THE Diocesans Tryall. WHEREIN ALL THE SINNEWES OF DOCTOR Dovvnhams Defence Are brought into three heads, and orderly dissolved. BY M. PAVL BAYNES. Published by Dr. WILLIAM AMIS.

The questions discussed in this Diocesans tryall are these:

  • 1. Whether Christ [...] [...]nstitute, or the Apostles frame any Diocesan forme of Churches, or parishionall onely, pag. 1.
  • 2. Whether Christ ordained by himselfe, or by his A­postles, any ordinary Pastours, as our Bishops, ha­ving both precedency of order, and majority of power over others, pag 24.
  • 3. Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinary power Ecclesiasticall, and the exercise of it, to any one singular person, or to an united multitude of Presbyters, pag. 78.

Imprinted 1621.


MAny writings, and sermons also have cause to wish that the men from whom they come were lesse knowen then they are. For then should they be free from much prejudice, and find better acceptance with those that they come to. But I wish nothing more unto this Treatise, which is now cōming into the world, then that the Author of it were throughly known un [...]o all those that shall encet with it; for then his work would need no borrowed com­mendation, the title it self carrying authority with it, even to force respect from every h [...]nest Reader, if either the sharpnes of wit, variety of reading, depth of judgment, apt­nes to teach, holy and pleasant language, heavenly conver­sation, wise cariage, or any fulnes of grace wil so far prevail with him. I doe not abuse good words, or load one with thhem whom they do not belong to, as many p [...]inters of Se­pulchrs in their funerall Orations use to do: but speak that in short, which M. Baines his person did largly preach unto all such as came neer unto him: & that which his incompa­rable writings wil sufficiently witnes to sutur generations.

Neither is this all that the Authours quality may suggest unto the considerate Reader: but he may arise from this to more important thoughts; especially if the remembrance of M. Baines his worth do occasion him to think of many o­thers like unto him: [...]uch as M. Dee [...]ing▪ M. More [...]. Green­ham, M. Perkins, M. Rogers, M. Cartwright, M. Fenner, M. Brightman, M. Parker, M. Philips, M. Hie [...]on, and M. Brad­shaw &c. to speak nothing of those which yet live, nor of D. R [...]inolds, D. Fulk, and D. Whitakers with many others. For all these being apprehēded as mē agreeing in one spirit, & having had indeed the spirit of glory resting on them, as their works do shew, together with those letters testimo­nial which they left written in the hearts of many thousand Christians, it must needs cause at the least an inquiry, what [Page] the reason should be what such famous men of God, could never like wel of our Bishoply courses in England, nor ever be favoured of them. The case is plaine to all: and the cause is as evident to those that have eyes to see: but no where more apparant then in the person of M. Baines, and the place where he, and other [...] like him were made signes of this antipathie. Cambridge is or should be, as an eye to all our land: so that the alterations that fall out there cannot but be felt of all parts. It is th [...] place of light; the spirituall oppressions whi [...]h in other corners are covered with dark­nesse (as all the works of darknesse would be) when past all shame they come to confront the Sunne it selfe, how can they then be hidden?

When M. Perkins had there for many yeares held forth a burning and shining light, the sparks wherof did flie abroad into all corners of the land, and after he had served his time was taken up into heaven, there was none found so meet for to receive, as it were, the torch out of his hand, and suc­ceed him in that great office of bearing it before such a peo­ple, as this M. Bains, upon whom also the spirit of that Elias, was by experience found to be doubled. In this station he so demeaned himself for some years, that impietie only had cause to complaine: for all that favoured the waies of God, rejoyced and gloried in him and his Minist [...]ry, asa spiritu­all treasure. But at length the hower of darknes came from Lambeth, when Arch. Bancroft sent M. Harsenet to Visite as they call it, that is (if termes may be interpreted by common practise) to pick the purses of poore men, and to suppr [...]sse those that are not f [...]iends to the B [...]shops King­dome. For though in that circuit there were a multitude of unable and notoriously scandalous Ministers, yet none were foūd worthy of censure, but only M. B [...]in [...]s, of whom the world was not worthy, and one other Preacher like unto him. Now it is hard to say, whether the silencing of him was more odious, or the manner of it shameles. There must be a Sermon (ye know) at such Visitations, for fashion sake, though the Visiter himself can seldom find leasure to make it. This part was therfore appointed to M. Bains by [Page] the Visiters▪ that he might either be insnared in his words, if he did not apply himself to their humours, or else grace their ungratious courses, if he did. But it did not succeed handsomly either way: For he delivered wholesome doct­trine appertaining to the present audience, in such warie manner, that no specious occasion could be taken therby of questioning his liberty. Yet fairely or fouly the mischie­vous intention must not faile. M. Baines having heat his weak body by straining to speak unto a great audience, re­tired himselfe presently upon his comming down from the Pulpit to provide for his health, which otherwise would have bin indangered. They in the meā time going on with their businesse, as they are wont in the masterly forme of a master, called for M. Baines amongst the rest, and upon his not answering, though he was not cited thither as to a Court, but only intreated to preach, as he did, yet for not ap­pearing, he was immediately silenced. Afterward in deed, the Chancellor being informed of that grosse nullity, which was in the sentence, urged him about subscription and con­formity; and so to make sure work, silenced him over again. In which businesse he was so conscious unto himself of un­reasonable and ridiculous dealing, that when M. B [...]in [...]s standing to receive the sentence of a corrupt man, did lift up his heart and eies unto God with a heavenly smiling countenance, as he used, he interpreted that gesture to be a skorne of his authority. This being don, M. Baines was per­swaded by his friends to try the Archbishops courtesie, unto whom, when he presented himself, at the very first sa­lutation; the gravity and severity of B. Bancroft led him sharply to rebuke the good man for a little black-worke, which was upon the edges of his cuffes, asking him how he durst come before him with such cuffs, telling him very bishoplike, that it were a good turn to lay him by the heels for so doing. After this he would have no more to do with such absurd unreasonable men: but preached somtime wher he might have liberty, as his weakenesse of body would suffer; and spent the rest of his time in reading, meditating, praying and writing, saving that upon occasion hee did [Page] instruct or comfort those which came to him in private, wherin he had a heavenly gift. He was indeed all his life af­ter, beside the weakenes of his body pressed with want, no having (as he often complained to his friends) a place to rest his head in: which me thought was an upbraid [...]ng of the age and place where he lived with base regardlesnes of piety & learning: yet he never so much as consulted with himselfe of denying his sinceritie by pleasing the Bishops, of whom and their courses he was wont to say, They are a generation of the earth, earthly and savour not the waies of God. Which saying of his, they, and some Doctors of Cambridge have since made good, in that they could not indure, that the place from whence they thrust him, should be supplied by oth [...]r honest men, though they were cōformable, but with absolute authority at length forbad it, alledging that Puri­tanes were made by that lecture: wheras the truth is, that one lecture hath done more good to the Church of God in England, then all the doctors of Cambridge: though I doe not deny, but some of them have wrought a good work.

By this one instance (of which kind I would there were not a 100 in our land) it may easily appeare to the under­standing Reader, that here is as much agreement betwixt our Bish [...]ps in their managing of Religion (except some 2 or 3, which went out of their elements, when they vente­red on those places) & those powerful Preachers who have bin the chief means of revealing Gods arme unto salvation, as there is betwixt the light which commeth down from h [...]aven, & that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit.

But wee need not seeke for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchie from this opposition, look but at the fruits of it, wher it hath al [...] fulnes of consent, as Cathedrall Pallaces, or Parishes of Bishops and Archbi­shops residence, suc [...] as Lambeth is, where all their canons are in force, a [...]d have their full sway without contradicti­on: nay come neerer unto them, and take a view of their families, even to them that wait in their chambers, and see what godlinesse there is to be found Have there not more of God and his Kingdome appeared in some one Congre­gation [Page] of those Ministers which they have silenced for un­conformity then in all the Bishops families that are now in England? Was there ever any of them that could endure such a Parish as Lambeth is, if they had such power of re­forming it as the Archbishops haue?

To returne therfore unto our Authour: whilst he lived a private life, being thus strucken with the Bishops Planet, he had time to apply his able wit and judgement unto the discussing of many questions, which if the Prelates had not forced such leasure upon him, it may be he would have passed by with others. And among the rest, by Gods pro­vidence he was directed to these Ecclesiastical Controver­sies which concerne our Diocesan state in England: wher­in, as in all other questions which he dealt in, he hath shew­ed such distinct and piercing understanding together with evidence of truth, as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light.

He might indeed have chosen other particular corrupti­ons to have written on, if it had bene his purpose either to have taught men, what they daily see and feel, or to have la­boured about the branches, and leave the root untouched: But it was no delight unto him, for to prove that which no man doubted of, as that the common course and practise of our Prelates, their courts, their urging of s [...]bscriptions, with human superstitious ceremonies, are presumptuous insolen­cies against God and his Church: or preposterously to be­ginne at the end of the streame for to cleanse the water. He chose rather to search the fountain of all that foulnes wher­with our Chur [...]he are soiled: which he judged to be found in the constitu [...]ions here in this Treatise examined. And if these few questions be wel considered, it will appear that a multitude of pernitious abuses doe depend on those positi­ons which in them are confuted. One fundamentall abuse in our Ecclesiasticall oppression in the disposing of charges, our placing of Ministers over Congregations: it is called u­sually bestowing of Bēefices or Livings, in an earthy phrase which [...]avoureth of the base corruption commonly practi­sed. For Congregations ought not to be bestowed on Mi­nisters, [Page] but Ministers on Congregations: the benefit or be­nefice of the Minister, is not so much to be regarded, as of the Congregation: It is the calling and charge which every Minister should looke at, not his living and benefice. Now these Benefi [...]es are bestowed ordinarily by the Patrō (whe­ther Popish, prophane, or religious, all is one) & the Bishop, without any regard of the peoples call or consent: so as no lawful mariage is made; no servant placed: against all Scrip­ture, Councels and antient examples. Wherby it commeth ordinarily to passe, that Lawyers must determine of Mini­sters callings, after long sutes and great charges; as if Con­gregations and Farms were held by one title and right. And sometime it is found that the Minister is a continuall plague unto his people, living in contention, spi [...]e & hatred with them, as many law-suits do too too plainly witnes. What is the reason? Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches that ever were ordained by Christ, or received any power and priviledges from him, but as mans creatures, and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him. Another practice of like nature with the former, is that the minister being called to one Congregation, becommeth a Pluralist by taking a­nother, or more livings, in spite of that Congregation, to which he was first and is still personally tied. And after this he may be a nonresident, abiding or Preaching at none of his many livings. Nay he may chop and change, sell and buy like a marchant, so he do it closely; which is such an abomi­nation, as Rome and Trent condemneth, and hell it selfe will scarse defend. What is the ground? Because (forsooth) Christ hath not appointed Parishes, their office [...]s & offices, and therfore no man is bound further in this kinde, then mens Laws, canons, customes, and injunctions do prescribe unto them. For a grave Doctor of Cambridge answered one that questioned him for his grosse non-residencie, viz. that Parishes were divided by a Pope: insinuating as it seemeth, that he accounted it a point of Poperie, for to tie Ministers unto their particular charges.

