have had authority Episcopall given them, both for the substance of it, and the formall reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary bishop, they are presupposed bishops: but this is denyed. For they are presupposed to have and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it, as Apostles had also; but not to have and exer∣cise in that manner and formallity which doth agree to a Bishop, but which doth agree to an Evangelist, and therefore they are bid∣den to doe the worke of an Evangelist, to exercise all that power hey did exercise as Evangelists. There is nothing that Paul writeth 〈◊〉Timothy to doe in Ephesus, or to Titus Crte, which himselfe pre∣sent in person might not and would not have done. If wee should reason then thus: Hee who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches, he is presupposed to have beene bishop in them. This pro∣position is not true, but with limitation: Hee who exercised Epis∣copall power after that formall manner, which doth agree to the office of a Bishop, hee was Bishop; but not ee who exerciseth the Page  34 power secundum aliam rationem & modum: viz. after such a manner at doth agree to an Apostle.

To the second maine proofe, wee deny the proposition. If patternes for Bishops, then written to Bishops. The reason is, Apo∣stles, Evangelists, ordinary Pastors, have many things common in their administration. Hence is it, that the example of the one may be a patterne to another, though they are not identically and formal∣ly of one calling. Councells have enjoyned all Presbyters to be well seene in these Epistles, as being patternes for them, Vide Aug. De doctrin. Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4.

To the third reason. Who so prescribing them their duties doth pro∣pose the very duties of Bishops, bee doth take them to have beene Bishops. The Proposition is not true without a double limitation. If the A∣postle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped, he doth not therefore presuppose them bishops, because thse are duties of Evangelists, agreeing to bishops onely by usur∣pation. Againe, should he propose those duties which, say they, the word doth ascribe and appropriate to bishops, yet if he doe not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as forme exercised by them, it will not follow that he doth take them for bishops: not that Paul doth purpose the very duties of bishops, both in substance and manner of performance. Secondly, we deny him to purpose for substance the duties of bishops. For hee doth not bid him or∣daine, as having a further sacramentall power then other Ministers, nor governe with power directive and corrective over others. This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power. Thirdly, Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act, when now churches were constituted, but with concurrence of those churches; salv uni useuiusque Ecclesiae iure, the Apostles did not otherwise. For thougPaul wrote to him alone, that was because he was occupied not one¦ly in churches perfectly framed, but also in the erecting and framin of othrs. Secondly, because they were in degree and dignity abov all other ordinar governours of the Church, which their Cons•• like preheminencye was sufficient, why they should be written alone.

To the fourth reason: Those things which were written to inform not onely Timothy and Titus, but all their successours, who were Dioces Bishops, thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops. But these were so, E•• The Proposition is not true, because it presupposeth that noth••• written to any persons, can informe Diocesan bishops, unlesse 〈◊〉 persons to whom it is, written be formally in that selfe same ord•• For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Ap¦stolique, it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whtsoever. Seco∣ly, wee deny Diocesan bishops are (de jure) successours. As for Page  35 equivocall Catalogue which maketh all who are read bishops to have beene Diocesan, we shall speake of them hereafter. The bishops be∣tweene Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedon Councell, were not all of one cut: and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations. Ther is no more to prove Phillip of Gor∣tina a Metropolitan, then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria. For what doth story 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 propositi∣on is not necessary. For as Iames might reside exercising an Aposto∣licall inspection in a particular Church, so might these exercse an Evangelicall function how long soever they resided. Secondly, the assumption will not bee found true for ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers. For Timothy, though he be exhor∣ted to stay at Ephesus, yet this doth not argue it, that he was enjoy∣ned ordinary residence. For first it was a signe he was not bishop, be∣cause Paul did exhort him, for he would well have knowne, he might not, being their ordinary Pastor leave 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 plaine he then intended. So Titus is placed in Crete, not to stay there, and set downe his rest, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, further to set, as it were, and exedisie the fa∣bricke, which Paul had begun. God gave Ceremonies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not ever 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 resi∣dence. 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, when now hee 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, hee had a meaning to come unto Ti∣mothy thther 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 we may say, that of wolves aising was, and call all into question. Neither is it likely, but that teares would have broke his heart, and made hm yeeld in the premptories of his speech, had not his soule beene divinely per∣swaded. Thirdly, he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Page  36Timothy to be their Bishop: for he would not have omitted sue ha argument of consolation to hearts so heavy. Not he doth not men∣tion any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle. Hee telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them, or to send others. Fourthly, Timothy was with Paul while hee was in bonds at Rome, as witnesse those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Cll•••ins and Philippians; yea Timothy was so with him, as to bee imployed by him, sent forth, and returne to him, which is manifest. Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus, yet he was not pla∣ced to be resident, for in the end of the Epistle, he doth bid Timo∣thy come to him, and bring Mark, that they might minister to him. Againe when hee did write the 2. Epistle, Timothy was not Ephesus, for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Priscilla and Onesiphor••. Object. But is like these were at Ephesus, for there Paul left Aquila and Pri∣scilla. They came occasionally, they did not fie there, which Chry∣sostome also judgeth. And the house of Onesiphorus, Bernard taketh it, was at Iconium in Lycaonia, so that it is like he was in his na∣tive countrey at this time, even Iconium, Listra, Derbe, which hap∣pily is the cause why the Scholasticall story doth make him Bishop of Lystra, because hither he was last sen. He was so here, as that the Apostle did but send him to see them, for hee biddeth him come bfore winter. Besides, there are many probalities he was not at Ephesus, for he speaketh of it through the Epistle, as a place now re∣mote from him. Thou knowest what Onesiphrus did for mee at Ephe∣sus, not where now thou art. I have sent Tychius to Ephesus, not to thee, to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent. Finally, after Paules death hee 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 therefore in this point, if they testifie ordinary residence, which they doe not, wee have liberty to renounce them; but they testifie onely that he re∣mained in that Church, because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make, and he is thought to have suffered mar∣tyrdome there. So for Titus, when Paul sent him to Crete to doe that worke is uncertaine; but this is certaine, it was before his wri∣ting to the Corinths the second time, and going to Rome. This likewise that Paul was then in travelling, and as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis. When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there, for hee doth bid him to meete him at Nicopolis, where he meant to be as it is likely, but Titus comming did not meete him there, but at length fond him in Macedonia, whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians, thanking God for his promptnesse even of his owne ••cord to be imployed amongst them, 2 Cor. 8.16. which doth Page  37 shew he had not beene made an ordinary 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 Dalatia. Whence Aquina doth thinke him to have beene bishop of that place. Where∣fore wee thinke him that will bee carried from such presumptions, (yea manifest arguments) by Hegesippus, Clemens, and history groun∣ded on them, to be too much affected to so weake 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 function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary, or ordinary. But their function as as∣signed to those Churchs was not extraordinary. We deny this assumpti∣on, with the proofe of it. That the function that these exercised as as∣signed to certaine 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 trans∣cendent manner; viz. as Evangelists; and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner, was not ne∣cessary to perpetuate the being of the Church. Assignation to chur∣ches to doe the worke of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary: no assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists.

To that finall reason, what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true, and so to be aken. What they speake so agreeing, that it is virtually conteined in them, and may rightly be deduced from them, is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith. But what they speake not plainely contradicted, but yet no way included, may be admtted side human, if the first relators be well qualified witnesses. But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesip∣pus, it is 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 declining.

To the assumptiō we answer. What do not some ancient enough cal Timothy? Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while, a Presbyter ano∣ther while, & in like sense others a Primate & a Bishop. Lyra proveth him from many authorities to have been an Arch-bishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. But to gather on these, that he was in propriety of speech all these, were absurd. Object. I, but they call him bishop on other grounds, because assigned to this Church. Answ. They call him bishop because he was assigned to this Church, not onely to teach, but also to ordaine 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 lon∣ger stay in these Churches then Evangelists did usually, & did preach Page  38 and ordaine, and doe in these Churches all such things which Bi∣shopes in their time used to doe. But that he was not an Evangelist, and more then an ordinary bishop they do not deny. Salmeron him∣selfe in his first Disputation on 1 im. pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusqu•• Episcopus, etiamsi ad emus in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicavrit & sacrs ordines promoveris, unde quidem vocant cum Episcopum. Finally, should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinary Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end; they should testifie a thing, as I hope I have shewed, contrary to Scripture, ya contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist. As for the shew from he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently.

Now to shew tht thy were not properly bshops. First, we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episco∣pall duties a while, but wre not there fixed, to make their ordinary abode. Therefore not bshops properly. Secondly, thy who did the worke of an Evangelist 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 Evngelist. Ergo. The Proposition is proved. If an Evangelist and bshop cannot be formally of one office, then the act of an Evangelist, and the act of an ordinary Pastor or bishop cannot be formally one. For when everything doth agere secundum quod actis est; those things which are not thesame formally, their worke and effect cannot be formally the same. But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or bishops, are not formally the same. Er∣go. The assumption the Apostle proveth, by that distinct enumerati∣on of those whom Christ gve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church. For as an Apostle is distingushed from a Prophet, a Prophet from an Evangelist, so an Evangelist 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 Evangelists properly, as Matthew and Iohn were.

Asw. 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. altiri tamen raione, what the inferi∣our did. This sense is tollerable. But that formally the power of all oter offices suites wth the Apostles, is false. My Lord chiefe Ju∣st••e of England is not formally a Constable. As for the latter, true, an Apostle might be also a penmen of the Gospell, but this maketh not an Evangelist more then an Apostle, but doth per cecidens, come to them both. And even as a Preacher or Pastor, writing Commentaries, and publishing other Treatises, this commeth per cecidens to his calling, it doth not make him a Pastor, but more il∣lustrious Page  39 and fruitfull in that regard then another. So Mak and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gos∣pels, for then none should have beene Evangelists that had not writ∣ten, but in this regard they were more renowned then other. Cu∣stome hath so prevailed, saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew, that wee call them Evangelists, (viz. the Writers of the Gospells) whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists. These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension, but the first writer of the Gospell, being an Apostle, was at least eight yeares after. Se∣condly, 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 ministery (common for the generall of it to all other) did gather Saints, and build Christs Body. Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministery common to Apo∣stles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, but the publishing of it.

Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome, and ohersome, those he did not give conjoynedly to one and the same persons. But these callings he gave to some one, to others another. Else he must have said, he gave the same men to be Apostles and E∣vangelists, the same to be Evangelists and Pastors. Ergo.

That calling which is not compatible with the calling of an E∣vangelist, that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist. But the callng of a bishop is such. For a bishop is tyed to a particular Church. The calling of an Evangelist is a calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministery, 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 Evangelist.

The calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospell, nor to preach it simply: for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist. But this doth difference them, to preach it without li∣mitation 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 Evang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour, as usebius reporteth, Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel, with∣out fixing my selfe in any certaine place; and a calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church, are incompatible.

Lastly, that which would have debased Timothy and Titus, that Paul did not put upon them. But to have brought them from the honour of serving the Gospell, as Collaterall companions of the A∣postles to be ordinary Pastors, had abased them. Ergo, this to be or∣dinary Pastors Paul did not put upon them. Object. The assumption it denyed, it was no abasement. For before they were but Pres∣byters, and afterward by imposition of hands were made bishops. Page  40 why should they receive imposition of hands, and a new ordina∣tion, if they did not receive an ordinary calling? we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands. I answer, This deny all with all whereon it is builded 〈◊〉 grosse: For to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour, is to abase them. But the Evangelists office was superiour to Pastors. Ergo. The assumption proved. First, Every office is so much the greater, by how much the power of it is of ampler extent and lesse restrai∣ned. But the Evangelists power of reaching and governing was il∣limited. Ergo. The assumption proved. Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle; there an Evangelist might doe that which belonged to him. But that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where without limitation. Ergo. Secondly, every Minister by how much he doth more approximate to the highest, by so much he is hgher. But the companions, & coadjutors of the Apostles, were neerer then ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Who are next the King, in his Kingdome, but those who are Regis Comites. The Evangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines. Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes. 4. That the Evangelists in an ambulatory course spreading the Gospell, were above any bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certaine Church. Wherefore to make them Pres∣byters is a weake conceite. For every Prsbyter (properly so called) was constituted in a certaine Church to doe the worke of the Lord in a certaine Church, But Evangelists were not, but to doe the worke of the Lord in any Church as they should be occasio∣ned. Ergo, they were no Presbyters properly so called. Now for their ordination; Timothy received none as the Doctor conceiveth, but what hee had from the hand of the Apostle and Presby∣ters, when now he was taken of Paul to be his companion. For no doubt but the Church which gave him a good testimony, did by her Presbyters concurre with Paul in his promoting to that office. Obj. What, could they lay on hands with the Apostles, which Phillip could no, and could they enter one into an extraordinary office? Answ. They did lay on hands with the Apostles, as it is expresly read, both of the Apostles and them. It is one thing to use preca∣tory imposition, another to use miraculous imposition, such as the Apostles did, whereby the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were conferred. In the first, Presbyters have power. Neither is it certaine, that Phillip could not have imposed hands, and given the Holy Ghost. For though he could, he might choose in wisedome for their greater confirmation and edification to let that be done by persons more eminent. Finally, imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinary office. Page  41 For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vo∣cation from God. As the calling of Evangelists, though extraordi∣nary, was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets. Se∣condly, men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruit∣full exercise of their immediate and extraordinary callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours, as Paul and Barnabas were. Howsoever, it is plaine, that Timothy by impsition of hands, was ordained to no calling, but the calling of an Evangelist. For that calling he was ordained to, which he is called on by Paul to ex∣ercise, and fully execute. But he is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist. Ergo, that calling he was ordained to.

That worke which exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop, was not put upon an ordinary bishop. But Titus his worke did so: for it was to plant Presbyters Towne by Towne through a Nation, Ergo. For the ordinary plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame, exceedeth the calling of an ordinary bishop. But this was Titus his worke. Ergo. Bishops are given to particular Churches when now they are framed, that they may keepe them winde and wether tight, they are not to lay foundations, or to exe∣difie some imperfect beginnings. But say Titus had beene a bishop: he is no warrant for ordinary bishops, but for Primates whose au∣thority did reach through whole Ilands. Nay, if the Doctors rule out of Theodort were good, it would serve for a bishop of the plu∣rality cut. For it is said he placed Presbyters city by city, or Towne by Towne, who are in name onely bishops, but not that he placed Angels or Apostles in any part of it. He therefore was the sole bi∣shop of them, the rest were but Presbyters, such as had the name, not the office and government of Bishops.

Finally, were it granted that they were ordinary bishops, and written to doe the things that bishops doe, yet would it not be a ground for their majority of power in matter sacramentall and juris∣diction, as is above excepted.

The fifth Argument.

The Ministers which the Church hd generally and perpetually the first 300. yeares after Christ and his Apostles, and was not or∣dained by any generall Councell, were undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution. But the Church ever had Diocesan bishops in singu∣larity of preheminence during life, and in majority of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others, and these not instituted by generall Councells. Ergo, The proposition is plaine both by Au∣stin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. & Epist. 118. and by Terul. Constat. id ob Apostolis traditum quod apu Ecclesias Apostolorum fuit sacrosan∣ctum. For who can thinke that all the Churches generally, would conspire to abolish the order of Christ planted by the Apostles, and Page  42 set up other Ministers then Christ had ordained. The assumption it plaine: for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently, and from the beginning, as the Councell of Nice testfieth, much more bi∣shops. For Dioces in bishops must bee before thm, they rising of combination of Cities and Dioces. And the councell of Ephesus testfieth, the government of those bishops of Cyprus, to have been ever from the beginning, according to the custome of old received. Yea, that the attempt of the bishop of Antioch, was against the Ca∣nons of the Apostles. Againe, Cyprian doth testifie, that long before his time, bshops wre placed in all Provinces and Cities, besides the sccssion of bishops from the Apostles times: for they prove their orignall to have beene in th Apostles times. Neither were they in∣stituted by any generall councell. For long before the first generall councell, we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Chur∣ches. Yea, Ierom himselfe is of opinion, that no councell of after times, but the Apostles themselves did ordaine bishops; for even since those contentions wherein some said, I am Pauls, others, I am Apollos, they were set up by generall decree: whch could not bee made, but by the Apostles themselves. And in Psal. 44. hee maketh David to prophecy 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 gene∣rally 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 Chur∣ches, before any councell enacted it, yet was no Apostolicall tradi∣tion. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc, ut dies festi obser∣ventur, sed homines ipsi suu quique lcis ex more quodem introduxerant. Taking the Eucharist fasting, the fasts on Wednesday, and Saturday, fasting n some fashion before Ester, ceremonies in baptising, the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any councell 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 wert Oecumenicall Doctors, but I see no reason for such a pre∣sumption.

3. Th•• doth presuppose, that something may be which is of A∣poslicall auth••ity, which neither directly nor consequently is included in th wo••d written. For when there are some customes which have beene generall, which yet canot be grounded in the word written, it is necessary by this proposition, that some things Page  43 may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall, as being deli∣vered by word unwritten. For they cannot have warrant from 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 wll make cleare. Si cor stat id bonum quod pius, & id prius quod esta ini∣tio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariteruti{que} constabil id sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum. Touch∣ing Austins rule we would ake what is the meaning of these words, Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creitur. If thy say his meaning is, that such a thing cannot but in their writings be de∣livered, they doe pervert his meaning, as is apparent by that, Cont. Don. lib. 2.27. Confuetudinem ex Apostoloem traditions venentem, siut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum, & tamen quia custodiunt per u∣niversam Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsit tradita & commendata cre∣duntur. And we wish them to shew from Scripture what hey say is contained in it. If thy yeeld, he doth meane as he doth of nowrit∣ten tradition, we hope thy will not justifie him in this; we will take that liberty in him, which himselfe doth in all others, and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings. Now count him in ths to favour Traditions, as some of the Papists do not causelsly make this rule the measuring cord▪ which doth take in the ltitude of all traditions: yt wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere, who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begunne by Councells, an argument of Divine and Apostolicall au∣thority, yet dealing against Donatists, Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee saith, he will not use this argument, because it was but humane and uncertaine, ne vider humanis argumentis illud probare, ex Evangelio profero certu document.

Wee answer to the assumption two things: First, it canot bee proved, that unverslly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours. For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved, that Chur∣ches 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 be like our Diocesan bshops. And though there bee doubtfull relations, that Rome was divided under Evaristus, yet this was not common through the Church. For Tripatit story testfi∣eth, that till the time of Sozomeh, they did in some parts continue together. Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly, those Bshops which had no more but one Deacon o helpe them in their ministery to∣ward their Churches, they could not be Docesan Bshops. But such in many parts the Apostles planted, as Epiphanius doth testifie. Ergo. Page  44 Thirdly, such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes, could not have Diocesan bshops. But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia, as Szom. in his 7. booke, cap. 10. testifieth. Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so u∣niversally received. Secondly, bishops came to be common by a Councell, saith Ambrose, Prospiciente Concilio. Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dcree pssing through the world: toto orbe decretum est, saith Ierom ad Evag. which is to bee considered not of one Oecumeniall 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 interpretative, 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 above Presbyters magii consuetudine Ecclesia, then Dominicae disposi∣tionis veritate. If the Doct. do except, that custome is here put for A∣postolicall institution; let him put in one for the other, and see how well it will become the sense. Let Bishops know they are greater the Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle, then by the truth of Christs di∣sposition. Is it not fine, that the Apostles should be brought in as op∣posites, facing Christ their Lord? And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thnke that decretum est imported no more, then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world. Which is elegant∣ly said to be a decree, because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis, the force of a decree. But Ambose his place is plain, Prospici∣ente Concilio, he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles. For he ma∣keth this provision by councell to have 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, there were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria, as Eu∣sebius and Ierom both affirme. Wherefore briefly, seeing no such u∣niversall custome can be proved, all the godly athers never conspi∣red to abolish Christs institution. Secondly, could a custome have prevailed with all of them, whom we have to Constantines time, yet it might enter and steale upon them through humane frailty, as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and fath∣full Martyrs: the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued. Thirdly, say, they had wittingly and wittingly done it through the world, they had not conspired, because they might have deemed such power in the Church, and themselves to doe nothing but what they might Page  45 with Christs good liking for the edification of it. How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause, are at this day of this judgement, that if it were but an Apostolicall institution, as Apostolicall is con∣tradistinguished to divine, they might change it. But if the Apostles did enact this order, as Legats and Embassadours of Christ, then is it not theirs, but Christs owne institution. What an Embassadour spea∣keth as an Embassadour, it is principally from him that sent him: but if they who were Legates, dd not, bearing the person of Legats, but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours, decree this; then it is cer∣taine, Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspi∣ring against Chist.

