a phrase of Ierome so much alledged and built upon by the Patrons of our Hierarchy Ierome saith ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing excepting ordinatiâ—n which a Presbyter may not doe Of this testimony D. Downan 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 over long to declare all the use which may be made of this Treatise which being it selfe so short forbiddeth prâ—lixity in the Preface If the Author had lived to have accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this worke he would it may be have added such considerations as these or at least he would have left all so clear that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premisses For supply of that defect these practicall observationâ— are noted which with the dispute it selfe I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader W. Ames THE FIRST QVESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE 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 responsive conclusions and answer the objâ—ctions made against that part we take to be the truth Thâ—se who affirme the frâ—â—e of Diocesan Churches vouâ—h their Arguments pâ—râ—ly from Scripture partly from presidents or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall Finâ—lly from the congruity it hâ—â—h with reason thâ—t so thâ—y should be constitute The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures Titus 1.5 Act. 14.23 Ordaine Elders City by City They ordained Elders Church by Church Hence it is thus argued They who ordained that a City with the Suburbs and â—egions about it should make but one Church they ordained a Diocesan Church But â—he Apostles who use these phrases as aequâ—pollent To ordaine Presbyâ—ers in every City and to ordaine them in every Church appointed that a city with the suburbes and region about it should make but one Church Ergo the Apostles constituted a Dâ—ocesan Church The reason of the proposition is because Christians converted in a City with the suburbes villages and countries about it â—â—uld not be so few as to make but a Parishionall Church The Assumption is cleare for these phrases are used as ad aequaâ—e and being so used needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities suburbs 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 Primitive times and from Patternes in our owne times yea even from such churches as we hold reformed as those in Belgia and Geneva To beginne with the church of the Jewes in the old Testament whence they reason thus That which maâ—y particular Synagogues were then because they were all but one Common-wealâ—h and had all but one profeâ—siâ—n that mâ—y many christian churâ—hes now bee upon the lâ—ke grounds But thâ—y then though many Synagogues yet because they were all but one Kingdome and had all but one profession were all one nationall church Ergo upon like grounds many churchâ—s with us in a nation or city may be one nationall or Diocesan church Secondly the church of Jerusalem in the New Testament is objected 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head church to all Christians in Judea that was a Diocesan church But this they did by the church of Jerusalem Ergo 2. That which was more numbersome then could meet Parishionâ—lly was no Parishional but Diocesan church But that church was such First by growing to 3000. then 5000 Act. 2.41 4.4 then to have millions in it Act. 21.20 Ergo the church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall but a Diocâ—san church Thirdly the church of Corinth is objected to have beene 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 thâ—s 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 prâ—heminence before the rest of Achâ—ia doth imply thâ—t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Achaâ—a was subject But the Apostle doth this 2 Cor. 9.2 11.11.8.9.10 Ergo. Fourthly that which was the mother city of all Macedonia the church in that city must be if not a Metropolitan yet a Diocesan church But Philippi was so Ergo. The fifth is from the churâ—hes of Asia which are thus proved at least to have beene Diocesan 1. Those seven churches which contained all other churches in Asia strictly tâ—ken whether in city or countâ—â—y those seven were for their circuit Metropolitan or Diocâ—san churches But those seven did containe all other in Asâ—â— Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia writeth by name but to thâ—se seven he doth impâ—y that all the rest were contâ—ined in these Buâ— Christ writing to the seven writeth to all churches in Asia not to name that five of these were Metropolitan cities viz. Philadelphia and Peâ—gâ—mus two Diocesan at least 3. He who makâ—th the singular church he writeth to to â—e a multitude of churches not one onely as the body is not one member onely hee 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 speake of the same as of a multitude Let him that hath eares beare what the Spirit saith to the Churches Ergo. Thus leaving sacred examples we come to Ecclesiasticall First in regard of those ancienâ— churches Rome Alexandria It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For â—f the multitude of christians did in Hierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one congregation how much more likely is it that christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200. yeares that they could not keep in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Which is yet further coâ—firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times To come from these to our moderne reformed churchâ—s these prove a Diocesan church That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place that they may have severed in many places For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congregâ—tion But maâ—y distincâ— congregations gathered in one city may make wee say one