A third grosse corruption is, that the officers in Congrega­tions, Ministers, Church-wardens, &c. are made servants to [Page] the Bishops, Chancellours, Archdeacons, &c. being, as it were, their promotors, informers, and executioners, in all matters of jurisdiction and government, for to bring in mony into their purses: for performance also of which service to them, the Church-wardens 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 F [...]iers in his booke called The defence of Curates: For when those Friers incroach [...]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, t [...]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 judg [...]ment, furnished with chancellors, officials, commissaries, advocates, proctors, paritors, and such like humane devices? Yet all this doth necessarily follow up­on [Page] 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 Christ [...]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 o [...]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 wiss [...] they will doe at leasure) they can never make that succession appeare. If they flye to the Kings authority, the King himse [...]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 [Page] 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 h [...]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 [...]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. [Page] 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 re [...]ite all. Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth 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 ordinati [...]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 pr [...]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 observation [...] 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 obj [...]ctions made against that part we take to be the truth.

Th [...]se who affirme the fr [...]e of Diocesan Churches, vou [...]h their Arguments: p [...]r [...]ly from Scripture, partly from presidents, or instances sacred and Ecclesiasticall. Fin [...]lly, from the congrui­ty it h [...]h with reason, th [...]t so th [...]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 [...]egions about it, should make but one Church, they ordained a Diocesan Church. But [...]he Apostles, who use these phrases as aequ [...]pollent, To ordaine Presby [...]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 D [...]ocesan Church.

The reason of the proposition is, because Christians converted in a City, with the suburbes, villages, and countries about it [...]uld not be so few, as to make but a Parishionall Church. The Assump­tion is cleare, for these phrases are used, as ad aequa [...]e, and being so used, needs it must be that the Apostles framed cities, suburbs, and regions into one church.

[Page 2]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 ma [...]y particular Synagogues were then (because they were all but one Common-weal [...]h, and had all but one profe [...]si [...]n) that m [...]y many christian chur [...]hes now bee upon the l [...]ke grounds. But th [...]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 church [...]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 Parishion [...]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 Dioc [...]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 th [...]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 pr [...]heminence before the rest of Ach [...]ia, doth imply th [...]t the church of Corinth was the Metropolitan church to which all Acha [...]a was subject. But the Apostle doth this, 2 Cor. 9.2. & 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 chur [...]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 t [...]ken, whether in city or count [...]y; those seven were for their circuit, Metropolitan, or Dioc [...]san churches. But those seven did containe all other in A­s [...]. Ergo. 2. He who writing to all churches in Asia, writeth by name, but to th [...]se seven, he doth imp [...]y, that all the rest were cont [...]ined in these. Bu [...] Christ writing to the seven, writeth to all [Page 3] churches in Asia, not to name that five of these were Metropo­litan cities, viz. Philadelphia, and Pe [...]g [...]mus, two Diocesan at least, 3. He who mak [...]th the singular church he writeth to, to [...]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 ancien [...] churches, Rome, Alexandria. It is impossible they should bee a Parishionall congregation 200. yeares after Christ. For [...]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 co [...]firmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testifie of their times.

To come from these to our moderne reformed church [...]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 congreg [...]tion. But ma [...]y distinc [...] congregations gathered in one city, may make, wee say, one church, as they doe in the Netherlands. Ergo, distinct congre­gations, severed in divers places may make one church. If many churches, which may subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery, may so make one, they may subject themselves to a bishop and cathedrall consistory, and so make one. But the 24. churches of Geneva, and the territories belonging to it, doe subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery, and so make one. For so farre as two meete in a th [...]rd, they are one in it. Ergo.

The third principall Argument is from reason. If city chur­ches onely, and not the churches of Villages, and coun [...]ry Townes, had bishop [...], Presbyters, and Dea [...]ons placed in them, then were those city church [...]s Diocesan churches. But city chur [...]hes onely had th [...]se. Ergo, city churches were Diocesan, distingu [...]shed from Pa [...]shi [...]nall churches. The Assumption is proved first by Scrip [...]ure, T [...]tus 1.5. Act. 14.23. Sec [...]ndly, this is proved by Ecclesiasticall Sto [...]y. Th [...]y who are g [...]ven to l [...]bour the convertion of the Regions, ra [...]her then ten [...] those alre [...]y converted, they were not given to a Parishionall church. But the [Page 4] Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so. Ergo. They who were set in a church before Parishes were, could not be given to a Parishionall church. But such were the Presbyters of the Apo­stl [...]s institution, Ergo. For it is plaine in the practice of all ages, from the first division, that no church but the mother church had a Presbytery and a bishop, but Presbyters onely. Nay, it was ever by councels condemned, and by the judgement of the anci­ent forbidden, that in Townes or Villages, any but a Presbyter should be planted. 3. This is also proved by reason, for it was no more possible to have bishops and Presbyters in every Parish, then to have a Maior and Aldermen (such as we have in London) [...]n every Towne. 2. If every Parish had a Presbyter, then had they power of ordination, and furnishing themselves with a Minister, when now they were destitute. But they were alwaies in this case dependant on the city. Ergo, there was then a D [...]ocesan church having government of others. Presbyters could not ordaine, sede vacante, though th [...]y did at first, as in the church of Alexan­dria. Let any shew for 400. yeares a Parishionall church with a Presbytery in it.

Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan churches, allowing onely such churches to bee instituted of Christ, which may meet in one congregation ordinarily.

The word which without some modification super-added, doth signifie onely such a company as called forth, may assemble Poli­tically, that word being alone, doth signifie such a church as may to holy pu [...]poses ordinarily meete in one. But the word Church, which Christ and his Apostles did institute, is used indefi­nit [...]ly, and signifieth no more, Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. 2. The Scripture speaketh of the churches in a King­dome or Province, alwaies in the plurall number, without any note of diff [...]rence, [...]s [...]quall one with the other. Ergo, it doth not know Provinciall, N [...]tion [...]ll, or Diocesan churches. Let a reason be given, why it should never speake in the singular number, had they beene a singul [...]r church

Sec [...]ndly, let us come to ex [...]mples: the churches the Apostles pl [...]ed were su [...]h [...] ni [...]h [...] and did congregate.

Fi [...]s [...], that of H [...]rusalem▪ though there were in it toward 500. [...] ­nogogues, yet the christ [...]n church was but one, and such as did congre [...]ate [...]n [...]o one place ordinarily after the accesse of 5000. to it. Act 2.46. & 5.12. & 6.1. & 15.25. & 21.22. & 25.22. For their ordinary meeting as it is, Act. 2.46. daily, could not be a Panege­ric [...]ll meeting. Againe, if they might meete Synodically, why might they not meete then in daily course; though the universall meeting of a church is not so fitly called Synodicall: And though [Page 5] they are said to be millions of beleevers, yet that was by accident of a circumstance, happily the Passeover. We must not judge the greatnesse of a water by that it is, when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations. They had not a setled state there, by which they did get the right of being set members. Yea, it is likely, they were and continued but one congregation. For forty yeeres after they were not so great a multitude, but that Pella, like to the Z [...]har of Lot, a little Towne could receive them. But more of this in the answer to the objection.

Secondly, so the Church of Antiochia, was but one Church, Acts 14.27. they are said to have gathered the Church together. Object. That is, the Ministers, or representative Church. Ans. 1. For Ministers onely, the Church is never used. 2 By analogie, Acts 11. Peter g [...]ve account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithfull, Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church, which had sent them forth with prayer and imposition of hands, and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publike service and worship of God. 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of degrees sent them by the Apostles from Hierusalem. [...].

Thirdly, the Church of Corinth was one congregation, which did for the service of God, or exercise of Discipline meet together, 1 Cor. 5.4. 1 Cor. 14.25. vers. 26. 1 Cor. 11.17. vers. 23. in uno & eodem loco. That whole Church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth, could not be a Diocesan Church, neither can the word [...] comming together, ever be shewed to signifie any thing else, besides one particular Assembly.

Fourthly, the Church of Ephesus was but one flocke. First, it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other. Secondly, it was but one flocke; that flocke which Presbyters might jointly feed, was but one. They had no Diocesan B [...]shop. If Presbyters onely, then none but Parishionall Churches in and about Ephesus. There may be many flocks, but God ordained none, but such as may wholly meet with those, who have the care of feeding and governing of them. Peter indeed, 1 Pet. 5.2. calleth all those he writeth to, one flocke: but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull, or in respect of the common nature which is in all Chur­ches one and the same: but properly, and in externall adunation, one flocke is but one congregation. Thirdly, Parishes according to the adverse opinion, were not then divided. Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostles argue, that there should be Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added; but a greater number of [...]ister Churches. But when it is said that all Asia did heare: the [Page 6] meaning is, that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia, so as Churches were planted every where, even where Paul came not, as at Colosse. There might be many churches in Asia, and many conver­ted by Peter and others fruitfull labour without subordination of churches.

Examples Ecclesiasticall. 1. Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians, though numberlesse, to meete together often in one place, Epist. to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians: where the Bi­shop is, let the people be gathered to him, as where Christ is, there is the whole host of heaven. He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God, which cannot agree to a Diocesan church: For these were particular congregations, opposed as to that Nationall church, so to all Provinciall and D [...]ocesan. Neither doth he call himselfe Bishop of Syria, but as he was, Bishop of the congregati­on in Syria, as a Minister stileth himselfe a Minister of the church of England.

2 Iustine and Ireneus knew no kinde of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabboth. But a D [...]oc [...]san church cannot.

3 Tertullian Apol. cap, 39. doth shew that all churches in his time did meet, and did worship God, in which prayers, readings, exhortations, and all manner of censures were performed. Hee knew no churches which had not power of censures within them­selves.

4 Churches are said at first to have beene Parishes, and Parishes within cities, in Eus [...]b. lib. 3 44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. cap. 6. lib. 4. cap. 25. and S [...]int Iohn lib 3. cap. 23. [...]aith to the Bishop, redde juvenem quem tibi ego & Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus. That church in whose presence Iohn might commit his dep setum, or trust, was but one congregation, lib. 4. cap. 11. H [...]g nus and Pius are said to have undertaken the M [...]nistery of the church of Rome: which church was such therefore, as they might minister unto, lib 7.7. Dionisi­us Alex. writeth to Xistus, and the church which he governed. A Diocesan church cannot receive letters. Before Iulian and Deme­trius his time, there is no mention of churches in a Bishops parish. The church of Alexandria was within the citie, lib. 7. cap. 2. Corneli­us is said, officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Rome ex Cyp. lib. 1. e­pist. 3 Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui cum tamen de pro­vincia pellare ron potuit. Vide Ruffinum, lib. 1. cap. 6. suburbicarariarum Ec­cl [...]sirum tantum curam gess [...]t. Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagiaee, of the Parish in Carthage, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cypriani, lib. 1. epist. 4.