As for those proofes, that Bishops have beene throughout all Chrches from the beginning they are weake. For first, the Coun∣cell of Nice useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not simpliciter, but secundum quid, in or∣der hpply to tht time wherein the custome began, which was bet∣ter knowne to them then to us: the phrase is so used, Act. 15.8. in respect of some things which had not continued many yeares. They cannot meane the Apostles times, for then Metropolitans should have actually beene from the Apostles time. Second∣ly, the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus, is likewise aequivo∣call; for they have reference to the fathers of Nice, or at least the decrees of the fathers, who went before the Councell of Nice. For those words being added, definitiones Nicenae fidei, seeme to ex∣plaine te former, Canones Apostolorum. It is plaine the de∣cree of the Councell doth ascibe this thng onely to an∣cient custome, no lesse thn that of Nice, Constantinople and Chalcedon; and therefore cannot rise to the auhoity of sacred Scriptures. Let him shew in all antiquity where sacred Scrip∣tures are called Canons of the Apostles. Finally, if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles, then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch. As for the authrity of Cyprian, he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time, Bishops odained in cities; not universliter, as if thre were no city but had some. Secondy, hee speaketh of Bishps who had their Chuches included in Cities, not more then might meet together in one, to a∣ny common delberations. They had no Docesan Churches, nr were bishops who had majority of rule over their Presbyters, nor sole power of ordination. As for the Catalogue of succession, it is pompae apior quam pugnae; Rme can recite their successors. But be∣cause it hath hd bishops. Ero, Oecumenicall bshops is no conse∣quence. All who are named bshops in the Catalogue, were not of one cut, and in that sense we conrovert.

Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by a∣ny Councell, it is very weke. For though wee read of no generall Page  46 Councell, yet there might be, and the report not come to us. Se∣condy, we have shewed, that the Councell of Nice doth not prove this that bishops were every where from the beginning; the phrase of from the beginning, being there respectively, not absolutely u∣sed. Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this: for hee doth not use those words in propirey, but by way of allusion; otherwise if hee did think the Apostle had published this decree, when the first to the Corinths was written, how can he cite testimonies long after writ∣ten, to prove that Bishops were not instituted in the Apostles time, but that they were ordained by the Church jure Ecclesiastico, when the time served for it.

The sixt Argument.

Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches, such Mi∣nisters are of Christs institution. But Ministers having singulari∣tie of preheminence and power above others, are amongst them, as the Superintendents in Germany, Ergo. Answ. The assumption is utterly denied. For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops: they are of the same degree with other Ministers, they are onely Presients while the Synod lasteth; when it is disslved, their prerogative ceaseh: they have no prerogative over their fel∣low Ministers; they are subject to the Presbyteries, Zepp. lib. 2 cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended, they returne to the care of their par∣ticular Churches.

The seventh Argument.

If it were necessary that while the Apostles lived, there should bee such Ministers as had preheminence and majority of power above others, much more after their departure. But they thought it ne∣cessity, and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus, and other A∣postolike men furnished with such power. Ergo, much more after their departure. Answ. The assumption is denyed, and formerly disproved: for they appointed no such Apostolicke men with Epis∣copall power, in which they should be succeeded.

The eighth Argument.

Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them, were lawfull. For they would not have held their peace, had they knowne unlawfull Ministers to have crept into the Churches.

But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops, as in Rome, Linus, Clemens, at Jrusalem Iames Simeon, at Atioch, Evodius, at Alexandria, S. Mak, Anianus, Abilius. Ergo, Diocesan Bishops be lawfull.

Answer. The assumption is denyed: for these Bishops were but Page  47 Presbyters, Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting, gover∣ning with common consent of their Presbyteries. If they were af∣fecting our bishops majority, they were in Diotrophes sufficiently con∣tradicted.

The ninth Argument.

Those who have beene ever held of a higher order then Presby∣ters, they are before Presbyters in preheminence, and majority of rule. But bishops have beene held in a higher order by all antiqui∣ty. Ergo. The assumption is manifest: In the Councell of Nice, Ancyra, Sardica, Antioch, Ministers are distinguished into three or∣ders. Ignatius, Clemens in his Epistle to Iames, Dionys. Arcopg. de Coolest. Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fug in persecutione, & de Baptis∣mo. Ignatius doth often testifie it. No wonder, when the Scripture it selfe doth call one of these a step to another, 1 Timoth. 3.13. Cyprian. Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc. Ephes. Cap. 1.2.6. Yea the Councell of Chalcedon counteth it sacriledge, to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter. This Hierome himselfe confirmeth, saying: That from Marke to Heracls and Di∣onysius, the Presbyters did see a bishop over them in higher de∣gree.

Answer.

The Proposition is not true in regard of majority of rule. For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches. But to the Assumption we answer by distinction.

An order is reputed higher, either because intrinsecally it hath a higher vertue, or because it hath a higher degree of dig∣nity and honour. Now wee deny that ever antiquity did take the bishop above his Presbyters to be in a higher order then a Presbyter, further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignity and honor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Councell of Sardica speaketh. Which is further proved: be∣cause the fathers did not hold a bishop to differ from a Presbyter, as Presbyter from a Deacon. For these differ genere proximo; No∣verint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotum vocai. But a bi∣shop differeth from a Presbyter, as from one who hath the power of Priesthood no lesse then himselfe, and therefore the difference betwixt thse, must be circumstantially, not so essentiall as betwixt the other. Thus bishops and Archbishops are divers ordrs of bi∣shops, not that one exceedeth the other, as a power of higher vertue, but of higher dignity then then the other. More plainely; There may be a fourefold difference in gradu. 1. in potestate graaus. 2. in Exercito. 3. in Dignitate. 4. in amplitudie Iurisdictionis. The first difference is not betweene a bishop and a Presbyter, ac∣cording Page  48 to the common tenent of antiquity, or the Schoole, but on∣ly is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bi∣shop inwardly, diverse one from the other. For as a bishop differ∣eth not in power and degree from an Archbishop, because nothing an Archbishop can doe, as confirming, consecrating Bshops, &c. but a bishop can doe also. So neither doth a Presbyter from a bi∣shop. Object. But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter, and con∣firme as the bshop doth, and therefore differeth Potestate gradus. To this I answer, that these authours meane not ths difference in power (de fundamentali & rem ta potestate, sed ampliata, immediata, & jam actu hor um effictuam productiva) as if Presbyters had not a re∣mote and fundamentall power to doe those things: but that they have not, before they be ordained bishops, their power so enlarged, as to produce thse effects actually. As a boy hath a generative faculty whle he is a child, which he hath when he is a man, but yet it is not in a child free from all impediment, that it can actually beget the like. But this is too much to grant. For the power sacra∣mentall in the Priest, is an actuall power which hee is able to performe and execute, nothing defective in regard of them, further then they be with-held from the exercise of it. For that cause which standeth in compleat actuality to greater & more noble effects, hath an inferior & lesser of the same kind under it also, unlesse the appli∣cation of the matter be intercepted. Thus a Presbyter he hath a sa∣cramentall power standing in full actuality to higher sacramentall a∣ctions, & therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in hs power, further then they are excepted & kept from be∣ing applied to him. And therefore power sacramentall cannot be in a Presbyter, as the generative faculty is in a child, for this is inchoate onely, and imperfect, such as cannot produce that effect. The po∣wer of the Priest is compleat. Secondly, I say, these are no sacra∣mentall actions. Thirdly, were they, yet as much may be said to prove an Archbishop a distinct order from a bishop, as to prove a Presbyter and bishop differing in order. For it is proper to him out of power to generate a bishop, other bishops laying on hands, no otherwise then Presbyters are said to doe, where they joine with their bishops. If that rule stand not major ad minori, nor yet equalie ab equall, I marvel how bishops can beget bishops equall, yea superi∣or to them, as in consecrating the Lord Archbishop, & yet a Presbyter may not ordaine a Presbyter. It doth not stand with their Episcopall majority, that the rule (every one may give that which he hath) should hold here in the exercise of their power. Those who are in one order may differ jure divino or humans. Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall, for they might all offer incense, and make intercession. But the solemne intercession in the holy of holies Page  49 God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priests would have reached to this power of intercession in the holy place, or any act of like kinde: but that God did not permit that this should come under them, or they intermeddle in it. Thus by humane law the bishop is greater in exercise then the Priest. For hough God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other, yet commonly confimation, ordination, absolu∣tion by imposig hands in receiving Penitents, consecrating Chur∣ches and Virines, have beene referred to the bshop for the honor of Priesthood, rather then any necessiy of law, as Ierom speaketh. Finally, in dignity, those may differ many waies, who in degree are equall, which is granted by our adversaries in this cause. Yea, they say in amplitude of jurisdiction, as in which it is apparant an Arch∣bishop exceedeth aother. But were it manifest that God did give bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse, and an Archbishop through his Province, though but when hee visiteth, this would make one differ in order from the other; as in this regard Evan∣gelists deffered from ordinary Pastors. But that jurisdiction is in one more then another, is not established, nor hath apparency in any Scripture.

To the proofes thereof I answer briefly: the one may be a step to the other, while they differ in degrees of dignities, though essen∣tially they are but one and the same order. In this regard it may be sacriledge to reduce one, from the greater to the lesser, if he have not deserved it. As for that of Ierom it is most plaine, hee did meane no further order, but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their bishop, or first Prebyter, as that they did mount him up in a higher seat, the rest sitting lower about him, and gave him this preheminence to sit first as a Consull in the Se∣nate, and moderate the carriage of things amongst them: this Cel∣fiori gradu, being nothing but his honourable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not im∣porting sole authority. For by a Canon of Councell of Laodi∣cea, wee finde that the bishop hd this priviledge to sit first, though Presbyters did together with him enter, and sit as Judges of equall commission. For though Deacons stood, Presbyters did alwaies sit incircuitu Episcopi.