they must needs succeed theâ— who are spoken to in them whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes in the Supper in the commandement of teaching and baptizâ—ng Ergo Presbyteâ—s must needs succeed the Apostles Secondly those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chuâ—ches which they had planted for theâ—r fuâ—ther building thâ—m 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 tâ—â—se were thâ—ir successors most proper and immediate Thirdly tâ—ese to whom now tâ—king their farewells they resigned the Churches these were thâ—ir succâ—ssours But this they did to Presbyters Paul now never to sâ—e Ephesus more Act. 20. Peter neere death 1 Pet. 5.2 Erâ—o Fourthly if one Pastor or Minister doe more propâ—rly resemble an Apostle then another it is because hee hath same powâ—r Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another But this was not done Ergo. The assumption is manifest for first their power of teachâ—â—g and ministring the Sacraments doth â—s fully and propâ—rly belong to the Presbyter as to any unlesse we count Pâ—eaching not necâ—issarily câ—nnexâ—d to a Presbyters office but a bishopâ— or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs 〈◊〉 Presbyter the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bâ—shop which are both too absurd Secondly for governement the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to one then to another Object This is denyed for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination and the coercive power in their owne hands and to have committed these in the end onely to Apostolike men as Timothy Titus who were their successours succeeding them in it Answ. A notable fiction for it is most plaine by Scripture that ordination power of deciding controversies excommunication were given to Presbyters and not kept up from them they should otherwise have provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care Secondly if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men above others in which regard they should be their successours then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches but as ordinary Ministers For what power they enjoyed as Legates this they could not aliis Legarâ— Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved and therefore did never substitute others to themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed And it is to be 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 themselves urged with this that the Apostles have none succeeding them they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles the one of Legates so Peter nor any other could have a successour The other of bishops Oecumenicall in Peter of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan as in some other Thus onely considered they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them For the Apostolick power precisely considered was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum Now we have proved that this ground is false and therefore that succeeding the Apostles more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it is false also Lastly the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two For first in all that is spoken to the seventy two the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe Secondly it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary 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 ordinary office or from commission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtfull Thirdly it is not read that they ever baptized or had the power of administring the Supper given to them Yea that they had neither ministery of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario seemeth hence plaine That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care which was so cumbersome that themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had Fourthly if they were set Ministers then were they Evangelists in destination For the act enjoyned them is from City to City without limitation to Evangelâ—ze and after we read of some as Philip that he was an Evangelist the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others Thus wâ— Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant we succeed these Finally Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples in his 7. Book Armenicâ—râ—m quaest cap. 7. 11 Argument Those who receive a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order But Bishops doe so Ergo. Answer The proposition is denyed for it is sufficient to a new 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 he 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 where of there may be but one onely during life in a Church they are in singularity of preheminence above others But there may be but one Bishop though there may be many other Presbyters one Timothy one Titus one Archippus one Eâ—aphroditus Ergo. For proofe of the assumption See Cornelius as Eusebius relateth his sentence lib. 6. cap. 43. Conâ— Nice cap 8. Conc. Calud cap 4. Pâ—ssidonius in vita Augustine Ieremâ— Phil. 1. ver 1. Chrysost Amb. Tâ—eoâ— Orcâ—umen And such was Bishops preheminence that Presbyters Deacons and other Clerkes are said to be the Bishops Clerks Answer I answer to the Assumption That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within the same Church It may be said there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities Secondly this may be affirmed as standing by Canon or as divâ—nâ— institution Now the assumptâ—on is true onely by Law Ecclesiasticall For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere Actâ— 20. and that there were
