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 Bishopâ— Ergo. The assumption proved Those who were of singular preheminency amongst other Pastors and had corrective power over all others in their Churches they were Diocesan bishops But the Angels were singular persons in every Church having Ecclesiâ—sticall preheminence and superiority of power Eâ—go they were Diocesan bishops The assumption is proved Those who were shadowed by seven singular Starres were seven singular persons But the Angels were so Ergo. Againe Those to whom onely Christ did write who onely bare the praise dispraise threatning in regard of what was in thâ— 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 Secondly in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the prâ—position is denied That they must needs be seven singular persons For seven singular starres may signifie seven Vnites whether singular or aggregative seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity a united multitude Thirdly the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denyed For though we should suppose singular persons written to yet a preheminency in order and greater authority without majority of power is reason enough why they should be written to singularly and blamed or praised above other Thus the Master of a Colledge though he have no negative voyce might be written to 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 againe 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 Synecdoche put for the whole Church For it was the custome in the Apostles times and long after that not any singular persons but the whole Churches were written unto as in Pauls Epistles is manifest and in many examples Ecclesiasticall And that this was done by Christ here the Epiphonemaes testifie Let every one beare what the spirit speaketh to the Churches The third Argument Those whom the Apostles ordained were of Apostolicall institution But they ordained Bishops Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction First thâ—y 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 Clâ—ment 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. Ambâ—os in Galath 1.9 Dorothâ—us in Synopsis Aug. contra Câ—es 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 gâ—ve him power of jurisdiction and assigâ—e him his Church So thâ—t though he were an Apostle yet having a singular assignation and staying here till death he might justly be called the Bâ—shop as indeed he was If he were not the Pastor whom had â—hey foâ— theâ—r 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 Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians though they had oâ—her called Bishops Chap. 1.4 Ergo. The assumption that he is so called as their eminent Pastor is manifest by authorities Ierom. in Phil. 2. Tâ—erd and Châ—yâ—ost on the same place Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should bee given to any in regard of meere sending hither or thiâ—her Yea this that he was sent did argue him there Bishop for when thâ— Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops Thirdly Archippus they instituted at Colosse Ergo. Fourthly Timothy and â—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 wâ—re Bishops in these Churches Ergo The assumption proved Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Epâ—sâ—opall authority given them to bee exercised in those Churchâ—s thâ—y are presupposed to have beene ordained bishops there But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopall authority given them to be exercised in those Churches Ergo. The assumption proved 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus bee patternes of the Episcopall function informing them and in them all bishops then they were bishops But they are so Ergo. 2 Againe whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governours in these Churches doth prescribe the very dutie of bishops hee doth presuppose them bishops But Paul doth so For what is the office of a bishop beside teaching but to ordaine and governe and governâ— with â—ingularity 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 Diocesan bâ—shops Now that Diocâ—san bishops were their successours is proved 1. Either they or Presbyters or Congregations Not the latter 2. Againe Those who did suâ—ceed them were their successours But Diocesan bishops did Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities 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 Gorâ—iâ—a the Metropolis 4. Those who were ordinarily resident and lived and died at these Churâ—hes 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 Hâ—gisippus and Clement and Eusebius out of them whom so refuse to believe deserve tâ—emselves 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 Evangelicall and extraordinary or ordinary not the first â—hâ—t was to end For their function as assigned to these Churches and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction was not to end Ergo. Assumption proved That function which was necessâ—â—y to the
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 formally 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 thâ—y were guided by the spirit it was thought meere that Iames should abide in Jerusalem there tending boâ—h 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 yâ—t his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Peters 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 other 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 hâ—ve 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 Bâ—shop but hee must bee abased Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction but in one Church hee must teach as an ordinary man liable to errour Ergo hee was never ordained to bee a Bishâ—p 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 constantly in that Church without travelling and be no whit abased but then he must keepe there a Pastor of it with Apostolicall authority caring not for that Church but the whole number of the Jewes which hee might doe without travelling Because who so keeped in that Church hee did neede to goe forâ—h 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 goiâ—g forâ—h in the mother Church of all the world as an ordinary Paâ—tor was much lesse honour then to travaile as Peter one while into Assyria another while through Pontus Galatia Bithinia as an Apostle Even as to sit at home in worshipfull private place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour â—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 Clemens 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 Apostles were joyntly to keepe twelve yeares together and one to reside during his life according to the current of the story Thus much about the first instance To the second instance of Epaphroditus and the argument drawen from it First we deny the pâ—oposition For had some ordinary Pastors beene so stiled it might imply but a