10. Argument.

If bishops be that whih Aaron, and the Apostles were, and Pres∣byters, be that which the Priests, and the 72. Disciples were, then the one are above the other in preheminence and power. But they are so. See Ierom to Nepotian. Ergo.

Answer.

If bishops, &c. and Pesbyters, be that which the sonnes of Aa∣ron and the 72. were, then there are different orders, &c. To these Page  50 may be added a third. That which Moses and the 70. Seniors were, that are the bishops and Presbyters. First, for the proposition it is not true, for first of Aaron and his sonnes, they were not orders dif∣ferent essenally in their power, but onely in degree of dignity, wherein the high Priest was above others. For every Priests power would have reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest oney. 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 majority of directive or corrective power over others. So the Apostles, and 72. will not be found different in order; and therefore those who resemble these cannot be conclu∣ded to be of divers orders. For the Apostles and 72. differ no more then ordinary messengers who are impolyed in a set course, and ex∣traordinary sent by occasion onely: They were both messengers, the Apostles babitu and abidingly, the other in act onely, and after a transitory manner.

Againe, had Aaron and his sonnes beene divers orders, differing essentially in the inward power of them, ye is not the proposition true, but with addition in this wife. Those who are indentically 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 have but imperfect similitude. In this sense onely the proposi∣tion is true.

Now to come to the assumption. First, touching Aaron, wee deny any bishop is as Aaron by divine institution, or by perfect si∣militude answering to him. But because Aaron was the first and high Priest, others inferiour: so it hath pleased the Church to imi∣tate this pollicy, and make the bishop, as it were Primum Presbyte∣rum or Antistuem in primo ordine, Presbyters in secundo. Whence Bshops may be said to be that which Aaron was through the Chur∣ches ordination, which she framed, looking to this patterne of go∣vernment which God himselfe had set out in the old Testament. The fathers call them Aaron and his sonnes onely for some con∣mon analogy, which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the bishops and Presbyters, and them; and conceive them to be so by humane accommodation, not by divine institution. But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministery typified by them by Gods owne appointment, this the fathers ne∣ver thoght. Christs priesthood, no mans, was properly typified in Aaron.

Page  51So 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 or∣der, 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, Evangelists, 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 ma∣keth not against us. For thy 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 straine it further, and take it, that Christ instituting those two orders, did in so doing, institute Bshops and Presbyters, the one whereof suc∣ceeded the Apostles, the other the 72. and that thus the Fathers take it. To which I answer, First, in generall, this analogy of A∣postles 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, Apostolus id est Episcopos & preposiros, that is, ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum, as Austin speaketh, else it should bee all one with the former; when hee maketh the Presbyer as well as the Bishop to bee ordained in the Apostles. Finally, these Fa∣thers who take the 72. to have beene Apostles, as well as the o∣ther, could not imagine this porportion of diverse or∣ders let 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 one∣ly his messengers for the time, but Presbyters also. Or, secondly, else hee did ordaine these as he did raine Nanna, noting and pre∣figuring as by a type, a further thing which hee would worke: viz. that he would institute Bshops and Presbyters for Teachers ordi∣nary in his Church: but both these are gratis spoken without any foundation or reason. For the first, wee have shewed that the A∣postles could not bee Bishops ordinarily; nor yet the calling of these seventy two (which was to goe through all Cities Evange∣lizing) stand with Presbyters, Presbyters being given to Churches 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and there fixed. Neither can the latter be true for Page  52 then Christ should have given a Sacrament, when he ordained his Apostles, and sent forth his 72. Secondly, the type or the shadow i lesse then the thing ypified, the substance of it. But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Thirly, I say, that Christ did never ordaine that any should suc∣ceed the Apostles, or the 72 in regard of their order. There is a dou∣ble succession, in gadum, or in Capat, as the jrists distinguish. In gradum tundem, 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 inherit after him, not a brother, but a cosin to him. Thus the Apostles have no successors succeeding them in gra∣dum, but such onely as follow them, being of other degrees, and in another line, as it were, in which sort every 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 A∣postolus non succeditur, Legato quitenus est Legatus non succeditur. Fourthly, that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order suc∣ceed the Apostles n less fully then any other. First, they must needs succeed the 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 Sup∣per, in the commandement of teaching and baptizng. Ergo, Pres∣bytes must needs succeed the Apostles. Secondly, those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chuches, which they had planted for ther futher building thm 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, t••se were thir successors most proper and immediate. Thirdly, tese to whom now tking their farewells they resigned the Chur∣ches, these were thir succssours. But this they did to Presbyters, Paul now never to se Ephesus more, Act. 20. Peter neere death, 1 Pet. 5.2. Ero. Fourthly, if one Pastor or Minister doe more proprly resemble an Apostle then another, it is because hee hath same powr Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to ano∣ther. But this was not done. Ergo. The assumption is manifest: for first, their power of teach••g and ministring the Sacraments doth s fully and proprly belong to the Presbyter as to any, unlesse we count Peaching not necissarily cnnexd to a Presbyters office, but a bishop; or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs 〈◊〉 Presbyter, the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bshop, which are both too absurd. Secondly, for governe∣ment, the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to Page  53 one then to another. Object. This is denyed, for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination, and the coercive power in their owne hands, and to have committed these in the end onely to Apo∣stolike men, as Timothy, Titus, who were their successours, succeeding them in it. Answ. A notable fiction: for it is most plaine by Scrip∣ture; that ordination, power of deciding controversies, excommuni∣cation, were given to Presbyters, and not kept up from them; they should otherwise have 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 above others, in which regard they should be their successours, then the Apostles did not onely en∣joy as Legates power over the Churches, but as ordinary Ministers. For what power they enjoyed as Legates, this they could not aliis Le∣gar. Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved, and therefore did never substitute others to themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed. And it is to be no∣ted, that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this, that the Apostles were not onely Apostles, but Bi∣shops in Provinces and particular Churches. For the Papists them∣selves urged with this, that the Apostles have none succeeding them, they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles, the one of Legates, so Peter, nor any other could have a successour. The other of bi∣shops, Oecumenicall in Peter, of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan, as in some other. Thus onely considered, they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them: For the Apostolick power precisely consi∣dered, was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum. Now we have proved that this ground is false, and therefore that succeeding the Apostles, more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it, is false also.

Lastly, the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two. For first, in all that is spoken to the seventy two, the full duty and of∣fice of a Presbyter is not laid downe. Secondly, it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary power of preaching or baptizing and mi∣nistering the other Sacrament. For they are sent to Evangelize, to preach the Gospell: but whether from power of ordinary office, or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtfull. Thirdly, it is not read that they ever baptized, or had the power of administring the Supper given to them: Yea, that they had neither ministery 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 themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it, much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had. Fourthly, if they were set Ministers, then were they Evangelists in destination. For the act Page  54 enjoyned them, is from City to City, without limitation to Evan∣gelze; and after we read of some, as Philip, that he was an Evan∣gelist; the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others. Thus w Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men, whom the Apostles constituted Bishops, and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles. These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant, we succeed these. Finally, Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples, in his 7. Book Armenicrm quaest. cap. 7.

11 Argument.

Those who receive 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 ordinati∣on 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 he not of any order, essentially differing. The truth is, ordination, if it be look∣ed 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 where of there may be but one onely during life in a Church, they are in singularity of preheminence above o∣thers. But there may be but one Bishop, though there may be ma∣ny other Presbyters, one Timothy, one Titus, one Archippus, one Eaphroditus. Ergo. For proofe of the assumption. See Cornelius, as Eusebius relateth his sentence, lib. 6. cap. 43. Con. Nice. cap 8. Conc. Calud. cap 4. Pssidonius in vita Augustine. Ierem Phil. 1. ver. 1. Chry∣sost. Amb. Teo Orcumen. And such was Bishops preheminence, that Presbyters, Deacons, and other Clerkes, are said to be the Bi∣shops Clerks.

Answer.

I answer to the Assumption. That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within the same Church. It may be said, there must be but one Bishop in or∣der to all the other Churches of the Cities. Secondly, this may be affirmed as standing by Canon, or as divn institution. Now the assumpton is true, onely by Law Ecclesiasticall. For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere, Act 20. and Page  55 that there were Bishops at Philippi. True it is, the Scripture doth not distinguish how many of the one sort, nor how many of the o∣ther, because no doubt for the number of the Congregations, a sin∣gle Presbyter labouring in the Word, or two, the one coadjutor to the other might be placed. Secondly, it is testified by Epiphanius, that ordinarly all Cities but Alexandria had two. Thirdly, Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. doth say, that now indeed there may be but one Bishop, meaning Canonically, making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique. Fourthly, Austin did not know it was un∣lawfull▪ Yea, he did onely in regard of the decree of Nice, account it so. Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contray, but as a point against Canon, which mght in some cases be dispensed with, as the story of Narcissus, and Alexander, and Liberius, and Foelix did more then manifest. For though the people of Rome cried out, one God, one Christ, one Bishop, yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite, whereas had it beene a thing they had all thought to have been against Christs institution, they would not have done. Vide Sz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly, Ieroms peerelesse power, is nothing but Consul-like presidence above others; for this he pleaded for, writing against Iovinian, lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselves, that schisme might be avoided. Wherefore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense, that the Bishop jure humano, hath a singularity of preheminence be∣fore others, as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onely Archbishop.

13 Argument.

Those who had peerelesse power above others in ordination and jurisdiction, they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others. But the former is due to Bishops. Unlesse this sin∣gularity of power were yeelded, there would be as many schismes as Priests. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who have a peculiar power of odination above others, they are in preheminence and power be∣fore others. But Bishops have, Ergo, they are in, &c. The assumption proved. That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent, but in the Apostles, and af∣ter in Timothy and Titus and their successours, that is a peculiar of Bishops. But ordination was not in the Presbyters, &c. Ergo. The assumption proved. That which these were sent to do, Presbyters had not power to doe. It was therefore in them, and such as suc∣ceeded them, the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete▪ Againe, the Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, speake of the orde nor as one. Ergo, it was the peculiar right of the Bishop, and the Bi∣shop onely. He onely by Canon was punishable for irregula∣rity in ordination. And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fthers by ordination, a the Page  56 Presbyters doth sonnes by baptisme. And Ierom doth except ordi∣nation as the bshops peculiar, wherein he is most unequall to them.