being of the Church The reason is because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner viz. as Evangelists and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner was not necessary to perpetuate the being of the Church Assignation to churches to doe the worke of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary noâ— assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists To that finall reason what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true and so to be â—aken What they speake so agreeing that it is virtually conteined in them and may rightly be deduced from them is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith But what they speake not plainely contradicted but yet no way included may be admâ—tted side humanâ— if the first relators be well qualified witnesses But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesippus it is is in effect of light credulity A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declining To the assumptioÌ„ we answer What do not some ancient enough cal Timothy Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while a Presbyter another while in like sense others a Primate a Bishop Lyra proveth him from many authorities to have been an Arch-bishop and Titus a Priest Beda calleth him an Apostle But to gather on these that he was in propriety of speech all these were absurd Object I but they call him bishop on other grounds because assigned to this Church Answ. They call him bishop because he was assigned to this Church not onely to teach but also to ordaine Deacons Presbyters For wheresoever they found this done and by whomsoever they did call them bishops as I noted before from Oecumen The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these bishops because they made longer stay in these Churches then Evangelists did usually did preach and ordaine and doe in these Churches all such things which Bishopes in their time used to doe But that he was not an Evangelist and more then an ordinary bishop they do not deny Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1 â—im pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusquâ—â— Episcopus etiamsi ad â—emâ—us in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicavâ—rit sacrâ—s ordiâ—nes promoveris unde quidem vocant cum Episcopum Finally should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinary Pastor from the first time Paul did write to him ordinarily resident to his end they should testifie a thing as I hope I have shewed contrary to Scripture yâ—a contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist As for the shew from â—he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently Now to shew thâ—t thâ—y were not properly bâ—shops First we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episcopall duties a while but wâ—re not there fixed to make their ordinary abode Therefore not bâ—shops properly Secondly thâ—y who did the worke of an Evangelist in all that they did did not perform formally the worke of a bishop But these did so As is vouched of Timothy Doe the worke of an Evâ—ngelist Ergo. The Proposition is proved If an Evangelist and bâ—shop cannot be formally of one office then the act of an Evangelist and the act of an ordinary Pastor or bishop cannot be formally one For when everything doth agere secundum quod actis est those things which are not thesame formally their worke and effect cannot be formally the same But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or bishops are not formally the same Ergo The assumption the Apostle proveth by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gâ—ve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church For as an Apostle is distinguâ—shed from a Prophet a Prophet from an Evangelist so an Evangelist from an ordinary Teacher Object But it may be said they were not distinct but that the superiour contained the inferiour and Apostles might be Evangelists properly as Matthew and Iohn were Aâ—sw 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 altiâ—ri tamen raâ—ione what the inferiour did This sense is tollerable But that formally the power of all otâ—er offices suites wâ—th the Apostles is false My Lord chiefe Justâ—â—e of England is not formally a Constable As for the latter true an Apostle might be also a penmen of the Gospell but this maketh not an Evangelist more then an Apostle but doth per cecidens come to them both And even as a Preacher or Pastor writing Commentaries and publishing other Treatises this commeth per cecidens to his calling it doth not make him a Pastor but more illustrious and fruitfull in that regard then another So Maâ—kâ— and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gospels for then none should have beene Evangelists that had not written but in this regard they were more renowned then other Custome hath so prevailed saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew that wee call them Evangelists viz. the Writers of the Gospells whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension but the first writer of the Gospell being an Apostle was at least eight yeares after 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 ministery common for the generall of it to all other did gather Saints and build Christs Body Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministery common to Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors but the publishing of it Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome and oâ—hersome those he did not give conjoynedly to one and the same persons But these callings he gave to some one to others another Else he must have said he gave the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists the same to be Evangelists and Pastors Ergo. That calling which is not compatible with the calling of an Evangelist that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist But the callâ—ng of a bishop is such For a bishop is tyed to a particular Church The calling of an Evangelist is a calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministery to gather Saints and edifie Christs body without any limitation to any particular Church Ergo Paul never annexed the calling of a bishop to an Evangelist The calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospell nor to preach it simply for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist But this doth difference them to preach it without 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 Evang. of which sort some