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
bishops had so Ergo c. The Assumption is manifest Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this that he should be the governour of the Presbytery and whole Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Ierom and Austin on the 44. Psalme call them the Prâ—nces 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 Bâ—shops had Ergo. The assumption proved First for directive power the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them Igâ—a ad Mag. ad Smyr They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bâ—shop Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob Tert. lib. de â—â—pt Can. Apost 38 Can. Carthâ—g 4.38 Con. Câ—r 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5. Secondly that they had corrective power it is proved Apâ—c 2 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles and is commended 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 Regaâ—ian he had power to have censured his Deacon Ierom. adversus Vigilantium marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantiâ—s was did not breake the unprofitable vessell Epiphaniuâ— saith Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves they the people The Presbyters affixed to places and Churches were subject to the Bishops for when they were vacant the bishop did supply them Againe 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 Cyprâ—li 1. Epist 3. Concil Carth. 4. â—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 subjection 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 framed Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves without 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 Churches because they were more eminent ministers though they had not Monarchiall power in Churches but Consull-like authority and therefore when they affected this Monarchy what said Ierome Noverint se saterdotes esse non dominos noverint se non ad Principâ—tum vocatos ad servitium totius Ecclâ—siae 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 thâ—y had it over any by humane constitution infallible Presbyters were in great difference Those who are called propry sacerdotes Rectores Seniores Minorâ—m Ecclesiarum praepositi the Bâ—shop had not not challenged not that directive power over them which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Cleriâ—kes who were helpes to him in the Liturgy in Chapells and parishâ—s 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 bâ—shops and called Episcopi or Coepiscopi even of the Ancient But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy they had â—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 ministery 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 permitted them that it was taken away from them againe by the bishops that it was stinted and limited sometimes as to the opening of the Lords Praier the Creed and ten Commandements as it is plaine to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient Secondly let us account them as Ministers of the word given by God to hâ—s Church then I say they could not have any direction but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists and this pâ—wer is gâ—ven 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 interpreted by Pilson himselfe These decrees were as justifiâ—ble as thâ—t 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 bâ—shop above Presbyters requiring presence and assent as of a fellow and chiefe member not otherwise To the proof of the second part of the former assumption 1. we deny this majority of corrective power to have beene in the Apostles themselves they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Christs corrective power imposed Secondly we deny that this ministeriall power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evangelist where Churches were constituted Neither is the writing to one above others an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others To that of Cyprian against Râ—gatian we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the consent of Bishops neighbouring but that he might in regular manner have beene bold to have done it because he might be sure quod noâ— coâ—legae tui â—mnesid ratum haberemus Cyprian was of judgement that he hâ—mselfe might doe nothing without the consent of his Presbyters 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 Neither 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
the first of Titus c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts that Presbyters hâ—d right of suâ—â—rage not onely in their owne Presbyteries but in Provinciall Synods and therefore in Oâ—cumenicall Synods which doth arise from a combination of the other to which their mindes went in the instructiâ—n of bishops received from their Churches And Aâ—hanasius yet a Deacon is read to have beene at the Counsell of Nice and to have had right of suffrage in it Finally the Presbyteries did a long time execute jointly all actions of Church government as is before declared Other arguments we shall touch in answer of theâ—e which have beene objected Now to come to the conclusioâ—s let this be first Conclus 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singular persons so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other This I speake in regard of Apostles and Evangelists whose power in many things could not have concurrance of particular Churches which in the former question is sufficiently declared Conclus 2. That ordinary power and the execution therof was not committed to any singular governors whereof there was to be one onely in each Church This is against the Jesuits who make account the most of them that as all civill power of government is given to Kings to bee executed by them within their common-wealth so Ecclesiasticall power say they is given to the Pope and to bishops in their particular Churches to be executed by them and derived from them to the whole Church Conclus 3. Ordinary power with the execution thereof was not given to the community of the church or to the whole multitude of the faithfull so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ and virtually deriving it to others This I set downe against the Divines of Constance our prime Divines as Luther and Melanâ—thon and the Sorbonists who doe maintaine it at this day Yea this seemeth to have beene Tertullians errour for in his bookâ— de pâ—dicitia he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power but the church for her honor did dispose it as we see The proposition of a pollitick body and naturall deceived them while thâ—y will apply all that is in these to Christs mysticall body not remembring that analogon is not in omnisimile for then should it bee the same with the â—nâ—logaâ—um True it is all civill power is in the body politicke the collections of subjects then in a King from them And all the power of hearing seeing they are in the whole man which doth produce them effectually though formally and instrumentally they are in the eare and eye But the reason of this is because these powers are naturall and what ever is naturall doth first agree to the community or totum