Answer.

I answer the proposition of the first syllogsme by distinction. Those who have peerelesse power in regard of the simple right to ordeine: viz. in regard of exercising the act, and sole performing the rite of it, those who have a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles, which no others have, they are above others in degree. Againe, peerelesse power in a bishp over Pres∣byters may be said in comparison to them distributively or colle∣ctively considered. He that hath peerelesse power given him, which no one of the other hath, is not presently of a greater degree, nor hath not majority of rule amongst others, as a Consul in the Senate: but if he have a peerel•••e power, such as they all collectively considered, cannot controule, then the Proposition is true; but the Assumption will then be found to halt.

To the proofe of the assumption. The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing it selfe, not to ministring the rite, and executing the act, which my be reserved for honour sake to one, by those who otherwise have equall power with him. Tha bshops have this power in order, the thing it selfe agreeing to them, Vt pro∣prii offuii, not by commission from others, we deny. The assumpti∣on is wholly denyed. As for the proofe of it. First, we that deny that Evangelists hd not power to ordeine, as well as Apostles. Se∣condly, that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they. Every one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination. The Evngelists power did not derogate from the Apostles, the Prebyters from neither of them. But power of im∣posing hands solitarily, whereas 〈◊〉 Churches were not constitu∣ted, this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Evan∣gelists, whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of Churches. Secondly, the assumption is false; in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands, contrary to that in Timothy; The grace given thee by aying 〈◊〉 of the hands of the Presbytery. Thirdly, it is false, in presupposing others then Presbyters to have beene Timothy and Titus their successours. To the proofe of this as∣sumption. The proposition is not true: For it might be convenient that the same thng should be done by Evangelists, and by ordinary Pastors, each concurring in their severall orders to the same ser∣vice of Christ the Lord. Secondly, I answer to the assumption. That Presbyters were to be placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters, or where there were as yet none. In the Page  57 first Churcher' they are bid ordaine, if any need further, but salv jre Ecclesiae, not without the concurrence of others. In the latter Churches which were to be constituted, they may be conceived as Evangelists, with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands. We hold Apostles might doe it, Evange∣lists might, and the Presbyteries also. Yea, Presbyters in Alexan∣dria when now their first Presbyter was dceased, did ordaine the following: For the Canon of three bishops, and Metropolitans, added by the Niene Councell, was not knowne yet. Neverthelesse it grew timely to be restrained to bishops, the performing I meane of the outward rite and signe; but onely by Canon, as Consignation was also, for which there is as ancient testimonies as this, that it was appropriate to the Bsh. We grant therefore that antiquity doth sometime speake of the ordainer as one. In the Churches of Affrica one did not lay on hands, yet in some other Churches the rite was by one administred. And it is to be noted by the way, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters, but to the number of Three, or many bishops required in the ordi∣nation of a bishop. They might therefore by their Canons be punish∣able, because regularly and canonically the executing of it was com∣mitted to them. This is all that Epiphanius or Ierome excepta ordinatione can prove. But these two conclusions we would see proved out of scriptures and Fathers. First, that ordination is an action of power, of order, a power sacramentall, which a Presbyter hath not. Second∣ly, that by vertue of this power, the bishop doth ordaine, and not by Ecclesiasticall right or commission from the Church. Certainly, the act of promoting a minister of the Church, is rather an act of jurisdiction then order. As it belongeth to policy and government, to call new Magistrates, where they are wanting. Object. But a new spirituall officer may be instituted by a sacrament. Answ. If God would so have collated the grace of spirituall callings; but he hath appointed no such thing. The Apostles and 72. were not institu∣ted by a sacrament or imposition of Christs hands. Now the grea∣ter the grace was which was given, the more need of a sacrament whereby it should be given. Object. They were extraordinary. Answ. They might have had some ambulatory sacrament for the time. Againe, imposition of hands was used in gving extraordi∣nary graces, Acts 8. Secondly, were it a sacrament, it should conferre the grace of office, as well as grace sanctifying the person to use it holly. But we see that this it could not do As for Paul and Barnbas the Church did separate them at the command of God, and lay hands on them, and pray for them, but they were already before this, immediately chosen by God to the grace of their office. It could be nothing then but a gesture accompanied with prayer, seeking Page  58 grace in their behalfe. For the sacramentall collating of grace san∣ctifying all callings, we have in these two sacraments of Christs in∣stitution. Thirdly, there are many kindes of imposition of hands in the old and new Testament, yet cannot it be proved, that it is any where a proper sacrament. It is then a rite, a gesture, a ceremony, signifying a thing or person separate, presented to God, prayed for to God. Thus Antiquity did thinke of it, as a gesture of one, by prayer to God, seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministery. So Ecclesiastically it was used in baptising, in consecrating, in reconciling penitents, as well as ordaining: but ne∣ver granted as a sacrament in those other cases by grant of all. It is then a rite or gesture of one, praying. Tertul. de ••pt. sheweth this saying, Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans spiri∣tum sanctum. Ierom also contra Luciferanos, Non abno, hanc esse Eccle∣siae consuetudinem ut Episcopus manum impositutus excurrat ad inve∣cationem spiritus sancti. Ambr. de dgait. sacerdot. ••••dos imponit sup∣picem dexiram. August. Quid aliua est manus impositio quam oratio? &c. The Greeke Churches have ever given Orders by a forme of prayer conceived, with imposition of hands. Hence it is, that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses, where it could not be otherwise considered then a deprecative gesture. Neither is it like the African Fathers ever thought it a sacrament, which no other had vertue and power to minister, but the Bishop. For then they would never have admitted Presbyters to use the same rite with them. For so they had suffered them to pro∣phane a sacrament, wherein they had no power to intermed∣dle. Object. If one say they did lay on hands with them, but the Bishops imposition was properly Consecrative and sacramen∣tall, thiDep••rative onely. Answer. Besides that this is spo∣ken without foundation, how absurd is it, that the very selfe-same sacramentall rte should be a sacrament in one ministers hand, and no sacrament performed by another: Yea, when the Bishop doth it to a Presbyter, or Deacon, then a sacrament; when to a Subdeacon, and other inferiour officers, then none, let any judge. Austin did account no other of imposition of hands, then a prayer over a man, accompanied with that gesture. Secondly, they doe not thinke that the Bshop ordaineth by divine right, it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramentall power: but that he onely doth ordaine quoad signum & ritu•• extrin∣secum, by the Churches commission, though the right of ordaining be in all the Presbytery also. As in a Colledge the society have right to choose a fellow, and to ordaine him also, though the master doth alone lay on hands, and give admission. Thus Ierom speaketh of confirmation, that it was reserved to the Bishop for honour sake, Page  59 rather then any necessity of Gods law. Whence by analogie and proportion, it followeth they thinke not ordination, or those other Episcopall royalties to have beene reserved to him by divine right. Beside, there are more ancient proofes for Cnonicall appropriating confirmation, then for this imposition of hands. Corn••tus speaketh thus of Novatus, he wanted thse things which he should have had after Baptisme, according to the Canon, the sealing of our Lord from a Bishop, Euseb. Lib. 6. cap. 25. So Cyprian to ul. Never∣thelesse, Ierm judgeth this also to have beene yeelded them for ho∣nour sake. And we know that in the Bishops absence, Presbyters through the East did Consignare, through Grecia, through Arme∣nia. Neither would Gregory the great have allowed Presbyters in the Greeke Churches to have confirmed, had he judged it other∣wise then Canonically to belong to the bishops. T••t therefore which is not properly a sacramentall action, and that which is not appropriate to a bishop further then Presbyters hve committed it to him, that cannot make him in higher degree of ministery then Presbyters are.

Thirdly, in reconciling penitents; the Presbyters did it in case of the bishops absence: as is to be gathered from the third Councell of Cartiage, 32. And who thinkes blessing so appropriate to a bi∣shop, that Presbyters may not solemnly blesse in the name of the Lord, though antiquity reserved this to him. These therefore were kept to him, not as acts exceeding the Presbyters power of order, but for the supposed honour of him and the Church. For as Am∣rosa saith, Vt omnes eaem possunt irrational, & vulgaris res. vilis{que} vide∣r•••r; It pleaseth antiquity therefore to set up one who should quod ex•••tiam doe many things alone, not because that Presbyters could not, but it seemed in their eyes more to the honor of the Church, that some one should be interesed in them.

Fourthly, Amalarius in a certaine booke of sacred orders, doth con∣fue the doctrine of an uncertain author, who taught that one bishop onely was to lay hands on a Deacon: because he was consecrated not to Priesthood, but to ministery and service. Nunquid scriptor libell. ••ctio & sanctior Apostolis quiposuerunt plures manus super Diaconos quan∣do consecrbantur, & prop•••ea solus Episcopus manus ponat super Diconum, c si solus possit precari virtutem gratiarum quam plures Apostoli precaban¦tur. Op imum est bnos duces sequi, qui certaverunt us{que} ad plenam victori∣••▪ Whence it is plaine, he did know no further thing in imposition then prayer, which the more imposed, is the more forible.

The fourteenth Argument.

Those who had jurisdiction over Presbyters assisting them, and Presbyters affixed to Cures, they had a superiority of power over o∣ther ministers. But bishops had so, Ergo, &c.

Page  60The Assumption is manifest. Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this, that he should be the governour of the Presbytery and whole Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psalme, call them the Prnces of the Church, by whom she is governed. The assumption is proved particularly. Those who had directive power above others, and corrective, they had majority of rule. But Bshops had. Ergo. The assumption proved. First, for directive power, the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them. Iga ad Mag. ad Smyr. They might not minister the sacrament of the sup∣per but under the Bshop, Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob. Tert. lib. de ••pt. Can. Apost. 38, Can. Carthg. 4.38. Con. Cr. 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5.