5 It is the rule of Scripture, that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people. Bishops were chosen long after by the people. [Page 7] As of Rome, and others by the people committed to them. Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set, and chose the Bishop in presence of the people. Schismes were said to be from thence, Quod Episcop [...] univer­sa fraternitas non obtemperat, Cypr. epist. 55. tota fraternitas i. unius con­gregationis tota multitudo, ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis. Sabino [...]le universa fraternitatis suffrag [...]o Episcopatus fuit delatus. Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 47.58.68. Ecclesiae [...]gitur circ [...]i [...]us non suit ma [...]or, quàm ut Episcopu [...] totam plebem suam in nego [...]iis bujusmodi c [...]vocare potuerit. Soc. lib. 7. cap. 3. de Ag [...]peto. Convocavit omnem clerum & populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem.

6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages; there is no like­lihood of the other notation. Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates, or Suffragan Bishops to them.

7 Bishops were wont to goe forth to confirme all the baptized through the Diocesse.

8 They were neighbours, and might meet a dozen, six, three, in the cause of a Bishop.

9 They were united, sometimes in Provinciall Councels, in which many Bishops met twice yearly, Ruffin. lib. 1, cap. 6. Victor Vticensis re­porteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Van­dalica, 660. fled to save themselves. Austin saith there were innume­rable orthodox Bishops in Africa: and the Provinciall Councels doe confirme the same.

Now by reason it is cleare that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan.

1 That church whose causes are wanting, that church is wanting. But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found. Ergo.

First, the efficient cause, God ordeyning. For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan: no place to be a place, where the As­sembly Diocesan should be held; no people can worship God in re­pairing to this place and ministery, without warrant of his word. Ergo. In the Nationall church of the Jewes, Aaron and his sonnes tooke not that honour, it was given them: The place of the Natio­nall meeting, God chose Hierusalem. The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there, and to appeare there before him. Secondly, the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit, obliged to meet at least on solemne dayes, wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised; Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled. Fi­nally, the actuall meeting of them to such, end, as such more so­lemne and publike meetings are ordained to, are no where com­manded, [Page 8] nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word pra­ctised.

If any say, these are not the causes of a Diocesan Church, but an or­dinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject them­selves to such a Church and the ministery thereof, that they may be go­verned by them.

I answer. First, there is no ordinance of God for this, that can be shewed, that Churches within such a circuit should be tyed to a cer­taine head Church for government. Nay, it is false. For every Church by Christs institution hath power of government; and the Syna­gogue had in ordinary matters, the government that the Church of Jerusalem had; (being all over) except onely in some reserved causes. Secondly, I say, that this will not make a Diocesan Church formal­ly so called. As a Nationall Church could not formally be with­out binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head Church of it: So by proportion. Yea, government is a thing which doth now [...]ccidere to a Church constituted, and doth not essentially concurre as matter or forme to constitute a Church of this or that kinde. Againe, were this true, that the Diocesan Pa­stors and Ministers have onely government committed to them, then it will follow, that they onely have the governing of par­ticular Churches, who are not any way Pastors of them, ministring Word and Sacraments to them. But this is most absurd, that their proper and ordinary Pastors, who dispence Word and Sacraments to them, should not have potestatem pe [...]i, nothing to doe in governing those flockes which depend on them. If any say, they were not actu, but they were virtute potentiae: I say, it is also to make the Apostles Churches imperfect: and how can this be knowne but by a presumed intention, which hath nothing to shew it, but that after event of things.

From the effect I argue.

2 Those Churches which Christ did ordaine, and the Apostles plant, might ordinarily assemble to the ordinances of worship. But a Diocesan Church cannot ordinarily assemble. Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and the Sabboth is for man, he will not for ever ordaine a thing so unequall and im­possible, as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude. If any distinguish the assumption, and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts, or as she is a torum, standing of her parts now collected to­gether, and say she may, and doth meet and communicate, and edifie her selfe in the first respect. I answer. This is nothing, and doth prove her to be nothing, as she is a Diocesan Church: quia quid quid est, [...]git secundum quo [...]est. If therefore a Diocesan Church were a reall Church, she must have the effect of such a Church; to wit. [Page 9] assembling, as she is Diocesan. The Synagogues through Israel met Sabboth by Sabboth, but were no Nationall Church in this regard; that is to say, as it is a Nationall Church, it had her Nationall reall meetings.

I reason thirdly, from the subject.

3 That Church which doth per se, essentially require locall bounds of place, that must have locall limits set forth of God. But a Diocesan Church doth so. Ergo. Whence I thus inferre, He who institutes a Diocesan Church, must needs set out the locall bounds of this Church. But God hath not set out any locall bounds of the Church in the New Testament: Ergo. He hath not instituted any Diocesan Church. The proposition is certaine: for this doth enter in the definition of a Dio­cesan Church, as also of a Nationall. And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the Jewes, did as in a map set forth the li­mits of that Nation. So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Pro­vinciall Churches, he would have appointed locall bounds, if not par­ticularly described, yet knowne and certaine. But God hath not done this. For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to pla­ces; it being so with the power of teaching, and the Ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction, that it doth respicere subditos onely perse, not terminos locales. Civill jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily, the subjects on it in the second place. As for that commandement of appointing Presbyters Citie by Citie, it is too weake a sparre for this building. Againe, that Church which may be said to be in a Citie, is not Diocesan. But the Churches which the Apostles planted, are said to be in Cities. Ergo. If one say to the proposition, they may; because the head Church is in the Citie. Answer. The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiasticall. But the multitude of Saints through a Diocesse cannot be said to be in a Citie. Ergo. The soule may be said to be in the head, though it be in other parts; and God in heaven. God, because of his most infinite and indivisible nature. And so the soule, because it is indi­visible, and is as all of it in every part, not as a thing placed in a place containing it, but as a forme in that which is informed by it. But in things which have quantity, and are part out of another, there is not the like reason.

4 From the adjuncts. That Church which hath no time set, where­in to assemble, is no Church. I suppose the ground above, that no­thing but union of a Diocesse in worship, can make a Diocesan Church. But this Church hath no time. Ordinary it cannot have: ex­traordinary solemnities God hath not commanded. Ergo, there is no such Church. For if it be a reall D [...]ocesan Church, it must have a re­all action according to that nature of which it is. The action formall of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship. Of [Page 10] a Nationall Church, is to meet nationally and communicate in [...]. If then it must meet, it must have some time set downe, ordi­nary or extraordinary. But God hath done neither. The Churche [...] which the Apostles planted, were in their times most perfect and flourishing. But Diocesan Churches were not: for in those times they were but in seminali infolded, not explicated, as the adversaries confesse.

4 That which maketh Gods dispensation incongruous to his ministers, is absurd. But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so. Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to mi­nisters of churches in the Apostles times, when now they had but one congregation, and give ordinary gifts onely when now they had 800. churches under them, is absurd. But this doth the Diocesan frame. Ergo.

5 The churches throughout which a Presbyter might doe the office of a teaching Presbyter, and a Deacon the office of a Deacon, were not Diocesan. But every Presbyter might minister in the Word and Sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called; so might a Deacon tend to the poore of the whole church, whereof he was a Deacon. Ergo, these were not Diocesan. The reason of the proposition is; No Pesbyter can through many congregations performe ordinary ministery. In which regard the Canon law for­biddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches, cap. 10. quaest. 3. Vna plures Ecclesiae vni n [...]quaquam committantur Pesbyter [...] ▪ quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere, nec rebus carum necessariam curam impendere.

6 If God had planted Diocesan churches, that is, ordeined that all within citie, suburbs, and regions, should make but one D [...]ocesan Church, then may not two Diocesses be united into one Church, or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a D [...]ocesan Church. But neither of these are so. The judgement of the African fathers shew the one, and the Canon law doth shew the other, pag. 2. cap. 16.41. Ergo:

7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chiefe church, o [...]hers united in subjection: then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation: But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop, re­quiring a number of Presbyters and Deacons to minister unto them, there may be the perfection of a church: But in some one congregation may be such a multitude. Ergo:

8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops, are such churches as God instituted: But churches in Townes, populous Villages, have had, and may have their Bishops. Ergo. This is proved by [...] every populous Towne, such as our market townes, and others; ye [...] by [Page 11] a synud [...]cht, villages; for there they taught as well as in Cities. There were Synogogues in Villages, as well as in Cities. They excepted a­gainst them afterward in unconformity to Law. The testimony of Zo­zomen sheweth what kinde of congregations were they of which Epi­phanius testifieth. And the fathers of Africa did not require, that a D [...]o­cesan multitude, but a sufficient multitude, not through eve [...]y part, for then they should have had to doe in Citie churches, but in that part of the Diocesse where a Presbyter onely had served the turne, should have their Bishop.

If Diocesan churches, and Provinciall churches be Gods frame, then we had no Churches in Britaine of Gods frame, before that Au­stin was sent by Gregorie the great. But here were churches from be­fore Tertullian, after the frame God requireth, at least in their judge­ments. Ergo.

Now to come to open the termes, and lay downe conclusions: whether Diocesan or Parishionall Churches were at the first con­stitute.

First, the word Church we understand here, not figuratively; taken Metonymically for the place, Syn [...]ed, for Ministers administring ordinan­ces: but p [...]operly, for a body politick, standing of people to be taught and governed, and of teachers and governours.

Secondly, it may be asked, What is meant by a Diocesan church? Answ. Such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church, as partaking in holy things, or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church, for all the other with­in such, or such a circuit. These phrases of a Diocesse, a Diocesan B [...]shop, or Church, are all since the time of Constantine, yea the two last much later. A Diocesse seemeth from the common-wealth to have beene taken up in the Church, from what time Bishops had Territories, ample demaines, and some degree of civill jurisdiction annexed to them. For a Diocesse by the Lawyers, is a circuit of Pro­vinces, such as the Romans Praesidents had: or active, an admini­stration of those Provinces with jurisdiction. L. unica. c. ut omnes sudicet. And in the Canon law, sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously, Dist. 50. cap. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory, or Countrey circuit, opposed to the Citie. Thus the Countrey churches are called Diocaesanae Ecclesiae, cont. tur. c [...]p. 8.

Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contra distinguished to Parishio­nall. These had every one a Diocesse, and the inhabitants were cal­led Diocoesani: these Churches had a moity of houses dwelling in neighbourhood th [...]t belonged to them; but at length by a Synec­doche, the whole Church was called a Diocesse; though the Cano­nists dispute whether it may be so called, seeing the Diocesse is [Page 12] the meaner part by much, in comparison of the Citie, and should not give the denomination to the whole. So at length the Bishop was cal­led Diocoesanus, and the Church which had beene called Ecclesia civita­tis, matrix, nutrix, Cathedralis, grew to be called Diocesan. But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church, with which all Chur­ches in such a circuit hath reall union, and communion in some sacred things. Now a Diocesan Church may be put objectivè, that is, for a Chur [...]h in which are ministers and ministery for the good of the whole Diocesse, though they should never assemble, as the worship in the Church of Jerusalem was for all Judea, and profited, though absent. Or it may be put formally for a body politicke, a congregation of be­leevers through a Diocesse, with the ministers of the same, having some reall union and communion in sacred things. We deny any such Church.

A Parishionall Church may be considered Materially or Formally; M [...]erially, as it is a Church within such locall bounds, the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other. This God instituted not, for it is accidentall to the Church, may abesse and adesse, a Church remaining one. If a Parishionall Church in Lon­don should dwell, as the Dutch doe, one farre enough from the other, while the same beleevers were united with the same governours, the Church were not changed, though the place were altered. Second­ly, it is put formally, for a multitude which doe in manner of a Pa­rish ordinarily congregate; such Churches, and such onely we say God erected.