preheminencie of dignity in them above other wherefore unlesse this be interâ—erted it is unsound viz. Those ordinary Pastors who are called Apostles in comparison of others because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination jurisdiction and peerelesse preheminency which they did not give to others they are above others Secondly the Assumption is false altogether First thâ—t 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 insinuate that he was an Evangelist for he saith he was made their Apostle by the Apostle while he sent him to exhort them and because he was a good man he was desired of the people Where hee makâ—th him sent not for perpetuall residence amongst them but for the â—ransunt exhorting of them and maketh him so desired of the 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 appliable to one who as an Evangelist did instruct them as to any other Thâ—â—d doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus and other Evangelists 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 Theodoreâ— 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 qualified all is voided and made not to belong to a bishop For those who are called bishops were Presbyters and no bishops bishops being then to be understood onely uâ—der the name of Apostles and Angels Thirdly antiquity doth testifie that this was an honour to bishops when this name was
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 every Pastor is Pralatus in order to that Church where he is the proper 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 mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him God doth ever onely in regard of authority apply all power Ecclesiasticall to every particular person his sole authority doth it though sometime as in ordinary callings the ministery of others doth concurre The Church is in setting out or ordaining this or that man as the Colledge is in choosing when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe or where the Kings mandate doth strictly injoyne it would otherwise bring an imperiall power into the Church For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers and places of 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 〈◊〉 immâ—diaâ—iâ—â— suppositi quâ—m virtutis sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to goe and call one to this or that place as he did Saâ—â—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 Churâ—hes and therefore are inferiour in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them This is an error likewise For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assigne a flocke which he mâ—y atâ—end God calleth Ministers not to a faculty of honour which doth qualifie them with power to ministerial actions if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received as the Emperours did make Chartulâ—rios 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 cannot be an act commanded without the subject about which it is occupied 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 theiâ— flocke A man taking a steward or other servant into his house doth give him a power of doing something to his family and never 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 soveraignty 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 should ministerâ—mediately 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 ministery which he cannot give It is not with Gods servants in his Church as with civill servants in the Common-wealth for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will such as are called
and service The reason is because this exceedeth the â—ounds of ministeriall power and is a participation of that despoticall 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 other degrees Thus Pastors signifie Gods will to governing Presbyters 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 extraordinary 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 behovefull 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 incurre 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 singularly 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 THE THIRD QVESTION Whether Christ did immediatly commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall and the exercise of it to any singular person or to united multitude or Presbyters THough this question is so coincident with the former that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed yet for some new considerations which may be super-added we will briefly handle it in the Method premised First it is argued for the affirmative Argum. 1. Thaâ— which is committed to the Church is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church Matâ— 18.17 Ergo. Either to the whole Church or to a Church in the Church or to â—ome one eminent member in the Church But it was not committed to be exercised by the whole Church or to any Church in the Church Ergo to one who is in effect as the church having all the authority of it Secondly if one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction iâ— promised then one person may be representatively a Church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed But one singular person Peter signified the Church when the promise of jurisdiction is made Ergo. Cyprian to Iubaia saith that the bishop is in the Church and the Church so in the bishop â— that they cannot be severed Finally as the kingdome of England may be put for the King in whom is all the power of the Kingdome So the Church for the chiefe governour in whom is the power of it The second Argument Thâ—t which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted that was not promised to them as their immediat right But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted Ergo Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters For then the Apostles would not have withhold it from these But they did For the Apostles kept it with themselves As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest whom Paul by his judgeâ—ent was faine to excommunicate And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate And signifie them as not having power within themselves to censure them And so Paul alone excommunicaâ—ed Hymenâ—us and Alexander The third Argument That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches and their successours that was not committed to Presbyteries but singular persons But in power of ordination and jurisdiction he did so For to Timothy in Ephesus and to Tituâ— in Crete he commended the power and exercise of it Ergo. The fourth Argument That order which was most fit for exercising power of jurisdiction that Christ did ordaine But the order of one chiefe governour is sitter for execution then the order of a united multitude Ergo. The fifth Argument If all authority and power of exercise be in the Church originally then the Pastors derive their power from the Church But this is not true Ergo it was not committed to the Church That authority which the Church never had shee cannot convey But the Pastorall authority of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken Ergo it cannot be derived from her Againe Pastours should discharge their office in the name of the Church did they receive their power from the Church The sixth Argument If the power of jurisdiction and execution be committed from Christ to the Church then hath the Church supreame power Then may a particular Church depose her bishop the sheepe censure the shepheard children their fathers whâ—ch is absurd On the other side it is argued Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many and to be exercised by many that never wâ—s committed by Christ to one and the execution of aâ—y one But Mat. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many and that exercitative so as by them being many it is to be exercised Ergo. Now this is plaine in the place Where first mâ—rke â—hat Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particulâ—r Church tâ—ken in distinctly For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complaine to Thâ—refore no universâ—ll or provinciall or Diocesan Church gâ—thered in a Câ—uncell Secondly it is not any particular Châ—rch that he doth send â—ll Christiâ—ns to for â—hâ—â— all Christâ—ans in the world should come to one particular at Church were it possible He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Church where the brother offending and offended are members And if they be not both of one church the plaintife must make his denuntâ—ation to the Church where the defendant is quia forum sequitur reum Thirdly as Christ doth speake it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation For then Christ should give not some but all the members of the Church to be governors of it Fourthly Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom wee may ordinarily and orderly complaine now this we cannot to the whole multitude Fiftly this Church he speaketh of he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure But the multitude have not this execution ordinary as all but Morelius and such Democritall spirits doe affirme And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church doth shew that often the number of it is but small For where two
upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporall oathes as not one of them doth ever keep What other ground of this beside the fore-mentioned that particular Congregations are no spirituall incorporations and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves Now all these confusions with many others of the same kind how they are condemned in the very foundation of them M. Bains here sheweth in the first question by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church in one Congregation In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus in the daies of King Edward the third contended for against the begging Fâ—iers in his booke called The defence of Curates For when those Friers incroachâ—d upon the priviledges of Parochiall Ministers he withstood them upon these grounds Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis Parochus est ordinaritu Parochiani est persona a Deo praecepta vel mandato Dei ad illud ministerium explendum electa which if they be granted our adversaries cause may goe a begging with the foresaid Friers Another sort of corruptions there are which though they depend upon the same ground with the former yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchie What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospell even also from the state of the Primitive Church tâ—en that the Church and Kingdome of Christ should be managed as the Kingdomes of the world by a Lordly authority with externall pompe commanding power contentious courts of judgâ—ment furnished with chancellors officials commissaries advocates proctors paritors and such like humane devices Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England who not onely are Lords over the flock but doe professe so much in the highest degree when they tell us plainly that their Lawes or Canons doe binde mens consciences For herein we are like the people of Israel who would not have God for their immediate King but would have such Kings as other Nations Even so the Papists and we after them refuse to have Christâ—an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiasticall affaires such as the world hath in civill What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in when they are urged to give an account of their calling To a Papist indeed they can give a shifting answer that they have ordination from Bishops which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops and they or their ordainers by Popish Bishops this in part may stop the mouth of a Papish but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question and what then will they say If they flie to popish Bishops as they are popish then let them goe no longer masked under the name of Protestants If they alledge succession by them from the Apostles then to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Popes chaire in whose name and by whose authority oâ—r English Bishops did all things in times past then I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poore man concerning this question and for the justifying of their station For untill that out of good records they can shew a perpetuall succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them and untill they can make the poore man which doubteth perceive the truth and certainty of those records which I wissâ— they will doe at leasure they can never make that succession appeare If they flye to the Kings authority the King himseâ—fe will forsake them and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers If to the present Bishops and Archbishops alas they are as farre to seeke as themselves and much further The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy upon the ruines of the Churches liberties How intollerable a bondage is it that a Minister being called to a charge may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spirituall Courts though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name be the man otherwise never so innocent nor keep one from the communion that is not presented in those Courts or being presented is for money absolved though he be never so scandalous and must often times if hee will hold his place against his conscience put backe those from communion with Christ whom Christ doth call unto it as good Christians if they will not kneele and receive those that Christ putteth backe at the command of a mortall man What a burthen are poore Ministers pressed with in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bishop and his Officers they must hurry up to the spirituall Court upon every occasion there to stand with cap in hâ—nd