Secondly, that they had corrective power, it is proved, Apc. 2 & 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles, and is commen∣ded for it, the Angel of Thiatira is reproved for suffering the like. Therefore they had power over other ministers. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 9. telleth Regaian he had power to have censured his Deacon. Ierom. adversus Vigilantium, marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantis was, did not breake the unprofitable vessell. Epiphaniu saith Bi∣shops, governed the Presbyters themselves, they the people. The Presbyters affixed to places and Churches, were subject to the Bi∣shops, for when they were vacant, the bishop did supply them. A∣gaine, the Presbyters had their power from him, and therefore were under him, and they were subject to the censure of the bishop. Those of his Clergie were under him; for he might promote them, they might not goe from one Diocesse to another without him, nor travell to the citie, but by his leave. The bishop was their judge, and might excommunicate them, Cyprli. 1. Epist 3. Concil. Carth. 4. ap. 59. Conc. Chal. cap. 9. conc. Nice. cap. 4. conc. Ant. cap. 4. ibid. cap. 6. cap. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. conc. Afric. cap. 29. conc. Ephes. cap. 5. conc. Chal. cap. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrisostome prove this. All Presbyters were counted acepheli, headlesse, that lived not in sub∣jection to a bishop. The Pastors of parishes were either subject to bishops, or they had associates in Parishes joyned with them, or they ruled alone. But they had not associates, neither did they rule alone. Ergo, they were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop.

Answer.

The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must be thus fra∣med. Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves, with∣out the concurrence of other Presbyters, as fellow judges, they were greater in majority of rule. Thus bishops had not jurisdiction. True it is, they were called governours and Princes of their Chur∣ches, because they were more eminent ministers, though they had Page  61 not Monarchiall power in Churches, but Consull-like authority: and therefore when they affected this Monarchy, what said Ie∣rome, Noverint se saterdotes esse non dominos, noverint se non ad Principtum vocatos, ad servitium totius Ecclsiae. Sic Origen in Esa. hom. 7.

To the proofe of the Assumption. Wee deny that they had this directive power over all Presbyters. Secondly, that thy had it over any by humane constitution infallible. Presbyters were in great difference. Those who are called propry sacerdotes, Rectores, Seniores. Minorm Ecclesiarum praepositi, the Bshop had not, not challenged not that directive power over them, which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Clerikes, who were helpes to him in the Liturgy, in Chapells and parishs which did depend on him as their proper teacher, though they could not so ordinarily goe out to him. The first had power within their Churches, to teach, administer, excommunicate, were counted brethren to the bshops, and called Episcopi, or Coepiscopi, even of the Ancient: But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy, they had his directive power over them, the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same. But I take these latter to have beene but a corruption of governing Presbyters, who came to bee made a humane mini∣stery. 1. by having singular acts permitted. 2. by being consecrate to this, and so doing ex officio, what they were imployed in by the bishop. But sure these are but helpes to liturgy, according to the Canons. Preaching did not agree to them further then it could bee delegated or permitted. Finally, wee read, that by law it was per∣mitted them: that it was taken away from them againe by the bishops: that it was stinted and limited sometimes as to the ope∣ning of the Lords Praier, the Creed and ten Commandements: as it is plaine to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient. Se∣condly, let us account them as Ministers of the word given by God to hs Church: then I say, they could not have any direction, but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists: and this pwer is gven to the bishops onely by canon swerving from the first ordinance of Christ: for it maketh a Minister of the word become as a cypher, without power of his consecration, as Ierom speaketh, being so inter∣preted by Pilson himselfe. These decrees were as justifible as tht which forbiddeth any to baptise▪ who hath not gotten chrisme from the bishop Con. Carth. 4. cap. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onely a precedence of order in the bshop above Presbyters, requiring pre∣sence and assent, as of a fellow and chiefe member, not otherwise.

To the proof of the second part of the former assumption, 1. we de∣ny this majority of corrective power to have beene in the Apostles themselves: they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Page  62 Christs corrective power imposed. Secondly, we deny that this mini∣steriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evangelist, where Churches were constituted. Neither is the wri∣ting to one above others, an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others. To that of Cyprian against Rgatian; we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone, or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the con∣sent of Bishops neighbouring: but that he might in regular manner have beene bold to have done it, because he might be sure, quod no colegae tui mnesid ratum haberemus. Cyprian was of judgement, that he hmselfe might doe nothing without the consent of his Presby∣ters, unlesse he should violate his duty, by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren. It was not modesty in him; but due observancy, such as he did owe unto his brethren. Nei∣ther did Cyprian ever ordinarily any thing alone. He received some, the people and the brethren contradicting, lib. 1. epist. 3. but not till he had perswaded them, and brought them to be willing. Thou seest (saith he) what paines I have to perswade the brethren to patience▪ So againe, I hardly perswade the people, yea even wring it from them, that such should be received. Neither did he take upon him to ordaine Presbyters alone: but propounded, made request for them, confessing, that fur∣ther then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them, they had the right of suffrage, no lesse then himselfe, as by these epistles may ppeare, lib. 1. pist. 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom (though grandil quen sometimes) did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence, excommunicate. If he were as Moses, yet he would have these as the seventy. Againe, Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall, Et nos sencum habemus, coetum Presbytero••m, sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam li∣cet, ut Romani habuerunt sentum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur. Epiphanius sith. Bishops governed Presbyters: but it doth not fol∣low, that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters. As for the fixed Presbyters, the proofes are more unsfficient. The Bishop supplyed them, therefore they were under him. For Colleges supply Churches, yet have they no jurisdiction over them. Secondly, the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presby∣ter obtruderetur. Thirdly, we iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction. We grant the Bshop had such a jurisdiction as concer∣ing the Church, so farre as it was in society with others, such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province: but this did stand with the Re∣ctors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church. Fourthly, though they had power by his ministeriall interposition, yet this doth not prove them dependant on him. For bishops have their power from others ordaining them, to whom notwithstanding they are not sub∣ject Page  63 in their Churches. In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery, yet so that they could not be pro∣ceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence. Thus in Cyprians judgement; bishops themselves delin∣quent, turning wolves, as Samosatenus, Liberius, &c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries, to be deposed and relinquished by them. As for those that were part of his clerks, it is true, they were in grea∣ter measure subject to him, absolutely in a manner for their directi∣on: but for his corrective power he 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 primary member of the church for the representative church, as Austine saith, Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclsiae gssisse. See concil. Sardicen. cap. 17. conc. Carth 4. cap. 2.3. Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3. Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders, it is strange that any will bring it, when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops, yea without his Clergie, as sitting in judgement with him. Chysostomes fact is not to be justified: for it was altogether irregular, savouring of the impetuous nature to which 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 mkeh no∣thing for the Bshops majority of rule over all Churches and Pres∣byters in them. For first, it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop, a collegat life together, Eode refectorio & dormitori utehantur, & Canonice viventes ab Episcopo in∣strubontur. Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master, it is no wonder if thy be called head∣lesse, who did belong to no Bishop. Secondly, say it were alike of all Presbyters, which will never be proved (for all Presbyers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clrkes) say it were, yet will it not follow, hat those who were under some, were subject to his authority of rule. For there is a head in regard of presidency 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 Archbishps as heads. Priests therefore as well as Clerkes, di lve under some ju∣risdiction of the bishops; but such as did permit them coerive power in their owne Churches, such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity, and not of any power, whereby he might swy all at his pleasure. Thirdly, if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny, it is better to be without such heads then to have them: as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome, then if he still were head over us. Page  64 To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had, because neitheir Presbyters a∣lone had it, nor with assistents. I answer, they had as well the power of government, as of teaching: and though they had not such assi∣stants 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 enjoyed but a Presby∣ter, what assistants did they give him? what assistants had the Chore∣piscopi, who yet had government of their Churches?

The fifteenth Argument.

That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie, the contrary of that is truth. But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others. Ergo, the contra∣ry is truth.

Answer.

To the proposition, we deny that it must needs be presently true, the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie. As the re∣presentative catholicke Church may propound an error, so she my condemne a particular truth, and yet remaine a catholicke church. To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority, but that onely which Aerius runne into. Now his opinion I take to have been this. 1. He did with Ierom de∣ny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance: for this o∣pinion was never counted heresie, it was Ieroms plainely. 2. Hee did not deny the fact, that bishops were superiour in their actuall admi∣stration; h could not be so mad. If he had all that a bishop had ac∣tually, how could he have affected to be a bishop, as a further ho∣nou▪ Deniall of superiority, such as consisteth in a further power of ordr then a Pebyter hath, and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule, this denyall is not here condemned: for all the fathers may be rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church. What then was condemned in him? A deniall of all superiority in one mi∣nister before another, though it were but of honor and dignity: and secondly, the deying of this in schismaticall manner, so as to for∣sk communion with the Church wherein it is. For in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it seemeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should bee read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that there ought to be none. How∣sover hee is to bee conceived as apposing practically the difference of honour & dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiasticall in∣stituton. What is this to us? Deniall of superiority in regard of ho∣nor & dignity, joyned with schisme, was condemned: Ergo, deniall of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule, kee∣ping the bond of love was condemned.

Page  65The 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 above othersome, in order, honor, and dignity. But hy un∣derstand not by order such an order onely as is distinct, because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it, which is not to other. Though ths argument therefore touch us not, yet to speake a little further about it, this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too se∣verely: neither our authors, D. Whitakerus, D. Reynolds, Danaeus, to be blamed, who doe in some sort excuse him. For bishops were growne such that many good persons were offended at them, as the Audiani. Yea, it was so ordinary, that Ierom distinguisheth schisme from heresie, because the one conteined assertions against the faith, the other served from the Church by reason of dis∣senting 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 story of these times. Sure it is, Eusta∣thius was a strong Arian, whom Aerius did oppose. Neither is it strange to bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold, any thing whereof there is but ungroun∣ded suspicion. Are not we traduced as Donatists, Anabaptists, Pu∣ritanes? As for this opinion▪ thy thought it rather schismaticall, then hereticall: & therfore happily called it heresie, because it included er∣rour in their understanding, which with schismaticall pertinacy was made heresie. Neither is it like that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie, nor Austin following him. For thouh Austine was aged, yet he was so humble, that hee saih, Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri. Neither was it prejudice to hs worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe, who in like∣lihood should know this matter also better. As for his calling it heresie, it is certaine he would not have this in rigour streined. Fr he doth protest (in his preface unto that booke of heresie) that none to his thought, can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie. Though threfore he doubted not of this, that Arius was in errour, such as Catho∣lickes should decline: yet it doth not argue that hee thought this errour in rigour and former propriety, to have beene heresie. Thus much for this last Argument.