Now for some Conclusions, what we agree in, then what se­vers us.

Conclus. 1. Churches of Cities, Provinces, Kingdomes, may be called Diocesan, Provinciall, Nationall Churches; as the Churches of the world are called Oecumenicall, yea haply not without warrant of Scripture: As 1 Pet. 1.1. writing to all those dispersed Churches, speaking of them singularly, as of one flocke, 1 Pet. 5.2. The reason is, things may be called not onely as they are really in themselves, but according to some respect of reason, under which we may apprehend them.

Conclus. 2. That [...]here may be a reall Diocesan, Nationall, or head Church, wherewith others should be bound to communicate more so­lemnly in Word and Sacraments, and in some more reserved cases con­cerning their government. This was done in the Church of Judea. Our men are too shie, that feare to come to this proposition, de posse. I am sure our adversaries will grant us, that our Parishionall frame might have beene so constituted.

Conclus 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church, but by Gods institution. No Ministers can take this honour, but they must [Page 13] (as Aaron) be called to it. When nothing in nature can have further d [...]gree of perfection, then the author of nature putteth into it; how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ec­clesiasticall, depend on God? We may reason from the Church of Judea, as à pari, to prove, That there cannot be such a Church, but that all subordinates must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things, which may make them one Chur [...]h. Thus there would not have beene a Church Nationall of the Jewes, but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship. The men onely went up, so the male onely were circumcised: but the female representatively went up in them.

Object. It is enough if the communion be in government, which all our opposites grant necessary.

Answ. This maketh then rather one in tertio quodam separabili, then one Church: government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted, and may be absent, the Church remaining a Churc [...]. The fi [...]st Churches of B [...]shops, when now they were divided, did keep all other, who were the Bishops presbyters strictly so called, and the people also in some communion with the head Church; for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither. See decret. dist. 3. dist 38.

Conclus. 4. We agree in this, th [...]t Churches were in their first plant­ing, either not actually Diocesan, being one congregation without any other subordinate, or if they had any, yet were they imperfect, want­ing many parts or members of particular Churches, which belonged to them.

That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirme that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equall, independent each of other, in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Dio­cesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves, but onely subject in some more common and transcendent cases. As it was with the Syna­gogues and that Nationall Church of the Jewes, and as it is betwixt Provinciall and Diocesan Churches. If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church and Parishionall: for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church. I answer, not; taken in comparison to a Provinciall Church, it is but a part and member, and hath not perfection, no more then a parochiall Church hath, compared with a Diocesan.

Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed.

To the first, I answer to the proposition by distinction. Those who ordained that the Civita [...] and V [...]bs people taken in regard of the [Page 14] whole multitude of the one, and locall bounds of the other, should make but one Church, they did institute a Diocesan church. But those who so instituted a Church in Ci [...]y, Suburbs, Coun­trey that their number might bee compared fitly to one congregation, they did not therefore ordaine a Diocesan Church. Againe to the assumption. But those who use City by City, and Church by Church as equivalent (which the Apostles doe) they or­dained that C [...]y, Suburbs, and Count [...]y should make but one Chur [...]h. I answer by the like distinction. They who use City by City, people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these locall bounds, as equivalent with Church by Church, they may be said to have ordained that city, suburbs and territories, should make but one Church. But th [...]s the Apostles doe not use them, as of equall signification. For the City had a reason of an ample continent, the Church of a thing contained. These phrases are, the one proper, the other metonymicall, and are therefore to bee expounded the one by the other. Hee placed Presbyters [...], lest we should understand it of the multitude and locall bounds, it is said in the Acts of the Apo­stles that they placed them [...], Church by Church: because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted [...]ut of the multitude and locall li­mites wherewith cities were bounded. Secondly, there is an ad­aequate acception of these phrases per accidens, not because the citie and church was to make but one church, but because the Christi­ans by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were framed into one church; or because by occasion there was yet but one church, not because there was to be but one. Now hee who thus us [...]th them promiscuously, doth imply that one church was as yet constituted, not that there was to be but one through the cir­cu [...]t of city, suburbs, and countrey. Thus likewise it is easi [...]y an­swered to the proofe of the proposition: For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted, could not be a church of one congregation yet the number of those who in city, suburbs, and terri­tories, were actually converted, was no more then might be ordered into one church and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion, did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same locall bounds.

To the second Argument: and first, the objection from the Nationall church of the Jewes. I answer, denying the assump­tion. That the Synagogues being many, made one church; be­cause they were all one Kingdome, one posses [...]ion. For thus there was one Oecumenicall church, when the world was under one [Page 15] Emperour, and of one profession. It is accidentall to the unity of a Church whether the kingdome be one or no. If Israel, when God had divided the kingdome into two, had gone up to Hie­rusalem, and kept there communion in the worship of that Church, they had still been one Church, though two King­domes. If here were as many Kings and Kingdomes as have beene in England, so many as should belong to one Provinciall Church, should bee one Church, though ma [...]y Kingdomes. The truth is, they were one Church, because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worships, which were in that one Church to which they all belonged. The high Priest was their proper Priest, hee made intercession for them, blessed them, they were not to offer any where, but there. If any thinke this cannot bee the cause, why there were one Church, un­der the governement of one high Priest, for then should Aaron have beene as well as M [...]lehisedeck, a type of Christs Kingly office. I an­swer there is Priestly Prelacy and governement, as well as Princely: Th [...]y were under Aaron in the former regard, in wh [...]ch h [...] was a sh [...] ­dow of Christ.

To the second instance of Hierusalem; we deny the pro­position. It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order, and yet not bee a Nationall Church ha­ving power over oth [...]rs: If it should have beene a head, having power accordingly, as it was a mother Church, it should have beene head to all the world. Secondly, wee deny the Assump­tion. Th [...]t the Apostles ever intended, that it should be a head to Christian Churches through Judea: as it had beene before under the High Priest. That constitution was typicall, and may bet­ter plead for an universall Christian Church, then for a Natio­nall. Secondly, there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way. Thirdly, had this D [...]vinity beene knowne, the Fathers would not have suffered, that it should have beene made a Diocesan church, and subjected to Caesarea. To the Prosillogisme. The Church which was so numbersome, that it could not meete or­dinarily, could not bee a Parishionall Church. This was so. Ergo, &c. To the proposition I answer. That which was by inhabitants, who had fixum domicilium, so numbersome that it could not meete, I grant it. But so this was not; by acci­dent often many others were there in transitu. Secondly, nay wee read that they did meete ordinarily, as is above said, and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them, Irenaeu [...] affirmeth, l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam cam convenisse. [Page 16] Luke affirmeth the same. As for that of millions of beleevers, it is certaine, they were not fixed members of this Church. For would Luke, who reckoneth the growth of them to five thousand, have con­cealed so notable accessions, where by they s [...]y, they grew up to I know not how many thousands; there is no likelihood. Whether therefore they were such beleevers as are mentioned, Iohn 2 [...] or whether by rea­son of the Passeover, or Pentecost, or such like feast, they were in tran­ [...]tu, onely there for the present. How ever it is, there is no likeli­hood that they were constant members of that Church, Neverthe­lesse, say, they were more then could fitly meet, yet might they be tollerated as in one Congreg [...]tion. The Apostles seeing such times to ensue, wherein many of them should translate themselves, and be dispersed hither and thither. God letting it grow a while more ranke and aboundant then ordinary Churches are to be, because it was Ecclesiae surcularis, many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time. Yea, had there beene five thousand set­led members, we read of some ordinary Auditories, sp [...]ken to by ordinary Pastors, as great; as Chrys [...]stome on Matth. 24. doth sig­nifie, to his esteeme th [...]y might be five thousand that then heard his voyce.

Touching the third instance, As to the first reason, The proposi­tion is denyed: for naming the rest of Achaia with them, doth no more signifie the subjection of all Achaians, ther [...]in the 1 Corinth. 1.2. naming all Saints in every place, doth signifie their subjecti­on. The second reason, hath the sequell of the proposition denied: for the contrary is rather true. He who without any note of diffe­rence calleth the church of Corinth by the name of Achaia, he doth imply that it is but one particular church equall with the other churches in Achaia. To the third, the proposition is againe denied, That he that speaketh of all the churches as one, doth imply a metropolitan church. For by the first conclusion we may speake of things not onely as they are really, but according to any respect of reason, under which they are apprehended. Againe, the assumption is false: He speaketh not of them as one church, but as divers churches in one Province. But it is named and set be­fore o [...]hers. Ergo. &c. The sequell is againe denied. For it may be named before other, because it is the most illustrious and conspicuous church; but not because it hath any power over other. Finally, it is too grosse to thinke, that all in Achaia came to Corinth to be in­structed and make their contributions, every church using the first day of the weeke when they assembled to make their collections within themselves.

[Page 17]The fourth instance is Crete; where the many churches in that Iland, so full of cities, are said to be one church of Crete, whereof Titus was Bishop. Those manifold churches which made but one, whereof Titus was Bishop, those were all one Nationall church. But the churches of Crete, as saith the subscription, were so. Ergo. Answ. The proposition might be questioned on the ground above: but the assumption is false: proved by a subscription, which is l [...]ke his proofe, which was brought out of the booke after the Revelation. For first they are not in the Syria [...]ke testament. Secondly, th [...]y are nor thought of Antiquity ancienter then Theodoret. Thirdly, the subscription is false, and most unlikely: For had Paul written from Nicopolis, he would have wished Titus to come to him to Nicopolis, where he was for the present, and meant to winter, rather th [...]n have spoken of it as a place from wh [...]ch he was absent, and whether he meant to repaire.

The fifth instance. Phillip. 3. That church, which was in the chiefe citie of Macedonia, must needs be at least a Diocesan. But the church of Philippi was so. Ergo. This will prove an argument, when churches must needs be conformed to the civill regency of the Emperour: his foure chiefe Governours called praefecti praetorii, his presidents of Provinces under them, and inferiour Judges, and Magistrates, under these in one citie, and the regions of it. But this is an errour giving ground to a Patriarchall and Oecumenicall church, as well as a Provinciall and Diocesan. This rule of planting churches varieth at mans pleasure: For the Romane Provinces af­ter the people of Rome gave up their right to the Emperour, were brought all into one, under one head and Monarch, and Provinces have beene diversly divided from time to time. From this Monarchie arose the Popes plea against the Greeke churches for his Oecumeni­call soveraignty. What forme of churches must we have amongst them who never received any such government, nay any constant govern­ment at all. If I were a conformitant I should object otherwise for a Provinciall church in Philippi: viz thus. That church wh [...]ch had many B [...]shops in it could not be Parishionall nor Diocesan, but Provinciall. For the Provinciall church h [...]th [...]he Metropoli­tan and Suffragan B [...]shops in it, and no other. But Philippi had so. Ergo. But the Proposition is true onely when it is understood of Di­ocesan Bishops, not of Parishionall B [...]shops. Paul writeth not to the Bishops in the church, but in the citie: Now ma [...]y Bishops are not in the Provinciall citie, though many are in a Provinciall church.