not onely before a Bishop but before his Chancellour to bee railed on many times at his pleasure to be censured suspended deprived for not observing some of those canons which were of purpose framed for snares when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these Iudges themselves for lucre sake as in the making of Vtopian Ministers who have no people to minister unto in their holding of commendams in their taking of money even to extortion for orders and institutions in their symony as well by giving as by taking and in all their idle covetous and ambitious pompe For all these and such like abuses we are beholding to the Lordlinesse of our Hierarchy which in the root of it is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and â—hird Question About which he hath the very same controversie that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertooke long since about the time of Edward the second against the Pope For he in his booke called Defensor pacis layeth the same grounds that here are maintained Some of his words though they be large I will here set downe for the Readers information Potestas clavium sive solvendi ligandi est essentialis inseparabilis Presbyterio in quantum Presbyter est In hac authoritate Episcopus à Sacerdote non differt teste Hieronymo imo verius Apostolo cujus etiam est aperta sententia Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alsi Apostoli habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris Episcopis praeponens in hoc Presbyteros quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero in quantum Presbyter primo secundum quod ipsum c. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose dict 2. c. 15. It were too long to reâ—ite all Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth
of bishops from the Apostles times for they prove their origâ—nall to have beene in thâ— Apostles times Neither were they instituted by any generall councell For long before the first generall councell we read Metropolitans to have beene ordained in the Churches 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 whâ—ch 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 generally take up any custome or opinion but what hath Apostolicall warrant whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Churches before any councell enacted it yet was no Apostolicall tradition Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc ut dies festi observentur sed homines ipsi suu quique lâ—cis ex more quodem introduxerant Taking the Eucharist fasting the fasts on Wednesday and Saturday fasting â—n some fashion before Eâ—ster 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 presumption 3. Thâ—â— doth presuppose that something may be which is of Aposâ—licall authâ—â—ity which neither directly nor consequently is included in thâ— woâ—â—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 may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall as being delivered 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 wâ—ll make cleare Si cor stat id bonum quod pâ—ius id prius quod estaâ— initio ab initio quod ab Apostolis pariterutique constabil id â—sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum Touching Austins rule we would aâ—ke what is the meaning of these words Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime creâ—itur If thâ—y say his meaning is that such a thing cannot but in their writings be delivered they doe pervert his meaning as is apparent by that Cont. Don. lib. 2.27 Confuetudinem ex Apostoloâ—em traditions venâ—entem siâ—ut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum tamen quia custodiuntâ— per universam Ecclesiam non nisi ab ipsit tradita commendata creduntur And we wish them to shew from Scripture what â—hey say is contained in it If thâ—y yeeld he doth meane as he doth of nowritten tradition we hope thâ—y 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 thâ—s to favour Traditions as some of the Papists do not causelâ—sly make this rule the measuring cord which doth take in the lâ—titude of all traditions yâ—t 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 authority 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 videâ—r humanis argumentis illud probare ex Evangelio profero certu documentâ— Wee answer to the assumption two things First it canot bee proved that unâ—versâ—lly there were such Diocesan bishops as ours For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church and some Parochiall Churches Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters and that but one congregation they could not be like our Diocesan bâ—shops And though there bee doubtfull relations that Rome was divided under Evaristus yet this was not common through the Church For Tripaâ—titâ— story testâ—fieth that till the time of Sozomeh they did in some parts continue together Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly those Bâ—shops which had no more but one Deacon â—o helpe them in their ministery toward their Churches they could not be Dâ—ocesan Bâ—shops But such in many parts the Apostles planted as Epiphanius doth testifie Ergo. Thirdly such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes could not have Diocesan bâ—shops But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia as Sâ—zom in his 7. booke cap. 10. testifieth Ergo. Diocesan bishops were never so universally received Secondly bishops came to be common by a Councell saith Ambrose Prospiciente Concilio Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Dâ—cree pâ—ssing 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 dispositionis veritate If the Doct. do except that custome is here put for Apostolicall institution let him put in one for the other and see how well it will become the sense Let Bishops know they are greater theâ— Priests rather by the Decree of the Apostle then by the truth of Christs disposition Is it not fine that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites facing Christ their Lord And this conclusion of Ierom doth make me thâ—nke that decretum est imported no more then that it was tooke up in time for custome through the world Which is elegantly said to be a decree because custome groweth in time to obtaine vim legis the force of a decree But Ambâ—ose his place is plain Prospiciente Concilio he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles For he maketh 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 Eusebius and Ierom both affirme Wherefore briefly seeing no such universall custome can be proved all the godly â—athers never conspired 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 faâ—thfull 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 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 contradistinguished 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 speaketh as an Embassadour it is principally from him that sent him but if they who were Legates dâ—d not