On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be seriosly considered.

Argument. 1.

Those whom the Apostles placed as hiefe, in their first consti∣tuting of Churches, and left as their successours in their last fare∣wels which they gave to the Churches, they had none speriour to them in the Chrches. But they first placed Presyes, feeing Page  66 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 give to Presbyters power of order, power to teach, minister sa∣craments, and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted; but kept the coercive power in their owne hands, meaning, when now by the Presbyters labour, the churches were growne 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 recom∣mended. All which is an audacious fiction, without any warrant of Scripture, or shew of good reason. For it is confessed that Pres∣byters were placed at the first constitution, as the Pastors and tea∣chers of the Churches. Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour, they would have 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 fol∣low the Pastorall office. What likelihood is there, that those who were set as parents to beget children, should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith chldren now begotten are to be nur∣tred and kep i awe beseeming them? If it be said, every one sit for the office of a Teacher, was not sit for a Governour: I answer, he that is fit to be a Pastor eaching and govrning in foro interno, is much more fit to be a Governour externally: he who is fit for the greater, is fit for the lesser. It was a greater and more Apostolicall worke to labour conversion, and bring the churches a handfull in te plantig (as some thinke) to become numbersome in people, then it is to governe them being converted. And it is absurd to thinke 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 have som one sent, who ight rule them and the chur∣ches they had collected. Secondly, these Presbyters were (as them∣selves Page  67 confesse) qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the ho∣ly Ghost, and chosen by speciall designation: so that to impute in∣sufficiency unto them, is harsh, and injurious to God, as well as to man. Finally, by the twenty of the Acts, and the first Epistle of Peter, cha. 5. it is plaine, they doe in their last farewels, commit the Chur∣ches unto the Presbyters, not suggesting any thing of a further Pa∣stor to be sent, who would supply their roomes; which yet they would not have forgotten, being a thing of so great consolation, had it been intended by them.

Argument 2.

Those who have the name and office of Bishopscommon to them, they have no superiour Pastors over them: but the Presbyters Pa∣storall have that name and office attributed to them. For first they are said to governe in generall. Secondly, there is nothing found be∣longing to the power of the keyes in foro externo, but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them, power of suffrage in councell. Acts 15. pow∣er of excommunication, which is manifest to have beene in the churches 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 Apostles in exercise of it, being to reteine it onely untill such time as more eminent Pa∣stors 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 have beene in them, not by extraordinary commission, but by ordinary office. Se∣condly, they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the ho∣ly Ghost, who onely had out of authority 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 or∣der, not with any subjection to them, as heads of derivation, ser∣ving Christ their onely Lord, no lesse immediately then the Apo∣stles themselves.

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 Do∣ctors: but in all other orders, there were none that had singulari∣ty of preheminence and majority of power above other: No A∣postle, Prophet, Evangelist had this rule one over another: If the proposition be denied, upon supposall of a different rea∣son, because that though parity in a few extraordinary Mi∣nisters might be admitted without disorder, yet in a multi∣tude of ordinary Ministers, it could not but breed schisme and confusion, and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into Page  68 a high Priest, and other secondary ones, so is it fit that the Presby∣ters of the new Testament should be devided, some being in the first, and some in the second ranke. To this I answer, the parity is the more dangerous, by how much the places are supereminent. Secondly, though Pastors should be equall, yt this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church, some whereof should bee in degree inferiour to other, the governing Elders to the Pastors, and the Deacons to them. Thirdly, if every Church being an Ec∣clesiasticall body, should have governours every way equall, there were no feare of confusion, seeing Aristocracy, especially where God ordaineth it, is a forme of gouernment sufficient to preserve order. But every Church might then doe what ever it would with∣in 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 delinquency, hath directive and corrective power over it. Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme, as impa∣rity doth by tyranny subject it. As for the distinction of Priests, wee grant it; but as man could not have made that distiction, had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament, no more can we un∣der 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 powe 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 ex∣ercise of their power is at the direction of another. But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on an 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 have, is the same essen∣tially with theirs; yea, every way the same. Secondly, wee have it as imediately from Christ as they. I shew them both thus: The power of order is the power which inableth us to preach and deli∣ver 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 praier, and commandements onely, or that he hath not the full power sacraentall, there being other sacraments of ordina∣tion and onfirmation which wee may not minister, all which are gro••e, we must yeeld their power of order to be the same. Yea, were these sacraments properly, they are both grounded in the Page  69 power a Presbyter hath: Ordination in do 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 give it, even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth prin∣cipally from him. The Church, did she give this power, might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order, no sa∣crament, no preaching. The Pope doth not (if we follow the com∣mon tenent) challenge so much as to give 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 truh is, all doe not main∣taine it from right grounds. But it will be said the Presbyter is in∣feriour in jurisdiction, and can have none but what is derived to him from the bishop, who hath the fulnesse of it within his Dio∣cesan Church. But this is false, and grounded on many false pre∣sumptions. As first, that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors; for to make a Pastor, and give him no help against the Wolfe, is to furnih him forth imperfectly. Secondly, it presup∣poseth 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 and exercitative to the representative Church, that they might Aristocratically administer it. Thirdly, this presup∣poseth the plenitude of regiment to be in the bishop, and from him to be derived to other: which maketh him a head of virtuall in∣fluence, that in his Church, which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all bishops. For his headship and spirituall soveraignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this, that the government of all in for externo, is committed to him. Not to mention, how bishops, while they were bishops, gloried of their chaire and teaching, as the flow∣er of their garland, preferring it farre before government, but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicity, and infected with se∣cular smoke, then they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters, then their jurisdiction and consistory did carry all the credite, every office in the Church being counted a dignity, as it had more or lesse jurisdiction annexed; as those are more or lesse honourable in the Common-wealth, which have civill authority 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 be avoided but that the Pastor should have it, because though every Praesul or Pralatus, be not a Pastor, yet eve∣ry Pastor is Pralatus, in order to that Church where he is the proper Page  70 and ordinary Pastor. Yea, when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine, it were ill with every Church, if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition, should not have power in administring it. Thirdly, I say, no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person. In the application there is a ministery 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 Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house: so God in his. God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites, and Christ the 70. not medi∣ately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him. God doth ever onely in regard of authority, ap∣ply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person, his sole au∣thority doth it, though sometime as in ordinary callings, the mini∣stery of others doth concurre. The Church is in setting out, or or∣daining this or that man, as the Colledge is in choosing, when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most mani∣festly 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 government as are in their Kingdome, yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant, they have 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 〈◊〉 immdiai•• suppositi qum virtutis: sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily, as when God extraordinarily dire∣cteth a person to goe and call one to this or that place, as he did Sa∣••el to anoint 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 immediatione virtutis, not suppositi.

Object. But yet Bishops have the Churches, and the care of them wholly committed to them; though therefore Ministers have equall power to them, yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churhes, and therefore are inferiour, in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdicti∣on, are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them. This is an error likewise: For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he my atend. God calleth Mi∣nisters, not to a faculty of honour, which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions, if any give them persons among whom Page  71 they may exercise their power received, as the Emperours did make Chartulrios judices, who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himselfe to them. Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary Judges, 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 Physicke, without any patients among whom he may practise. But Gods Ministery is the calling of a man to an actuall administration, Goe teach: and the power of order if nothing by the way, but a relative respect, founded in this, that I am called to such an actuall administration. Now there can∣not be an act commanded, without the subject about which it is oc∣cupied: otherwise, God should give them a faculty of feeding, and leave 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 have set the Presbyters over thei flocke. A man taking a steward, or other servant into his house, doth give him a power of doing something to his family; and ne∣ver thinketh of taking servants, further then the necessity of his houshold doth require: so is it with God in his Church, which is his house: fore the exegency of his people so require, he doth not call any to the function of Ministery. Againe, this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth: For some make his sove∣raignty to stand onely in this, not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction, but that he giveth to all Pastors and Bishops the moity of sheepe, on whom this their power is exercised, Christ having given him the care of all his sheepe, feed my sheepe: so Vasquez. Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheepe in a Diocesan flocke to be his, and that he hath power to assigne the severall flockes under him, he doth usurpe an Antichristian authority. 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 leave to helpe within his Church. Yea, they should loose their right in their Churches, when the Bishop dieth, 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 Master 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 every Minister is an Embassadour of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his Ministery, if his exercising of it did depend on man. Then also Page  72 should ministermediately onely serve God, in as much as they have done this or that, to which the bishop did direct them. Moreover, should the bishop bid him not preach at al, preach rarely, teach onely such and such things, or come and live from his charge, he should not sinne in obeying him. But man cannot limit that power of ministe∣ry which he cannot give. It is not with Gods servants in his Church, as with civill servants in the Common-wealth: for here some ser∣vants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called Fervi rdinarli or praepofiti, some are under others to do this or that commanded by them, commonly called servi vicarii: but in the Church all servants serve their Master 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 or∣dained some to be helpes and assistants to othersome. It is said that God hath ordained powers, helps, governours, 1 Cor. 12.8. and were not the Evangelists assistants to the Apostles, doing that to which they directed them▪ To this I answer, that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons, and such as ministred to the infirme ones: As for Evangelists, they were companions and assistans to the Apostles, but it was in order to the work of God in their hands, which they were to serve, not in order to their persons, as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferiority. Ob∣serve how Paul speaketh of them, 2 Cor. 8.23. Vitu ws his compa∣nion and helper towards them, Phil. 2.25. Epaphroditus was his bro∣ther and helper in his worke, and fellow souldier, 1 Thess. 3.2. Timo∣thy was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ, 2 Tim. 4.11. Marke was helpefull in the Ministery. The truth is, this was servitus 〈◊〉 porf•••lis 〈◊〉 relis, the Evangelists did serve the worke the Apostles had in hand, with out being servants to their persons. When brick-layers worke, some mixe line, and make mortar, some beare up tile and mortar, some sit on the house and there lay that which is bought them. These are all fellow servants, yet the one doth serve to set forward the worke of the other. But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles, wholly in exercise of their calling? I an∣swer, as Christ gave some to be Evangelists, so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office, and what was the admi∣nistration to which he called them. He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any. There is a double direction, one ptesatiue, which is made from majority of rule 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other socialis, such as one servant, having fit knowledge of his masters will, and ripe experience, may give to another. The latter kinde of direction it was, not the former, by which the Evan∣gelists were directed. Which though commonly Paul used, yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords Page  73 hither and thither, as may be gathered, 2 Cor. 8.16, 17. and 2.7.14, 15.