Now to come to the churches of Asia. I answer to the proposi­tion of the first Syllog. by distinction. One church may conteine others, as an example doth conteine in it a thing exemplified: or [Page 18] as a head Church doth Churches united in subjection to it. Those Churches which conteine all other in the latter sence, it is true, they were at least Diocesan: but in this sense the assumption is denyed. The same answer fitteth the Prosyllog. He that writing to these, writeth to all other by vertue of their subjectionall subordination, he doth imply that all others are conteined in these as member Churches under one head. But he who writing to these, writeth to all other as exemplified onely in them, he doth not imply any such thing. Now this is manifest, because he writeth to seven Churches: whereas this were superfluous, if Christ did intend his letter one­ly to head Churches conteyning other. For then five Churches should have beene written to onely, seeing in them all others were con­teyned, as they say. For by law of this virtuall continency, Phila­delphia and Thiatira were included in two of the other, viz. Sardis, and Pergamus, which were their mother cities. What needed he have named Philadelphia and Thyatira, which by law of this virtuall con­tinency did intend to direct his letter onely to head Churches? A­gaine, the assumption is false: For he doth write principally to the seven, and to all other Churches in Asia no further then he writeth to all the Churches in the world. There were other Churches in A­sia, such as were Colosse, Hierapolis, Troas, the Church at Mile­tum, and Assos, which the Centuries mention, which depended not on those seven. If Colosse and Hierapolis were not, as L [...]odicaea, reedified when John did write the Revelation, yet these other Chur­ches were not extant. Not to name Magnesia and Tralles, the in­dependancy whereof is fully cleared whatsoever Doct. Downam ob­jecteth.

To the third reason; from Christs manner of concluding his E­pistles, it is answered by denying the assumption. For Christ doth not use the plurall number in respect of that one Church preceding, but in respect of the seven collectively taken, it be­ing his will that the members of each singular Church should lay to heart both severally and joyntly, what ever was spoken to them and to others.

Now to come to the Ecclesiasticall examples, as of Rome, and Alexandria, two hundred yeares after Christ. And first to answer the reason brought for their increase, such as could not keepe still in a Parishionall meeting. The proposition is not of necessary consequence; for there were very extraordinary rea­sons of that which was effected in the Church of Jerusalem: From Christ himselfe, from the residence of all the Apostles; from the state of the people there assembled; from the state of that Church; from the time in which these were done. Christ [Page 19] had prayed for them particularly, to which some attribute the first miraculous conversion by Peters preaching. Againe, it was fit, that being now ascended into his glory, he should there more a­boundantly display his power, and more conspicuously swallow up the scandall of his crosse. Againe, this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it: whose care and industry we may guesse by their ordination of D [...]acons, that they might not be distracted. Thirdly, the confluence and concourse to H [...]erusalem was of much people, who though explicately they did not be­leeve in Christ; yet had in them the faith of the Messiah, and therefore were neerer to the kingdome of God then the common Heathen. The state of this Church was such, that it was to send out light to all other, a common nursery to the world. Finally, the time being now, the beginnings of planting that heavenly Kingdome, seeing beginnings of things are difficult, no won­der if the Lord did reveale his arme more extraordinarily. It doth not therefore follow from this particular, to the so great encrea­sing of these churches in tract of time, Nay, if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings, it would not follow, as thus. Those Churches which within a few yeares had thus many in them, how numbersome w [...]re they many yeares after? Because the grow­ing of things hath a Period set, after which, even those things which a great while encreased, doe decrease and goe downward, as it was in Jerusalem. Not to mention, that we deny the as­sumption.

But though the Argument is but Topicall, and can but breed an opinion onely, yet the testimonies seeme irrefragable. Tertullian testifying that halfe the Citizens in Rome was Christians. And Cor­nelius, that there was besides himselfe, and 45. Presbyters, a number-some Clergie.

I answer, That Tertullians speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolicall: for who can beleeve that more then halfe the Ci­tie, and world, after a sort, were Christians? But he speaketh this, and truely in some regard, because they were so potent through the world, that if [...]hey would have made head they might have troubled happily their per [...]ecutors. Or else [...]he might s [...]y they were halfe of them Christians, not because there were so many mem­bers of the Church: [...]ut because there were so many who did beare some favour to their cause, and were it as safe as otherwise, would not sticke to [...]urne to them. But Tertullian knew no Chur­ches which did not meet, having prayers, exhortations, and mini­stering all kindes of censures: If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time, it will make little for Diocesan Churches.

[Page 20]Touching Cornelius: we answer. It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries. Cornelius keeping the Catherall Church, and being sole Bishop of them: but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church. For first, the Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches were all within the Citie, in which regard he is said, Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae. Neither was his Church as ample as the Province, which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently reacheth. Secondly, we say that these Parochiall churches, were to t [...]e mother church, as chappels of ease are to these churches in metrocomiis, they had communi­on with the mo [...]her church, going to the same for Sacraments and he [...] ­ring the Word, and the Bishop did goe out to them and preach amongst them Porsome of them were not su [...]h as had liberty of Baptizing, and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church.

Now to answer further, it is beyond 200. yeares for which our de­fence is taken. For there is reason why people which had beene held toge [...]her for 200. yeares as a Congregat [...]on, might now fifty yeares af­ter be exceedingly encreased. The Ecclesiasticall story noteth a most remarkeable increase of the faith, now in the time of Iulian before Cornelius. Nei [...]her must we thinke that an Emperour, as Philippus, favouring the faith, did not bring on multitudes to the like profes­sion. Secondly, we [...] say, there is nothing in this of Corn [...]lius which may not well stand, that the Church of Rome, though now much increased, did not keepe together as one Church. For the whole peo­ple are said to have prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop, who had ordeyned Novaetus: and we see how Cornelius doth amplifie Novae [...]us his pertinacie: From hence, that none of the numerous Clergie, nor yet of the people, very great and innu­merable, could turne him, or recall him, which argueth that the Church was not so abo [...]ndant, but that all the members of it had union and communion, for the mutuall edifying and restoring one of another. And I would faine know, whether the seven Deacons, seven Subdeacons, two and forty Acolouthes, whether those exorcistes, L [...]ctors, Porters about two and fifty are so many, as might not be ta­ken up in a Congregation of fifteene or twenty thousand? Surely the time might well require them, when many were to be sent forth to doe some part of ministery more privately. Not to name the errour of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters, to vilifying of them, as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons. There were six [...]y in the church of S [...]phia for the helpe of the Liturgie. True it is, the Congregation could not but be excee­ding great, and might well be called in a manner innumerable, though it were but of a twenty thousand people. But because of that which is reported touching division by Evaristus, Hyginus, Dionisius, and [Page 21] Marcellinus, though there is no authenticke authour for it; neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement. Let it be yeelded that th [...]re were some Parochiall divisions, they were not many, and within the Ci­tie, and were but as Chappels of ease to the cathedrall or mother Church.

Concerning the objection from the Churches of Belgia, or the low Countries, we deny the proposition: for we cannot reason thus: If many Masters, and distinct forme [...] of Schollers, in one free [...] Schoole, be but one Schoole: then many Masters and company of Schollers, seve­red in many Schooles, are but one Schoole. Secondly, they have com­munion in the community of their Teachers, though not in the same individuall word tended by them. But it is one thing, when sheepe feed together in one common Pasture, though [...]hey bite not on the same individuall grasse: Another thing when now they are tended in diverse sheepe-gates. Not to urge, that in the Sacra­ments and Discipline, they may communicate as one Congre­gation.

Touching the objection from Geneva: I answer to the propositi­on by distinction. Those who subject themselves to a Presbyterie, as not having power of governing themselves within themselves, as being under it by subordination, these may in effect, as well be subject to a Consistorie: But thus the twenty foure Churches of Geneva doe not. They or have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confede­rate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutuall communica­tion, one asking the counsell and consent of the other in that common Presbytery. Secondly, it is one thing, for Churches to subject them­selves to a Bishop and Consistory, wherein th [...]y shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery, wher­in themselves are members and Judges with others. Thirdly, say, they had no power, nor were no members in that Presbytery, yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocrasie, another to the Bishops Monarchicall government. For while his Presbyters are but as Counsellours to a King, though he consulteth with them, he alone governeth. Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were intire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this meanes the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communi­on. But what are all the foure and twenty Churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches?

Now to answer the reasons. The first of them hath no part true: the proposition is denyed. For these Churches which had such Presby­ters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishionall, that is, so conjoyned that they might and did meet in one Congregation. [Page 22] The Doctor did consider the slendernesse of some of our Pari­shes, and the numbersome Clergy of some Cathedrall Chur­ches, but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser, and Congregations ampler and fuller, and yet none so bigge as should require that multitude he imagineth, nor made so little as might not have Presbyters and Deacons. What though such Maior and Aldermen as are in London cannot be had in every Towne, yet such a Towne as Cambridge may have a Maior and Aldermen as Cambridge aff [...]ords, and the meanest market Towne may have, though not in deg [...]ee, yet in kinde like Gover­nours. So is it in Presbyters and other Officers: the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens, not that a Bishop is ever to have a l [...]ke numbe [...]some Presbyterie, but because the Church is so num­be [...]some that actions liturgicall require more copious assistance, and so wealthy that it can well maintaine them. And beside, because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather then Ecclesiasticall, which the fathers had in their Presbyteries; for the nursing of plants, which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches, which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no whit in­tended.

To come to the assumption: But city Churches onely had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons. Answer, First, not to stand upon this, that Saint Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters, but Presbyters onely, and they say Bishops were given, when the Presbyters had brought the Church to bee more numbersome, the assumption is false, that Citie Churches onely had them. For the Scripture saith, they planted them Church by Church, that is, through every Church. Then eve­ry Church had her Governours within her selfe, wee must use as am­ple interpretations as may be. Contrarily, the sense which arroga­teth this to one from the rest wee cannot without evidence receive it, in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est. Eclesia doth not signifie any Church without difference, Parishionall, D [...]ocesan, or Provinciall; but onely a company orderly assembling, not [...]. Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation. Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universall, as, [...] is [...], so [...] is [...]. Now their interpretation beggeth everything without any ground. For when Presbyters may be taken but there wa [...]es: divisim, conjuct [...]m, and divisim, and conjunctim: divisim one Presbyter in one, another in another, conjunctim, diverse Presbyters in every Church, neither of these will serve their turne, the latter onely being true: for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters, without which the Church cannot be governed, it is sure it did give of both kinds to every Church they p [...]an­ted, [Page 23] Now they seeing some Churches in our times to have many, and some one conster it both waies Collective, many Presbyters, & Singularly, one here, and one there, and because many Presbyters cannot be thu [...] placed in our frame of Churches, imagine the Church to containe Parochiall and Diocesan Churches.

