Downam avoucheth that nothing can be more pregnant then it to prove that Bishops were superiour to Presbyters in power of ordination But heare what this ancient Writer saith Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus atque personas quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi It would be overlong to declare all the use which may bee made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prolixitie in the Preface If the Authour had lived to haue accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would haue left all so cleare that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observations are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITVTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan forme of Churches or Parishionall onely FOR determining this Question we will first set down the Arguments which affirme it Secondly those which deny Thirdly lay down some responsiue conclusions and answer the objections made against that part we take to be the truth Those who affirme the frame of Diocesan Churches vouch their Arguments partly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finally from the congruitie it hath with reason that so they should be continued The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders Citie by Citie They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a Citie with the Suburbs and region about it should make but one Church they ordeined a Diocesan Church But the Apostles who use these phrases as aequipollent To ordaine Presbyters in every Citie and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a Citie with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Diocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a Citie with the suburbes villages and countries about it could not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleere for these phrases are used as ad aequate and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed Cities subburbs and regions into one Church 2 They argue from examples Sacred and Ecclesiasticall Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament Ecclesiasticall from the Primitiue times and from Paternes in our owne times yea euen from such Churches is we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the Church of the Iewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which many particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common wealth and had all but one profession that may many Christian Churches now be upon the like grounds But they then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdom and had all but one profession were all one nationall Church Ergo upon like grounds many Churches with us in a Nation or Citie may be one Nationall or Diocesan Church Secondly the Church of Ierusalem in the New-testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head Church to all Christians in Iudea that was a Diocesan Church But this they did by the Church of Ierusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionally was no parishionall but Diocesan Church But that Church was such First by growing to 3000 then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to haue millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the Church of Ierusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocesan Church Thirdly the Church of Corinth is objected to haue bene a Metropolitan Church He who writing to the Church of Corinth doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it doth imply that they were all subordinate to that Church But this doth Paul 1. Cor. 2.1 Ergo. Secondly He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians and calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia and names it with preheminence before the rest of Achaia doth imply that the Church of Corinth was the Metropolitan Church to which all Achaia was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother Citie of all Macedonia the Church in that Citie must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan Church But Philipi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the Churches of Asia which are thus proved at least to haue bene Diocesan 1 Those seven Churches which conteyned all other Churches in Asia strictly taken whether in Citie or Countrey those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocesan Churches But those seven did conteine all other in Asia Ergo. 2 He who writing to all Churches in Asia writeth by name but to these seven he doth imply that all the rest were conteyned in these But Christ writing to the seven writeth to all Churches in Asia not to name that two of these were Metropolitan Cities viz. Philadelphia Pergamus seates Diocesan at least 3 He who maketh the singular Church he writeth to to be a multitude of Churches not one onely as the bodie is not one member onely he doth make that one Church to which he writeth in singular to be a Diocesan Church But Christ in his Epiphonematicall conclusion to every Church which he had spoken to in singular doth speak of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath cares heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo Thus leaving Sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancient Churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should be a Parishionall Congregation 200 years after Christ For if the multitude of Christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proproportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further confirmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed Churches these proue a Diocesan Church That respect which many congregations distinct may haue now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unitie of the place is but extrinsicke to the unitie of the congregation But many distinct congregations gathered in one Citie Church may make we say one Church as they doe in the Netherlands Ergo distinct congregations severed in diverse places may make one Church It many Churches which may subject themselves to the govornment of one Presbyterie may so make one they may subject
institute in the Churches which they had planted for their further building them up they were their next successors But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up whom they had now converted Ergo these were their successors most proper and immediate Thirdly these to whom now taking their farewels they resigned the Churches these were their successours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20 Peter neere death 1. Pet. 5.2 Ergo. Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more properly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath some power Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for First their power of teaching and ministring the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office but a Bishops or at least that a more rudimentall preaching belongs to a Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bishop which are both too absurd Secondly for government the Apostles did no more giue the power of government to one then to another Obj. This is denyed for the Apostles are said to haue kept the power of ordination and the coerciue power in their own hands to haue committed these in the end onely to Apostolique men as Timothy Titus who were their successors succeeding them in it Ans A notable fiction for it is most plain by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise haue provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men aboue others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinarie Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legare Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselues in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be noted that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this that the Apostles were not onely Apostles but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches For the Papists themselues urged with this that the Apostles haue none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could haue a successour The other of Bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops National or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to haue other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we haue proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first in all that is spoken to the 72 the full dutie and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinarie power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament For they are sent to Evangelize to preach the