The fift Argument.

That which the Apostles had not over Prophets, Evangelists, Presbyters, nor Deacons themselves that power whch the Church hath not over any member, the bishop hath not over other mi∣nisters. But they had not over any inferior officers any majority of directive or corrective power: neither hath the Church it selfe any such power. Ergo. The assumption is proved: for majority of directive and corrective power is a Lord-like and Regall power: now there is no such power in the Church, or in the Apostles, or in any but onely in that one Lord: all other power being but a decla∣rative and executive ministery to signifie and execute what Christ out of majority of power would have signified and put in exe∣cution.

The sixth Argument.

That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation, never was of Christs institution. But bishops majority of power in regard of order and jurisdiction, doth so: Ergo. That which maketh the bishop a head as doth in suere derive the power of externall govern∣ment to other his assistants that doth breed an Antichristian usur∣pation. But to claime the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church, doth so: for he must needs substitute helpers to him, because it is more then by himselfe he can performe. But this is it which maketh Antichrist, he doth take upon him to be head of the whole Church, from whom is derived this power of externall government: and the bishop doth no lesse in his Diocesan Church, that which he usurpeth differing in degree onely and extension, not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth. If it be said that his power is Antichristian, because it is universall: it is not so. For were the power lawfull, the universality could not make it Anti∣christian. The Apostles had an universality of authority, yet no Antichrists, because it did not make them heads, deriving to others from their fulnesse: it was not prince-like majority of power, but steward like and ministeriall onely. If one doe usurpe a kingly pow∣er in Kent onely, he were an Anti-king to our Soveraigne, no lesse for kind, then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England, Sotland, and Ireland. There is but one Lord, and many ministrations. Nei∣ther doth this make the Popes power papall, because it is not under a Synod: for the best of the Papists hold, and it is the most common tenent, that he is subject to an Oecumenicall Councell. Secondly, though he be subject, yet that doth not hinder but he may usurpe a kingly government: for a King may have a kingly power, and yet confesse himselfe accountable to all his people collectively conside∣red: Page  74 neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church, because one may manage it, and the Popes unlawfull, because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church: for then all the power the Pope doth challenge, is not per se, but per accidens, unlawfull, by reason of mans unsufficiency, who cannot weld so great a matter.

The seventh Argument.

Those Ministers who are made by one patent in the same words, have equall authority: but all Ministers of the Word are made by the same patent, in the same words, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sta ye forgive. &c. Ergo. The proposition is denied: because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken. These words spoken to Apostles, they gave them larger power then to a Bishop: and so spoken to a Pres∣byter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop. Answ: If the Scrip∣ture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the Word, and made them divers degrees, as it hath made Apostles and Evan∣gelists, then we would grant the excepion: but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assi∣stent: but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists, who were among themselves equall in degree. Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power then another: so no Pastor or Teacher, but must receive the same power, as who are among thmselves of the same degree. Secondly, were they different degrees, yet it should give the Presbyter for kind, though not of so ample ex∣tent as the Bshop hah, as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde, which the Apostles had, though not so universall, but con∣tracted to particular Churches.

Now to some unto some conclusions or assertions which may led light unto the deciding of this question.

Conclus. 1. Let this be the first. No Minister of the Word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church. Power is naturall or mo∣rall. Morall is Civill or Ecclesiasticall. Civill is either Lord-like and ruling, or ministeriall and servile. So Ecclesiasticall, taken large∣ly for all power subjectively in, or objectively about the Church, is either Lord-like and Regall, such as is in Christ, or it is ministeriall and servile, such as is in the Church and the principall members of it. The power therefore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service, as doth make the ministers having it, so servants, that they are no way Lords. Ma∣ny ministers, one Lord: we preach Christ, our selves your servants for Ie∣sus sake. S. Paul maketh his power steward-like, not regall. Now as that is regall power which doth any thing from the authority one hath in himselfe, or from ones pleasure: so that is ministeriall power Page  75 which doth nothing but eying the will and power of him that is pricipall: a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ix me∣r alerium obsequi.

Conclus. 2. This ministeriall power is no supernaturall vertue or quality inherent in the soule: but a relative respect founded on this, that I am called by God to this or that actuall administration in his Church. For it is not a power simply, whereby a man is made able to doe some supernatural act, which he could not before in any manner performe: but it is respectively said a power, in as much as it doth in∣able him to doe those acts in the Church of God lawfully, and ex officio, with which before he might not intermeddle. The power of a Deacon, Pastor, Evangelist, Apostle, belong to one predicament in regard of that which is the genus or common nature of them: the power of the Church cannot be other. Naturall and civill power doth▪ with vertue and efficacy reach those effects and ends to which they are designed: because they are proportioned to them, and ex∣ceed not their activity: but Ecclesiasticall power cannot thus concur to the end and effects for which it is ordained: because they are such as the omnipotenty of God onely can produce, asthe converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner, to which no supernaturall vertue in man can by any reall, though instrumentary efficacy, con∣duce any thing.

Conclus. 3. God hath not given ministeriall power to any, which himselfe is not personally to discharge, nor in further plenitude then that by himselfe it may be performed. The reason is, because God cannot give one the charge of doing more then a mans proper industry can atchieve, but he must withall put it in a mans power to take others, and to impart with them power of teaching and go∣verning, so farre as may supply that defect which is in his strength to performe it alone. He that will have the end, will have that without which the end cannot be attained. If God would have any one an universall pastor to all the Churches of the world, he must needs allow him power to substitute Pastors here and there, deriving unto them power both to teach and governe, so far as may supply his absence in the Pastorall cure. If I will have one keepe my flockes which goe in twenty sheepe-gates, if I commit them to one, I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himselfe such as may be under shepheards to him. Thus if God give a Bishop the plenitude of Pastorall care and government over all the Pari∣shionall Churches through a Diocesse, he must needs together al∣low him this power, of being a head of internall influence, even a head virtually communicating with others part of pastorall power, whether teaching or government. Thus should none but Bishop be ex officio servants in Pastorall cure to God: all others should be Page  76 immediately and formally servants to the bishop, and doe every thing in the name of the bishop, being immediately onely and in a remote sense the servants of God: as in the former comparison of one servant receiving from his master the care of all the tockes, he is the masters servant to whom the master committeth the trust, from whom he onely looketh to see it performed: but those whom this shepheard taketh to himselfe for his aid, they come under his domi∣nion, and are servants to him. If it be said, that God doth not thus make the bishop Pastor, but that he wil likewise that there be parish Pastors under him, and helps of government. To this I answer, If God will have them, then either after his owne deignement, or else leaving it to the bishops arbitrement: if he leave it to the bishops arbitrement, then the objection before is in force, God will looke for the cure from him onely, he shal take according to his judgment, such as may helpe him. If God will have them after his owne design∣ment, then he giveth the bishop no more Pastorall power then he can discharge himselfe, others having their right in all the bishop cannot execute, as well as the bishop, and as immediatly from Christ. Some write, as if the Apostles had the plenitude of all Pastorall power, that from them it might be derived to the Church, it being seene through nature, that inferiour things receive influence from the su∣periour. But they misconceive the matter; they had onely a power to serve the Church with the personall service of their Apotleship. The Pastorall power of Evangelists, or of ordinary Patours and teachers, they never had. For as Christ gave the one order, so the two other also, for the gathering of the Saints, and exaedifying of the body of Christ: and no person in any ranke had any power to do this or that in the Church further then himselfe might performe in person. The steward in a house hath full power of a steward, but not the power of all other officers, as Clark of the kitchin, Btler, Chamberlaine, &c. So in these divers orders of servants in Gods house, his Church. If the Apostles had had the fulnesse of Pastorall cre, they should then have ordained others Evangelists, and Pastors not onely by ministeriall mediation of their persons calling them, but also by mediation of vertue.

Conclus. 4. One ministeriall power may be in degree of dignity above another. For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another, or in the same kinde, the power of one may be more extended, and the power of another more contracted. Thus the Deacons had for the object of their power and care, not so excellent a thing as that of Pastors, Evangelist, and Apostles. Thus the power of ordinary Pastors was not so univerall as the A∣postles, even as in the orders of servants domesticall, some are im∣plied about lesser, some about greater and more honorable subjects.

Page  77Cocl. 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of ••••ctive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order o Ministery and service. The reason is, because this exceedeth the ounds of ministeriall power, and is a participation of that despoti∣call power which is appropriate to the master of the family.

Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signifie their masters direction, and to execute ministerially what their master out of his corrective power inflicteth on their fellow servants in o∣ther degrees. Thus Pastors signifie Gods will to governing Presby∣ters and Deacons, what he would have them to doe in their places. Thus the Apostles might informe all orders under them.

Concl. 7. This power ministeriall tending to execute the pleasure of Christs corrective power, was committed to some in extraordina∣ry degrees, personally and singularly, and might be so in some cases exercised by them. I meane singularity without concurrence of any others. This without doubt was in the Apostles and Evangelists: and it was needfull it should be so: first, because it might be be∣hovefull there to excommunicate whereas yet Churches were not risen to their perfect frame: secondly, because there might be some persons not setled as fixed dwellers in any Church, whom yet to be cast forth was very behovefull. Againe, some Evangelists might in∣curre censure, as Demas, in such sort as no ordinary Churches power could reach to them.

Concl. 8. That ordinarily this power is not given to any one singu∣larly by himselfe to exercise the same, but with the company of others constituting a representative Church: which is the point next to bee shewed. Yea where Churches were constituted, the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power, without the minsteriall concurrence of the Churches, as in the story of the Corinthians is manifest.