But they will not seeme to speake without reason; the Scripture say they placed City by City Presbyters, and therefore in such Churches as occupied Citie, Suburbes, and Countrey, which Pa­rishionall ones doe not. But may not a Church of one Congrega­tion be in a Citie, without occupying limits of Citie, Suburbes, and Countrey? and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church, may they not bee said to be placed in Cities? Indeed if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds; the case were other; but the citie is not literally thus to be understood, but metonymically for the Church in the Citie. Neither was the Church in the city, all within such bounds; for the Saints of a place and Church of a place, are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech. As for that which is objected from Ecclesiasticall history, it is true, that in processe of time, the Bishop onely had a company of Presbyters. Before, Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Pres­byters. Churches should so have afterward beene divided, that all should have beene alike for kinde, though in circumstantiall excellen­cy some were before other. What a grosse thing is it to imagine, that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posterity to imitate? A sitter example then to take out of the custome of Metropoles, who sending out there [...], or Colonies, doe use to reserve some cases in civil jurisdiction over them, which the state of later Churches did expresse.

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

WEE will follow the same method: First, setting downe the arguments for it, with answers to them: Secondly, the arguments ag [...]inst it. Third­ly, lay downe conclusions. The arguments for it are: First, taken from Scripture: secondly, from practise of the Churches: thirdly, from reason evincing the ne­cessity of it.

The fi [...]st Argument.

Those whom the holy Ghost instituted, they are of Christs ordai­ning. But the holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops, Acts 20. Er­go, B [...]shops are of Christs ordaining.

Answer. We deny the assumption: viz. That those Presbyters of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops. It is most plaine they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church; such Bishops whereof there might be more then one in one congregation. The common glosse referreth to this place that of Ierom: that at first Presbyters did by common councell governe the Churches. Yea, Doct. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have had no Bishop, who was sent unto them after Pauls being at Rome, as he thinketh. And others defending the Hierarchie, who thinke him to have spoken to Bishops, doe judge that these words belong not to the Presbyters of Ephesus, but are spoken in regard of others toge­ther then present with them, to wit, of Timothy, Sosipater, Tychicus, who, [Page 25] say they, were three Bishops indeed; but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company, is quite besides the text.

The second Argument.

Such Pastors as the seven Angels, Christ ordained. But such were Diocesan Bishop [...]. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who were of singular preheminency amongst other Pastors, and had corrective pow­er over all others in their Churches, they were Diocesan bishops. But the Angels were singular persons in every Church, having Ecclesi [...]sticall preheminence and superiority of power. E [...]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 th [...] Church amisse, or otherwise: they had Majority of power above others. But these Angels are written to onely, they are onely praised, dispraised, threatned. Ergo. &c.

Answ. 1. In the two first syllogismes the assumption is denyed. Se­condly, in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the pr [...]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. [Page 26] But they ordained Bishops. Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction.

First, th [...]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 Cl [...]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. Amb [...]os. in Galath. 1.9. Doroth [...]us in Synopsis. Aug. contra C [...]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 g [...]ve him power of jurisdiction, and as­sig [...]e him his Church. So th [...]t though he were an Apostle, yet ha­ving a singular assignation, and staying here till death, he might just­ly be called the B [...]shop, as indeed he was. If he were not the Pastor, whom had [...]hey fo [...] the [...]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 o [...]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. T [...]erd. and Ch [...]y [...]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 thi [...]her. Yea this, that he was sent, did argue him there Bi­shop: for when th [...] Churches had to send any where they did usually intreate their Bishops.

Thirdly, Archippus they instituted at Colosse. Ergo.

Fourthly, Timothy and [...]itus were instituted Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete. Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus. That which is presupposed in their Epistles, is true. But it is presupposed that they w [...]re Bishops in these Churches. Er­go. The assumption proved. Those whom the Epistles presup­pose to have had Ep [...]s [...]opall authority given them to bee exercised in those Church [...]s, th [...]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 govern [...] with [...]in­gularity [Page 27] of preheminence, and majority of power in comparison of other. Now these are the things which they have in charge, Tit. 1.5. 1 Tim. 5.22. 1 Tim. 1.3.11. 2 Tim. 2.16. Ergo. 3. Those things which were written to informe not onely Timothy and Titus, but in them all their successours who were Diocesan Bishops, those were written to Diocesan▪ bishops. But these were so. Ergo, to Dio­cesan b [...]shops. Now that Dioc [...]san bishops were their successours, is proved. 1. Either they, or Presbyters, or Congregations. Not the latter. 2. Againe, Those who did su [...]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 Gor [...]i [...]a the Metropolis. 4. Those who were ordinarily resident, and lived and died at these Chur [...]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 H [...]gisippus, and Clement and Eusebius out of them, whom so refuse to believe, deserve t [...]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, [...]h [...]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 necess [...]y to the being of the Church, was not to end. But the funct [...] [...]h [...]y had as being assigned to certaine Ch [...]rches, is necessary to the be [...]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. D [...] ­nis. Areopag. Doroth. in Synopsi. Amb [...]ose p [...]oe [...]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. O [...]cum. Sedulius. 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the booke of histories. Greg. L [...]b. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34.


We deny the assumption of the first Syllogisme, with all the in­stances brought to prove it.

F [...]st, for Iame [...], we deny he was ordained bishop, or that it can be proved from antiquity, that he was more then other Apostles. That which Eusebius reporteth, is grounded on Clement, whom wee know to be a forged magni [...]ier of Romish orders, and in this story he doth [Page 28] seeme to imply, that Christ should have ordeyned Peter, Iohn and Iames the greater Bishops. Seeing he maketh these to have 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 B [...]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. ul [...]. Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others. In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops; not in propriety of speech, but because they did such things as Bishops doe, and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them. Thus Peter, Paul, Iohn, Barnabas, and all the rest, are by he Ancients called Bishops.

Object. This is granted true, touching others, but not in this in­stance of Iames: because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture, a [...] well as all other Story; that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Jerusalem, Iohn the Baptist did still abide with them even to death. Answer. Though this be but very conjecturall, yet it 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 m [...]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 Chu [...]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 Circum­c [...]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 & Post [...]riori: the Author de quaest. vet. & nov. t [...]st. cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopus salvatorem Ecclesiis in­stitius [...]e p [...]usquam escenderet: imponens manus Apostolis, ordinavit eos in Episcopus. Neither did they thinke them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church; but because they were enabled to doe all those things which none but Bishops could [Page 29] regularly doe. Oecum. cap. 22. in Act. It is to bee noted, faith hee, tha [...] 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 assu [...]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 [Page 30] had a higher and more excellent power of office, whereby to doe those same things in the same Church, is to no end. Ergo.

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

Answer. To this I reply, first, that if hee had no new power of order, he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and 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 th [...]y were guided by the spirit, it was thought meere, that Iames should abide in Jerusalem, there tending bo [...]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, y [...]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 h [...]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 B [...]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 Bish [...]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 [Page 31] who so keeped in that Church, hee did neede to goe for [...]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 goi [...]g for [...]h, in the mother Church of all the world, as an ordinary Pa [...]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 [...]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 p [...]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 inter [...]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, th [...]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 mak [...]th him sent, not for perpetuall residence amongst them, but for the [...]ransunt exhorting of them, and maketh him so desired of the [Page 32] Philippians, because hee was a good man, not because hee was their ordinary Pastor. Ieroms testimony on this place doth not evince. For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken, and as ap­pliable to one, who as an Evangelist did instruct them, as to any o­ther. Th [...]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 Theodore [...] to bee admitted: for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should bee communicated then with ordinarie Pastors, where now there was danger of confounding those eminent Ministers of Christ, with others, and when now the Apostles were deceased, that then it should cease to bee ascribed to them. Againe, how shall wee know that a bishop is to bee placed in a Citie, that hee must bee a person thus and thus (according to Pauls Canons) 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 u [...]der the name of Apostles and Angels. Thirdly, antiquity doth testifie, that this was an honour to bishops, when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them. But if they ever had been tea [...]med by the name of Apostles before, this had been a debasing of them. Neither is there reason why they should bee called Apostles. In jurisdiction Apostolicall the Apostles were not succeeded. Jurisdiction Episcopall they never exercised, nor had, and therefore could not bee succeeded in it. The Apostles gave to Presbyters tha [...] which Christ gave them out of his power; even the power of ordinary government. They are bid [...], and [...], to feed as well by government as doctrine. They are bid not to play the Lords over the flock. What feare of tyranny where there is no power of government? But lay authorities aside, consider the thing from the text it selfe. First, Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him, hee having purposed to have sent Timothy, who as yet could not bee imployed. I thought it necessary to send Spa [...]br [...]dit us to you. Secondly, hee doth imply, that Epaphraditus had not returned to them, but that hee sent him; and that therefore hee was not the ordinary bishop of it. It is like, hee was but sent till Timo­thy might bee dispatched to them. Neither is it anything probable he should bee called an Apostle, as their ordinary and eminent Pa­stor. In the Scriptures, none are said to be Apostles further then they are in habitude to some sending them. Now this is undoubted, the Philippians had sent him to Paul. It is then most probable when he is [Page 33] [...]lled their Apostle, it is in regard he was sent by them, which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words, who hath ministred to me the things [...]e [...]dfull which you sent by him. Object. But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve, should be used of those sent civilie. Not so, for while the persons sending are signified, they are sufficiently contradistinguished; it being the Priviledge of the Apostles, that they were the Apostles of Christ J [...]sus, not simply that they were Apostles. Secondly, Iohn 13. It is made common to all that are sent. For though Christ meane it of himselfe, yet he implies it by a discourse, a genere ad speciem. Thirdly, we see the like phrase, 2 Cor. 8 The Apostles of the Churches. For Chrysost [...]me there un­derstandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present. That doth not hinder, they were by Paul to the Churches, therefore the churches might not send them with their contributions. Neither is this an argument that he was their bishop, because their church sent him: for they sent Apostles themselves and Evangelists also more or­dinarily, it being their office to goe from church to church, for the edification of them.

For the instance of Archipus I finde it not urged.

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

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

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

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

To the fourth reason: Those things which were written to inform not onely Timothy and Titus, but all their successours, who were Dioces [...] Bishops, thosewere written to Diocesan Bishops. But these were so, E [...] The Proposition is not true, because it presupposeth that noth [...] written to any persons, can informe Diocesan bishops, unlesse [...] persons to whom it is, written be formally in that selfe same ord [...] For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Ap [...] stolique, it might informe any Doctor or Pastor wh [...]tsoever. Seco [...] ­ly, wee deny Diocesan bishops are (de jure) successours. As for [Page 35] equivocall Catalogue which maketh all who are read bishops to have beene Diocesan, we shall speake of them hereafter. The bishops be­tweene Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedon Councell, were not all of one cut: and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations. Ther [...] is no more to prove Phillip of Gor­tina a Metropolitan, then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria. For what doth story relate, but that Phillip was amongst other a bishop of those Churches which were in Crete. There are many Churches in England, a Minister of which Churches is such an one, that is one Minister amongst others of those Churches. To that of their residing there and dying in these Churches. First, the propositi­on is not necessary. For as Iames might reside exercising an Aposto­licall inspection in a particular Church, so might these exerc [...]se an Evangelicall function how long soever they resided. Secondly, the assumption will not bee found true for ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers. For Timothy, though he be exhor­ted to stay at Ephesus, yet this doth not argue it, that he was enjoy­ned ordinary residence. For first it was a signe he was not bishop, be­cause Paul did exhort him, for he would well have knowne, he might not, being their ordinary Pastor leave them, further then the more important good of the Church should occasion. 2. He is bid to stay there, not finally, but till the Apostle should come to him, which though he might be delayed, it is plaine he then intended. So Titus is placed in Crete, not to stay there, and set downe his rest, but [...], further to set, as it were, and exedisie the fa­bricke, which Paul had begun. God gave Ceremonies [...], is not ever a correcting of any thing amisse, but a setling every thing right, by erecting the substance foreshadowed. But say it were correcting, it were but such a correction as one might performe in transitu, with a little longer stay, though not ordinary resi­dence. By Scripture the contrary is manifest.