Gospell but whether from power of ordinarie office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtful Thirdly it is not read that tney ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministerie of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselues could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinarie gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Euangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from Citie to Citie without limitation to Euangelize and after we reade of some as Phillip that he was an Euangelist the same is in Ecclesiasticall storie testified of some others Thus we Presbyters should succeed Euangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Euangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armachanus doth take these 72 to haue been ordinary disciples in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receiue a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe Secondly I answer by distinction a new order by reason of new degrees of dignity this may be granted but that therefore it is a new order that is having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God is not true Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop yet is hee not of any order essentially differing The truth is ordination if it be looked into is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it 12 Argument Those Ministers whereof there may bee but one onely during life in a Church they are in sigularity of preheminence aboue others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothie one Titus one Archippus one Epaphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conc. Nice cap. 8. Conc. Calced cap. 4. Possidonius in vita Augustine Ierom. Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Theod. Oecumen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to bee the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to bee but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates with in the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divine institution Now the assumption is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to haue placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Act. 20. and that there were Bishops at Philippi True it is the Scripture doth not distinguish how manie of the one sort nor how many of the other because no doubt for the number of the Congregations a single Presbyter labouring in the Word or two the one coadjutor to the other might be placed Secondly it is testified by Epiphanius that ordinarilie all Cities but
doe the work of ordinarie Pastors is indeed necessarie not assignation to doe the worke of Euangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be taken What they speak so agreeing that it is virtually conteyned in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to be beleeved and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainly contradicted but yet no way included may be admitted fide humana if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it is in effect of light credulity A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declyning To the assumption we answer What doe not some ancient enough call Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while and in like sense a Primate and a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to haue been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in proprietie of speech all these were absurd Obj. I but they call him Bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Ans They call him Bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordeyne Deacons Presbyters For wheresoever they found this done and by whomsoever they did call them Bishops as I noted before from Oecumen The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these Bishops because they made longer stay in these Churches then Euangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishops in their time used to doe But that he was not an Euangelist and more then an ordinary Bishop they doe not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1. Tim. pag. 405. Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusqnam Episcopus etiamsi ad tempus in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicaverit sacros ordines promoverit unde quidem vocant eum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinarie Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I haue shewed contrary to Scripture yea contrarie to that text which maketh him to haue done the worke of an Euangelist As for the shew from the Subscriptions we haue spoken sufficiently Now to shew that they were not properly Bishops First we haue shewed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Epistopall duties a while but were not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therfore not Bishops properly Secondly they who did the work of an Euangelist in all that they did did not perform formally the worke of a Bishop But these did so As is vouched of Timothy Doe the worke of an Euangelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Euangelist Bishop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Euangelist and the act of an ordinarie Pastor or Bishop cannot be formally one For when everie thing doth agere secundum quod actu est those things which are not the same formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Euangelist and the ordinarie Pastor or Bishops are not formally the same Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gaue now ascending by the work of the Ministerie to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet a Prophet from an Euangelist so an Euangelist from an ordinary Teacher Object But it may be said they were not distinct but that the superiour contained the inferiour and Apostles might be Euangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Answ That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently in as much as they could doe altiori tamen ratione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formallie the power of all other offices suites which the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Iustice of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospell but this maketh not an Euangelist no more then an Apostle but doth per accidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this cometh per accedens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Marke and Luke was not therefore Euangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should haue been Euangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowmed then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that we call them Euangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospels whom the Scriptures never call Euangelists These Euangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension but the first writer of the Gospell being an Apostle was at least eight yeares after Secondly they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles Thirdly they were such as by labour of ministerie common for the generall of it to all the other did gather Saints and build Christs Bodie Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministerie common to Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly giue to othersome and othersome those he did not giue conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gaue to some one to others another Else he must haue said he gaue the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Euangelists and Pastors Ergo. That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an Euangelist that Paul never annexed to an Euangelist But the Calling of a Bishop is such For a Bishop is tyed to a particular Church The Calling of an Euangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministerie to gather Saints and edifie Christs body without any limitation to any particular Church Ergo Paul never annexed the Calling of a Bishop to an Euangelist The Calling of an Euangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Euangelist But this doth difference them to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church Thus Phillip thus all those who were the Apostles helpers working the work of the Lord as they did were Euang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour as Eusebius reporteth Euseb hist li. 5. cap. 9. Now a Calling wherby I am thus called to publish the Gospel without fixing my selfe in any certain place and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church are incompatible Lastly that which would haue debased Timothy and