and afterward to a particular person and part but all that is in this body cannnot hold in Christs mysticall body In a politick body power is first in the community in the King from them but all Ecclesiasticall power is first in our King before any in the church from him But to whom should he first commit this power but to his Queene Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power but a power of doing service to the church for Christ his sake Therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons and not to the whole community which are the Queene of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queene to serve herselfe properly but to have persons who in regard of his relation should stand distinguished from her Secondly in natuâ—â—ll bodies the power of seeing is first immediately in the man from the man in the eye and particular members In the mysticall body the faith of a beleever is not first immediatly in all then in the beleever but first of all and immediatly in the person all beleever for whose good it servâ—th more properly thâ—n for the whole every man being to live by his owne faith The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel so deriâ—ed to the Priestâ—s but immediaâ—ly from Christ feared in Aaron and his sonnes Oâ—ject Yea they were given the church intuitu ejusdem tanquam finis totius Answ. I but this is not enough that power may be said to be immediatly received by the church as the first receptacle of it and from it derived to others as the power of seeing is not onely given intâ—itu hominâ— as the end of it and the totum to whom it agreeth but is in homine as the first subject from whom it commeth to the eye But the power even of ordinary Ministers is not in the church For as all are said not to have beene Apstoles so not to hâ—ve beene Doctors But if the power of ordinary teachiâ—g had been given to every beleever all should have beene made Doctors though not to continue so in exercising the power Secondly were the power in the church the church should not onely call them but make them out of vertue and power received into her selfe then should the church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Besides there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly as women and children This conclusion in my judgement Victoria Soto others deny with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained Conclus â— Fourthly ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it to the Senat or Presbytery of the church If any fâ—â—e in any office the church hath not power of supplying that but a ministery of calling one whom Christ hath described that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant Conclus 5. Lastly though the community have not power given her yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her that all power is to bee executed in such manner as standeth with respect to her excellency Hence it is that the governours are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them Not that they have joynt power of the keyes with them but because they sustaine the person of the spouse of Christ and therefore cannot bee otherwise dealt wiâ—h without open dishonour in such things which belong in common to the whole congregation Now to answer the arguments first propounded The Proposition of the first Syllogisme is denyed That what was committed to the Chuâ—ch 〈◊〉 committed to sâ—me principall member And are deny the second part of the next Syllogisme proving this parâ— denyed For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church Which is so farre from absurdity that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civill and Sacrâ—d Doe we not see in Parliament a representative Common-wealth within our Common-wealth having the greatest authority Not to mention that a Church within a Church should not be strange to them who imagine
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
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
being of the Church was not to end But the functâ—oÌ„â—hâ—y had as being assigned to certaine Châ—rches is necessary to the beâ—ng 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. Dâ—â—nis Areopag Doroth. in Synopsi Ambâ—ose pâ—oeâ—n 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. Oâ—cum Sedulius 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories Greg. Lâ—b 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34. Answer We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme with all the instances brought to prove it Fâ—â—st for Iameâ— 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 magniâ—ier of Romish orders and in this story he doth seeme to imply that Christ should have ordeyned Peter Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops Seeing he maketh these to have ordeyned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignity which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus doe plainely 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 Bâ—shop properly so called The Fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply not in their strict and formall propriety Ierom on the first to the Galathians and in his Epistle to Damasus affirmeth that the Prophets and Iohn the Bishop might be called Apostles So many Fathers call Phillip an Apostle Clem. 5. Consi cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ulâ— 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 instance of Iames because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture aâ— 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 nothing 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 mâ—ke a Bishop but he must so abide in it that he must from the power of his office onely be bound to teach that Chuâ—ch secondly to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it thirdly to governe it with a power of jurisdiction limited onely to that Church But Iames was bound to the rest of the Circumcâ—sion by his office as they should from all the world resort thither Secondly he did not teach but as an Embassadour extraordinarily sent from Christ and infallibly led by his Spirit into all truth Ergo not as an ordinary Bishop Thirdly as the rest in what Provinces 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 gather them so to be a Priari Postâ—riori the Author de quaest vet nov tâ—st cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis institiusâ—e pâ—â—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 regularly doe Oecum cap. 22. in Act. It is to bee noted faith hee thaâ— Paul 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 governing 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 infallible 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 assuâ—ption no lesse true For if there bee any rule to direct Iames infallibly as hee was formally the ordinary bishop of Jerusalem let us heare it if there were none may not I question whether 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 ordinary 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 extraordinarie with infallible assistance and unlimited jurisdiction but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church teaching as an ordinary person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church Againe one can no sooner bee called to doe this but at least the exercise 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 ordinarie authority whereby to doe this or that in a Church who 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 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
continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as â—usebius reporteth Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without 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 Apostles to be ordinary Pastors had abased them Ergo this to be ordinary Pastors Paul did not put upon them Object The assumption it denyed it was no abasement For before they were but Presbyters and afterward by imposition of hands were made bishops why should they receive imposition of hands and a new ordination 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 restrained But the Evangelists power of reaching and governing was illimited 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 hâ—gher 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 Presbyters 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 occasioned 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 Presbyters 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 noâ— 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 precatory 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 For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vocation from God As the calling of Evangelists though extraordinary was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets Secondly men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruitfull 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 impâ—sition 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 exercise 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 exedifie some imperfect beginnings But say Titus had beene a bishop he is no warrant for ordinary bishops but for Primates whose authority did reach through whole Ilands Nay if the Doctors rule out of Theodorâ—t were good it would serve for a bishop of the plurality 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 bishop 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 jurisdiction as is above excepted The fifth Argument The Ministers which the Church hâ—d generally and perpetually the first 300. yeares after Christ and his Apostles and was not ordained by any generall Councell were undoubtedly of Apostolicall institution But the Church ever had Diocesan bishops in singularity 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 Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. Epist. 118. and by Terâ—ul Constat id ob Apostolis traditum quod apuâ— Ecclesias Apostolorum fuit sacrosanctum For who can thinke that all the Churches generally would conspire to abolish the order of Christ planted by the Apostles and 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 testâ—fieth much more bishops For Dioces in bishops must bee before thâ—m they rising of combination of Cities and Dioces And the councell of Ephesus testâ—fieth 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 Canons of the Apostles Againe Cyprian doth testifie that long before his time bâ—shops wâ—re placed in all Provinces and Cities besides the sâ—ccâ—ssion
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
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
or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people are incomparably great Neither doth Christ meane by Church the chiefe Pastor who is virtually as the whole Church For first the word Church doth ever signifie a company and never is found to note out one person Secondly the Bishop may be the person offending or offended and the Church to which he must bring the matter must be other then himselfe Thirdly the gradation doth shew it First by thy selfe Then shew a witnes or two Then to the Church as the sinne increaseth the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured increaseth also If one say though the Church signifie one governour yet the gradation holdeth for to tell it to â—he governour in open Court is more then to tell it to twenty Wee grant that this is true and were the word Câ—urch taken here to note some eminent governour it might be brought in as a further degree though one onely were enforced But how can Peter be complainaint if Peter the Praesul onely be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced Fourthly the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person was not any one but many Their rebuke upon which it is like he repented was a rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 Fiftly if the church had been one he would not have subjoyned for what ye shall â—ind on earth shall be bound in heaven Sixtly if the church did not note an assembly how could he assure them from hence that God would do what they agreed on because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name Unlesse the Church meant were an assembly this argument could not be so correspondent Where two or two or three are assembled in Gods name God is in the midst of them to doe that they agree on But where the Church is binding or loosing there are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly the churâ—h in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually but an assembly of Priests sitting together as Judges in the causes of God Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctly presuppose every particular Church So he doth here onely presuppose the joint authoriâ—y and joint execution of a representative Church a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governours Argum. 4. Wee argue from the practice of the Churches That power which is not in one nor to bee exercised by one but in many and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinâ—hians that power with the exercise of it was committed by Christ to many not to one But the power of Ecclesiasticall censure was in many and to be performed by many assembled Ergo. The proposition is plaine For Paul would not have called for nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiasticall other then Christ had ordained The assertion is denyed by some but â—t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumenâ—s For first Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast them forth Now as Ambrose saith on the place Si auâ—em quis potestalem non hâ—bâ—â— quim scit reum abjicere aut probare non valet immunis est Secondly Paul doth wish them assembled together with himselfe in the name and vertue of Christ that they might deliver him up to Sathan For hee doth not call on them to restraine him as already excommunicated but to purge him out as an infectuous leaven yet amongst them Thirdly Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within those who were called brethren and lived otherwise Fourthly Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or muâ—ct oâ— many writing to them that they would not proceed 2 Cor. 2 6. Lastly Paul doth attribâ—te power to them to forgive him and to receâ—ve him to the peace of the church Which would not have been in them had they not had the power to excommunicate Such as hâ—ve no power to binde have no power to loose So it mighâ— be provâ—d by the Church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess. 3.14 If any man waâ—k inâ—rdinatly note him that others may refraine him Noting being not a signification by letter which doth wrest the word against all copies and the current of all Greek interpreters but judicially to note him â—hat all may avoid him that is excommunicate him Finally the churches of Asia as it is plaine had power of government within themselves Argum. 5. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the churches nor Evangelists but with concurrence of the churches and Presbyteries that power is much lesse to be exercised by any ordinary Pastour but by many But they did not ordaine nor lay on hands alone they did not determine questions by the power of the keyes alone but with concurrence of the Presbyters of the church Ergo much lesse may any ordinary Minister doe it alone Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery For that Persons must be understood here is apparant by the like place when it is said by the laying on of my hands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person and so here a Presbytery Secondly 〈◊〉 take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the order of Priesthood is against all Lexicons and the nature of the Greeke termination Thirdly Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter as before we have proved Fourthly it cannot signifie as Greeke Expositers â—ake it a company of bishops For neither was that Canon of 3. bishops and the Metropolitan or all the bishops in a Province in the Apostles time neither were theâ—e who are now called bishops then called Presbyters as they say but Apostles men that had received Apostolick grace Angels c. Finally it is very absurd to think of companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted but he placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from bishops which is the grant of our adversaries Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones privat sence besides testimonie of Scripture Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joynt suffrages of the Presbytery with them Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered but because it was a thing to be determined by many all who had received power of these keyes doing it ex officiâ— and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth Yea the bishops called Primi Presbyteri had no ordination at the first which the Prebytery did not give them Whence have bishops of other Churches power to minister the sacrament to the bâ—shop of this Church But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained Ministers As Consuls and Dâ—ctators are said to have created Consuls because they called Senates propounded and together with others did it No otherwise doe Jesuits themselves understand it Salmeron on
many Parishionall churches within one Diocesan church To the proofes which prevent as it were an objection shewing that the church Mat. 18.17 may be put for one chiefe Governour The proposition is denyed If that Peter one Governour may be in type and figure the Church to whâ—m the jurisdiction is premised then the Church receiving and execucing it may be one A most false Proposition whose contrary is true The reason is because the church typified by Peter is properly and really a church not figuratively and improperly for then Peter should have beene a figure or type of a type or figurative church The figure therefore and type being of the church which is properly taken and the church properly and really taken being a company assembled hence it is that Matth. 18.17 the church cannot signifie one for one is but figuratively and improperly a church There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured Nay hence an Argument may be retorted proving that by that church whereof Peter was a figure is not meant one chiefe Governour Peter as one man or Governour was properly and really a virtuall church and chiefe Governour But Peter as one man and Governour was in figure onely the church Matth. 18. Ergo that church Matth. 18. is not a virtuall church noting forth one chiefe Governour onely As for Cyprians speech it doth nothing but shew the conjunction of Pastour and people by mutuall love which is so streight that the one cannot be schismatically left out but the other is forsaken also Otherwise I thinke it cannot be shewed to the time of Innocent the third that the Bishop was counted the church or this dreame of a virtuall church once imagined The Clerkes of the church of Placentia did in their oath of canonicall obedience sweare thus That they would obey the Church of Placentia and the Lord their Bishop Where the Chapiter doth carry the name of the church from the Bishop Yea even in those times preposed or set before him when the Pope was lifted up above generall councels then it is like was the first nativity of these virtuall churches As for a Kingdome I doubt not but it may be put for a King figuratively but the church typified by Peter must needs be a church properly And it will never be proved that any one Governour was set up in a church proportionable to a King in a Common-wealth in whom is all civill power whereby the whole Kingdome is administred To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Coriâ—th who judicially absent sentenced his excommunication I have 〈◊〉 or jâ—dged leaving nothing to the Church but ouâ— of their obedience to decline him as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith Foâ— this 〈◊〉 I have writtâ—â— to you that I may proove whether you will in all things 〈◊〉 obedient What Argumentâ— are these He that judgeth one to be excommunicated hee leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate Thus I might reason Act. 15.17 from Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He who doth judicially sentence a thing hee leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to give sentence The truth is the Apostle might have judged him to be excommunicate and an Evangelist if present might have judged him also to be excommunicate and yet place left for the Churches judgement also These are subordinate one to the other Here it may be objected that if place be left for the Churches judgement after the Apostles sentence then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles have and the same man should bee excommunicate and not excommunicate Ans. Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clave errante Without cause it is true But the Apostles sentence being just shee is not free in as much as shee cannot lawfully but doe that which lyeth on her when now it is especially shewed her and by example shee is provoked Yes where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not though none call on her free not to excommunicate Neverthelesse though she is not free so as she can lawfully not excommunicate yet she is free speaking of freedome absolutely and simply and if she should not excommunicate him hee should remaine not excommunicable but excommunicate by chiefe judgement yet it should not be executed by the sinister favour of a particular Church As say Sauls sentence had beene just and the peoples favour had beene unjust Ionathan had beene under condemnation but execution had beene prevented by the peoples heâ—dstrong affection towards him Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate Ans. As though one may not exercise power of government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superior Touching the place in the Thessaloniâ—ns those that read Note him by an Epistle doe goe against the consent of all Greeke Interpreters And the context doth shew that it is a judiciary noting one such as caused him to bee avoided by others and tended to breed shame in him As for Pauls excommunicating 〈◊〉 and Alexaâ—der It will not follow That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may doe alone Secondly it is not like he did it alone but aâ— he cast out the Corinthian though the whole proceeding be not noted Though Paul saith I delivered them So he saith grace was given Timothy by imposition of his 〈◊〉 â— Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbytery joyned 1 Tim. 4.14 Thirdly it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath beene sufficiently discussed To the fourth That one is fitter for execution then many To which we may adde that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senat or Vice-chancellors in a University having when they sit with others no more power then the rest Yet these have execution of many things committed to them The assertion viz. That many are lesse fit for execution we deny That order is fittest which God instituted But he doth commit the keyes to the Church to many that they might exercise the authority of them when that mean is most fit which God will most blesse and his blessing doth follow his owne order this is the fittest Secondly in the Apostles times and in the times after almost foure hundred yeeres expired Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed Thirdly this deprivation from the first order one to execute for a Diocesan one for a Provinciall the decrees of a Diocesan and Provinciall drew on a necessityof one to execute the decrees of the Oecumenicall Church or Pope Fourthly Let them shew where God divided the power of making lawes for government of any Church from the power to execute them Regularly they who have the greater committed have the lesser also Fiftly we see even in civill governments many parts by joynt Councell and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular
externo but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them power of suffrage in councell Acts 15. power 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 Pastors should be given I answer all this is spoken gratis without any foundation and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected The Presbyters so had this power that they did commit it to the bishops as we shall shew after and therefore it must have beene in them not by extraordinary commission but by ordinary office Secondly they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the holy 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 order not with any subjection to them as heads of derivation serving Christ their onely Lord no lesse immediately then the Apostles 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 Doctors but in all other orders there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power above other No Apostle Prophet Evangelist had this rule one over another If the proposition be denied upon supposall of a different reason because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers it could not but breed schisme and confusion and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest and other secondary ones so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be 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 yâ—t 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 within it selfe Not so neither for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled and to the civill Magistrate who in case of delinquency hath directive and corrective power over it Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme as imparity 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 under the new Howbeit that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule as our Bishops now challenge Argument 4. If some be inferiour unto othersome in degree of power it must be in regard of their poweâ— to teach or their power to govern or in the application of this power to their persons or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe or finally in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on 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 essentially 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 deliver the whole counsell of God and to minister all Sacraments sealing Gods covenant Now unlesse we will with the Papists say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office or that his power is a rudimentall limited power as to open the creed Lords praier and commandements onely or that he hath not the full power sacraâ—entall there being other sacraments of ordination and â—onfirmation which wee may not minister all which are groâ—â—e weâ— must yeeld their power of order to be the same Yea were these sacraments properly they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath Ordination in doâ— 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 principally from him The Church did she give this power might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order no sacrament no preaching The Pope doth not if we follow the common tenent 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 truâ—h is all doe not maintaine it from right grounds But it will be said the Presbyter is inferiour in jurisdiction and can have none but what is derived to him from the bishop who hath the fulnesse of it within his Diocesan Church But this is false and grounded on many false presumptions As first that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors for to make a Pastor and give him no help against the Wolfe is to furniâ—h him forth imperfectly Secondly it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church and so to others whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter and exercitative to the representative Church that they might Aristocratically administer it Thirdly this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the bishop and from him to be derived to other which maketh him a head of virtuall influence that in his Church which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all bishops For his headship and spirituall soveraignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this that the government of all in forâ— externo is committed to him Not to mention how bishops while they were bishops gloried of their chaire and teaching as the flower of their garland preferring it farre before government but when they were fallen from their spirituall felicity and infected with secular 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