For first, it is not like that Timothy was placed bishop after Pauls being at Rome; for when Paul saith he prayed him, when now hee was going to Macedonia, to stay at Ephesus, he doth intimate that when hee left him they were there both together. Secondly, when he wished him to abide there, hee had a meaning to come unto Ti­mothy th [...]ther where he left him, so as at least to call on him, and see the Church. But Paul after his parting from the Presbyters knew he should never see the Ephesians more. Act. 20. If wee say he doth foretell it for likely, so we may say, that of wolves a [...]ising was, and call all into question. Neither is it likely, but that teares would have broke his heart, and made h [...]m yeeld in the p [...]remptories of his speech, had not his soule beene divinely per­swaded. Thirdly, he had no meaning when he left them to constitute [Page 36] Timothy to be their Bishop: for he would not have omitted sue h [...]a [...] argument of consolation to hearts so heavy. Not he doth not men­tion any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle. Hee telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them, or to send others. Fourthly, Timothy was with Paul while hee was in bonds at Rome, as witnesse those inscriptions of the Epistles to the C [...]ll [...]ins and Philippians; yea Timothy was so with him, as to bee imployed by him, sent forth, and returne to him, which is manifest. Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus, yet he was not pla­ced to be resident, for in the end of the Epistle, he doth bid Timo­thy come to him, and bring Mark [...], that they might minister to him. Againe when hee did write the 2. Epistle, Timothy was not Ephesus, for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Priscilla and Onesiphor [...]. Object. But is like these were at Ephesus, for there Paul left Aquila and Pri­scilla. They came occasionally, they did not fi [...]e there, which Chry­sostome also judgeth. And the house of Onesiphorus, Bernard taketh it, was at Iconium in Lycaonia, so that it is like he was in his na­tive countrey at this time, even Iconium, Listra, Derbe, which hap­pily is the cause why the Scholasticall story doth make him Bishop of Lystra, because hither he was last sen [...]. He was so here, as that the Apostle did but send him to see them, for hee biddeth him come b [...]fore winter. Besides, there are many probalities he was not at Ephesus, for he speaketh of it through the Epistle, as a place now re­mote from him. Thou knowest what Onesiph [...]rus did for mee at Ephe­sus, not where now thou art. I have sent Tychius to Ephesus, not to thee, to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent. Finally, after Paules death hee did not returne to Ephesus, but by common consent went to Iohn the Apostle, and very little before his death came to Ephesus, if ever. As for the: Fathers therefore in this point, if they testifie ordinary residence, which they doe not, wee have liberty to renounce them; but they testifie onely that he re­mained in that Church, because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make, and he is thought to have suffered mar­tyrdome there. So for Titus, when Paul sent him to Crete to doe that worke is uncertaine; but this is certaine, it was before his wri­ting to the Corinths the second time, and going to Rome. This likewise that Paul was then in travelling, and as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis. When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there, for hee doth bid him to meete him at Nicopolis, where he meant to be as it is likely, but Titus comming did not meete him there, but at length fo [...]nd him in Macedonia, whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians, thanking God for his promptnesse even of his owne [...]cord to be imployed amongst them, 2 Cor. 8.16. which doth [Page 37] shew he had not beene made an ordinary bishop any where. We find that he did accompany Paul at Rome, 2 Tim. 4.10. and when Paul writ his second Epistle to Timothy, he was in Dal [...]atia. Whence Aquina [...] doth thinke him to have beene bishop of that place. Where­fore wee thinke him that will bee carried from such presumptions, (yea manifest arguments) by Hegesippus, Clemens, and history groun­ded on them, to be too much affected to so weake authors, and wish not credit with him, who counts him unworthy credit, that will not sweare what such men depose.

Touching the proofe that followeth, That either function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary, or ordinary. But their function as as­signed to those Church [...]s was not extraordinary. We deny this assumpti­on, with the proofe of it. That the function that these exercised as as­signed to certaine Churches (these two by name) was necessary to the being of the Church. The reason is, because they were assigned to doe those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more 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: no [...] assignation to doe the worke of Evangelists.

To that finall reason, what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true, and so to be [...]aken. What they speake so agreeing, that it is virtually conteined in them, and may rightly be deduced from them, is to bee beleived and received by a divine faith. But what they speake not plainely contradicted, but yet no way included, may be adm [...]tted side human [...], 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 assumptiō 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 [Page 38] 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 [...]im. pag. 405. Videcus ergo quod fuerit plusqu [...] Episcopus, etiamsi ad [...]em [...]us in ea civitate ut Pastor praedicav [...]rit & sacr [...]s ordi [...]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, y [...]a contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the worke of an Evangelist. As for the shew from [...]he Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently.

Now to shew th [...]t th [...]y were not properly b [...]shops. First, we have shewed that they were but subrogated to doe those supposed Episco­pall duties a while, but w [...]re not there fixed, to make their ordinary abode. Therefore not b [...]shops properly. Secondly, th [...]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 Ev [...]ngelist. Ergo. The Proposition is proved. If an Evangelist and b [...]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 g [...]ve now ascending by the worke of the Ministery to gather and build his Church. For as an Apostle is distingu [...]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.

A [...]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. alti [...]ri tamen ra [...]ione, what the inferi­our did. This sense is tollerable. But that formally the power of all ot [...]er offices suites w [...]th the Apostles, is false. My Lord chiefe Ju­st [...]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 [Page 39] and fruitfull in that regard then another. So Ma [...]k [...] 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 o [...]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 call [...]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 continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour, as [...]usebius reporteth, Euseb. hist. li 5. cap. 9. Now a calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel, 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. [Page 40] 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 h [...]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 no [...], and could they enter one into an extraordinary office? Answ. They did lay on hands with the Apostles, as it is expresly read, both of the Apostles and them. It is one thing to use 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. [Page 41] 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 imp [...]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 Theodor [...]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 h [...]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 Ter [...]ul. Constat. id ob Apostolis traditum quod apu [...] 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 [Page 42] set up other Ministers then Christ had ordained. The assumption it plaine: for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently, and from the beginning, as the Councell of Nice test [...]fieth, much more bi­shops. For Dioces in bishops must bee before th [...]m, they rising of combination of Cities and Dioces. And the councell of Ephesus test [...]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, b [...]shops w [...]re placed in all Provinces and Cities, besides the s [...]cc [...]ssion of bishops from the Apostles times: for they prove their orig [...]nall to have beene in th [...] 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: wh [...]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.


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 l [...]cis ex more quodem introduxerant. Taking the Eucharist fasting, the fasts on Wednesday, and Saturday, fasting [...]n some fashion before E [...]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. Th [...] doth presuppose, that something may be which is of A­pos [...]licall auth [...]ity, which neither directly nor consequently is included in th [...] wo [...]d written. For when there are some customes which have beene generall, which yet canot be grounded in the word written, it is necessary by this proposition, that some things [Page 43] may be in the Church having authority Apostolicall, as being 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 w [...]ll make cleare. Si cor stat id bonum quod p [...]ius, & id prius quod esta [...] ini­tio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariteruti (que) constabil id [...]sse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum funit sacrosanctum. Touch­ing Austins rule we would a [...]ke what is the meaning of these words, Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissime cre [...]itur. If th [...]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 Apostolo [...]em traditions ven [...]entem, si [...]ut multa non inveniuntur in literis corum, & tamen quia custodiunt [...] per u­niversam Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsit tradita & commendata cre­duntur. And we wish them to shew from Scripture what [...]hey say is contained in it. If th [...]y yeeld, he doth meane as he doth of nowrit­ten tradition, we hope th [...]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 th [...]s to favour Traditions, as some of the Papists do not causel [...]sly make this rule the measuring cord▪ which doth take in the l [...]titude of all traditions: y [...]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 vide [...]r humanis argumentis illud probare, ex Evangelio profero certu document [...].

Wee answer to the assumption two things: First, it canot bee proved, that un [...]vers [...]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 b [...]shops. And though there bee doubtfull relations, that Rome was divided under Evaristus, yet this was not common through the Church. For Tripa [...]tit [...] story test [...]fi­eth, that till the time of Sozomeh, they did in some parts continue together. Trip. hist. lib. 5. cap. 19. Secondly, those B [...]shops which had no more but one Deacon [...]o helpe them in their ministery to­ward their Churches, they could not be D [...]ocesan B [...]shops. But such in many parts the Apostles planted, as Epiphanius doth testifie. Ergo. [Page 44] Thirdly, such Countries as did use to have bishops in villages and little townes, could not have Diocesan b [...]shops. But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia, as S [...]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 D [...]cree p [...]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 the [...] 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 th [...]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 Amb [...]ose his place is plain, Prospici­ente Concilio, he meaneth not a councell held by Apostles. For he ma­keth this provision by councell to have come in when now in Egypt & Alexandria, Presbyters according to the custome of that Church, were not found fit to succeed each other, but they chose out of their presbyteries men of best desert. Now to Heraclas and Donysius, there were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria, as Eu­sebius and Ierom both affirme. Wherefore briefly, seeing no such u­niversall custome can be proved, all the godly [...]athers never conspi­red to abolish Christs institution. Secondly, could a custome have prevailed with all of them, whom we have to Constantines time, yet it might enter and steale upon them through humane frailty, as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and fa [...]th­full Martyrs: the rather because the alteration was so little at the first and Aristocraticall government was still continued. Thirdly, say, they had wittingly and wittingly done it through the world, they had not conspired, because they might have deemed such power in the Church, and themselves to doe nothing but what they might [Page 45] with Christs good liking for the edification of it. How many of the chiefe Patrons of this cause, are at this day of this judgement, that if it were but an Apostolicall institution, as Apostolicall is con­tradistinguished to divine, they might change it. But if the Apostles did enact this order, as Legats and Embassadours of Christ, then is it not theirs, but Christs owne institution. What an Embassadour spea­keth as an Embassadour, it is principally from him that sent him: but if they who were Legates, d [...]d not, bearing the person of Legats, but of ordinary Ecclesiasticall governours, decree this; then it is cer­taine, Church governours may alter it without treasonable conspi­ring against Ch [...]ist.