bearing the person of Legats but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours decree this then it is certaine Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Châ—ist As for those proofes that Bishops have beene throughout all Châ—rches from the beginning they are weake For first the Councell of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simpliciter but secundum quid in order hâ—pply to thâ—t time wherein the custome began which was better 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 Secondly the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus is likewise aequivocall 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 explaine tâ—e former Canones Apostolorum It is plaine the decree of the Councell doth ascâ—ibe this thâ—ng onely to ancient custome no lesse thâ—n that of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon and therefore cannot rise to the auâ—hoâ—ity of sacred Scriptures Let him shew in all antiquity where sacred Scriptures 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 authâ—rity of Cyprian he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time Bishops odained in cities not universâ—liter as if thâ—re were no city but had some Secondâ—y hee speaketh of Bishâ—ps who had their Chuâ—ches included in Cities not more then might meet together in one to any common delâ—berations They had no Dâ—ocesan Churches nâ—r were bishops who had majority of rule over their Presbyters nor sole power of ordination As for the Catalogue of succession it is pompae apâ—ior quam pugnae Râ—me can recite their successors But because it hath hâ—d bishops Erâ—o Oecumenicall bâ—shops is no consequence All who are named bâ—shops in the Catalogue were not of one cut and in that sense we conâ—rovert Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Councell it is very weâ—ke For though wee read of no generall Councell yet there might be and the report not come to us Secondâ—y 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 used Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this for hee doth not use those words in propireâ—y 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 written 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 Ministers are of Christs institution But Ministers having singularitie 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 Presiâ—ents while the Synod lasteth when it is dissâ—lved their prerogative ceaseâ—h they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers they are subject to the Presbyteries Zepp lib. 2 cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended they returne to the care of their particular 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 necessity and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus and other Apostoliâ—ke 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 Episcopall 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 Jâ—rusalem Iames Simeon at Aâ—tioch Evodius at Alexandria S. Maâ—k Anianus Abilius Ergo Diocesan Bishops be lawfull Answer The assumption is denyed for these Bishops were but Presbyters Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting governing with common consent of their Presbyteries If they were affecting our bishops majority they were in Diotrophes sufficiently contradicted The ninth Argument Those who have beene ever held of a higher order then Presbyters they are before Presbyters in preheminence and majority of rule But bishops have beene held in a higher order by all antiquity Ergo. The assumption is manifest In the Councell of Nice Ancyra Sardica Antioch Ministers are distinguished into three orders Ignatius Clemens in his Epistle to Iames Dionys. Arcopâ—g de Coolest Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fugâ— in persecutione de Baptismo 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 Heraclâ—s and Dionysius the Presbyters did see
Fervi â—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 ordained 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 assistanâ—s 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 Observe how Paul speaketh of them 2 Cor. 8.23 Vituâ— wâ—s his companion and helper towards them Phil. 2.25 Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his worke and fellow souldier 1 Thess. 3.2 Timothy was his coadjutor in the Gospell of Christ 2 Tim. 4.11 Marke was helpefull in the Ministery The truth is this was servitus 〈◊〉 porfâ—â—â—lis 〈◊〉 reâ—lis 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 bâ—ought 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 answer as Christ gave some to be Evangelists so he made them know from himselfe what belonged to their office and what was the administration to which he called them He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any There is a double direction one pâ—tesâ—atiue which is made from majority of rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Evangelists were directed Which though commonly Paul used yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their owne accords 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 whâ—ch the Church hath not over any member the bishop hath not over other ministers 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 declarative and executive ministery to signifie and execute what Christ out of majority of power would have signified and put in execution 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 sâ—uere derive the power of externall government to other his assistants that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation 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 Antichristian 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 power in Kent onely he were an Anti-king to our Soveraigne no lesse for kind then if he proclaimed himselfe King of England Sâ—otland and Ireland There is but one Lord and many ministrations Neither 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 considered 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 weâ—ld 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 staâ— 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 Presbyter they give him lesse power then to a Bishop Answ If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the Word and made them divers degrees as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists then we would grant the excepâ—ion but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chiefe and assistent 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 thâ—mselves of the same degree Secondly were they different degrees yet it should give the Presbyter for kind though not of so ample extent as the Bâ—shop haâ—h as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kinde which the Apostles had though not so universall but contracted to particular Churches Now to some unto some conclusions or assertions which may leâ—d light unto the deciding of this question Conclus