As for those proofes, that Bishops have beene throughout all Ch [...]rches from the beginning they are weake. For first, the Coun­cell of Nice useth [...], not simpliciter, but secundum quid, in or­der h [...]pply to th [...]t time wherein the custome began, which was bet­ter knowne to them then to us: the phrase is so used, Act. 15.8. in respect of some things which had not continued many yeares. They cannot meane the Apostles times, for then Metropolitans should have actually beene from the Apostles time. Second­ly, the phrase of the Councell of Ephesus, is likewise aequivo­call; for they have reference to the fathers of Nice, or at least the decrees of the fathers, who went before the Councell of Nice. For those words being added, definitiones Nicenae fidei, seeme to ex­plaine t [...]e former, Canones Apostolorum. It is plaine the de­cree of the Councell doth asc [...]ibe this th [...]ng onely to an­cient custome, no lesse th [...]n that of Nice, Constantinople and Chalcedon; and therefore cannot rise to the au [...]ho [...]ity of sacred Scriptures. Let him shew in all antiquity where sacred Scrip­tures are called Canons of the Apostles. Finally, if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles, then the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch. As for the auth [...]rity of Cyprian, he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time, Bishops odained in cities; not univers [...]liter, as if th [...]re were no city but had some. Second [...]y, hee speaketh of Bish [...]ps who had their Chu [...]ches included in Cities, not more then might meet together in one, to a­ny common del [...]berations. They had no D [...]ocesan Churches, n [...]r were bishops who had majority of rule over their Presbyters, nor sole power of ordination. As for the Catalogue of succession, it is pompae ap [...]ior quam pugnae; R [...]me can recite their successors. But be­cause it hath h [...]d bishops. Er [...]o, Oecumenicall b [...]shops is no conse­quence. All who are named b [...]shops in the Catalogue, were not of one cut, and in that sense we con [...]rovert.

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

The sixt Argument.

Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches, such Mi­nisters are of Christs institution. But Ministers having singulari­tie of preheminence and power above others, are amongst them, as the Superintendents in Germany, Ergo. Answ. The assumption is utterly denied. For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops: they are of the same degree with other Ministers, they are onely Presi [...]ents while the Synod lasteth; when it is diss [...]lved, their prerogative cease [...]h: they have no prerogative over their fel­low Ministers; they are subject to the Presbyteries, Zepp. lib. 2 cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended, they returne to the care of their par­ticular Churches.

The seventh Argument.

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

The eighth Argument.

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

But there were before Iohns death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops, as in Rome, Linus, Clemens, at J [...]rusalem Iames Simeon, at A [...]tioch, Evodius, at Alexandria, S. Ma [...]k, Anianus, Abilius. Ergo, Diocesan Bishops be lawfull.

Answer. The assumption is denyed: for these Bishops were but [Page 47] Presbyters, Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting, gover­ning with common consent of their Presbyteries. If they were af­fecting our bishops majority, they were in Diotrophes sufficiently con­tradicted.

The ninth Argument.

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


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

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

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

10. Argument.

If bishops be that whi [...]h Aaron, and the Apostles were, and Pres­byters, be that which the Priests, and the 72. Disciples were, then the one are above the other in preheminence and power. But they are so. See Ierom to Nepotian. Ergo.


If bishops, &c. and P [...]esbyters, be that which the sonnes of Aa­ron and the 72. were, then there are different orders, &c. To these [Page 50] may be added a third. That which Moses and the 70. Seniors were, that are the bishops and Presbyters. First, for the proposition it is not true, for first of Aaron and his sonnes, they were not orders dif­ferent essenally in their power, but onely in degree of dignity, wherein the high Priest was above others. For every Priests power would have reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest one [...]y. Besides, when the high Priest was deceased or removed, the other Priests did consecrate the successour, as Sadock. Finally, the one had for substance the same consecration that the other, neither had the high Priest any majority of directive or corrective power over others. So the Apostles, and 72. will not be found different in order; and therefore those who resemble these cannot be conclu­ded to be of divers orders. For the Apostles and 72. differ no more then ordinary messengers who are impolyed in a set course, and ex­traordinary sent by occasion onely: They were both messengers, the Apostles babitu and abidingly, the other in act onely, and after a transitory manner.

Againe, had Aaron and his sonnes beene divers orders, differing essentially in the inward power of them, ye [...] is not the proposition true, but with addition in this wife. Those who are indentically and formally that which Aaron and the Apostles were, and that which his sonnes, and the 72. were, they differ in degree essentially, not those who were this analogically by reason of some imperfect resemblance. For things may be said to be those things wherewith they have but imperfect similitude. In this sense onely the proposi­tion is true.

Now to come to the assumption. First, touching Aaron, wee deny any bishop is as Aaron by divine institution, or by perfect si­militude answering to him. But because Aaron was the first and high Priest, others inferiour: so it hath pleased the Church to imi­tate this pollicy, and make the bishop, as it were Primum Presbyte­rum or Antistuem in primo ordine, Presbyters in secundo. Whence B [...]shops may be said to be that which Aaron was through the Chur­ches ordination, which she framed, looking to this patterne of go­vernment which God himselfe had set out in the old Testament. The fathers call them Aaron and his sonnes onely for some con­mon analogy, which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the bishops and Presbyters, and them; and conceive them to be so by humane accommodation, not by divine institution. But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministery typified by them by Gods owne appointment, this the fathers ne­ver tho [...]ght. Christs priesthood, no mans, was properly typified in Aaron.

[Page 51]So touching the other part of the assumption, That Bishops and Presbyters are what Apostles, and the 72 were. The fathers many of them insist in this proportion, that as the Apostles and 72 were teachers, the one in a higher, the other in an inferiour or­der, so bishops and Presbyters, were by the Churches ordinance. This is the fathers phrase, to call them Apostles, who in any manner resemble the Apostles to call them, as Ambrose. Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Doctors, who resemble these, and come in some common analogie neerest them, Moses and the 70 Seniors, who in any sort resembled them. Now the assumption granted in this sense ma­keth not against us. For th [...]y might be said these, if there were but diverse degrees of dignity amongst them, though for power of order by Gods institution they were all one. But some straine it further, and take it, that Christ instituting those two orders, did in so doing, institute B [...]shops and Presbyters, the one whereof suc­ceeded the Apostles, the other the 72. and that thus the Fathers take it. To which I answer, First, in generall, this analogy of A­postles and 72: is not generally affected by them all. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses dicit Apostolis Presbyteros successisse, Diaconos 72. discipulis. Clem. lib. 2. Const. cap. 30. saith, That Bishops answer to God the Father, Presbyters to Christ, Deacons to the Apostles. Ierom doth manifestly make Presbyters (whom hee also calleth by name of Bishops in that Epistle, where hee maintaineth the Presbyters dignity) successours to the Apostles. The like hath Cyprian, Apostolus id est Episcopos & preposiros, that is, ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum, as Austin speaketh, else it should bee all one with the former; when hee maketh the Presby [...]er as well as the Bishop to bee ordained in the Apostles. Finally, these Fa­thers who take the 72. to have beene Apostles, as well as the o­ther, could not imagine this porportion of diverse or­ders let up in them. Secondly, if Christ in these instituted those other, it must bee one of these waies. First, hee did make these not onely Apostles, but Bishops, and so the 72. not one­ly his messengers for the time, but Presbyters also. Or, secondly, else hee did ordaine these as he did raine Nanna, noting and pre­figuring as by a type, a further thing which hee would worke: viz. that he would institute B [...]shops and Presbyters for Teachers ordi­nary in his Church: but both these are gratis spoken without any foundation or reason. For the first, wee have shewed that the A­postles could not bee Bishops ordinarily; nor yet the calling of these seventy two (which was to goe through all Cities Evange­lizing) stand with Presbyters, Presbyters being given to Churches [...], and there fixed. Neither can the latter be true for [Page 52] then Christ should have given a Sacrament, when he ordained his Apostles, and sent forth his 72. Secondly, the type or the shadow i [...] lesse then the thing [...]ypified, the substance of it. But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Thir [...]ly, I say, that Christ did never ordaine that any should suc­ceed the Apostles, or the 72 in regard of their order. There is a dou­ble succession, in g [...]adum, or in Capat, as the j [...]rists distinguish. In gradum tundem, as when one brother dying, another brother doth succeed him in the inheritance. In Caput, as when one not of the same degree and line doth come after another, as when a brother dying another doth inherit after him, not a brother, but a cosin to him. Thus the Apostles have no successors succeeding them in gra­dum, but such onely as follow them, being of other degrees, and in another line, as it were, in which sort every Pastor doth succeed them. But then they are said to succeed them, because they follow them, and after a sort resemble them, not because they hold the places which the Apostles did properly. Apostolo in quantum est A­postolus non succeditur, Legato quitenus est Legatus non succeditur. Fourthly, that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order suc­ceed the Apostles n [...] less [...] fully then any other. First, they must needs succeed the [...] who are spoken to in them, whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement, But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes, in the Sup­per, in the commandement of teaching and baptiz [...]ng. Ergo, Pres­byte [...]s must needs succeed the Apostles. Secondly, those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chu [...]ches, which they had planted for the [...]r fu [...]ther building th [...]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, t [...]se were th [...]ir successors most proper and immediate. Thirdly, t [...]ese to whom now t [...]king their farewells they resigned the Chur­ches, these were th [...]ir succ [...]ssours. But this they did to Presbyters, Paul now never to s [...]e Ephesus more, Act. 20. Peter neere death, 1 Pet. 5.2. Er [...]o. Fourthly, if one Pastor or Minister doe more prop [...]rly resemble an Apostle then another, it is because hee hath same pow [...]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 teach [...]g and ministring the Sacraments doth [...]s fully and prop [...]rly belong to the Presbyter as to any, unlesse we count P [...]eaching not nec [...]issarily c [...]nnex [...]d to a Presbyters office, but a bishop [...]; or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs [...] Presbyter, the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the B [...]shop, which are both too absurd. Secondly, for governe­ment, the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to [Page 53] one then to another. Object. This is denyed, for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination, and the coercive power in their owne hands, and to have committed these in the end onely to 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 Le­gar [...]. 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 [Page 54] enjoyned them, is from City to City, without limitation to Evan­gel [...]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 w [...] Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men, whom the Apostles constituted Bishops, and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles. These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant, we succeed these. Finally, Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples, in his 7. Book Armenic [...]r [...]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.


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 E [...]aphroditus. Ergo. For proofe of the assumption. See Cornelius, as Eusebius relateth his sentence, lib. 6. cap. 43. Con [...]. Nice. cap 8. Conc. Calud. cap 4. P [...]ssidonius in vita Augustine. Ierem [...] Phil. 1. ver. 1. Chry­sost. Amb. T [...]eo [...] Orc [...]umen. And such was Bishops preheminence, that Presbyters, Deacons, and other Clerkes, are said to be the Bi­shops Clerks.


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 div [...]n [...] institution. Now the assumpt [...]on is true, onely by Law Ecclesiasticall. For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere, Act [...] 20. and [Page 55] that there were Bishops at Philippi. True it is, the Scripture doth not distinguish how many of the one sort, nor how many of the 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 ordinar [...]ly all Cities but Alexandria had two. Thirdly, Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. doth say, that now indeed there may be but one Bishop, meaning Canonically, making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique. Fourthly, Austin did not know it was un­lawfull▪ Yea, he did onely in regard of the decree of Nice, account it so. Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contra [...]y, but as a point against Canon, which m [...]ght in some cases be dispensed with, as the story of Narcissus, and Alexander, and Liberius, and Foelix did more then manifest. For though the people of Rome cried out, one God, one Christ, one Bishop, yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite, whereas had it beene a thing they had all thought to have been against Christs institution, they would not have done. Vide S [...]z. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly, Ieroms peerelesse power, is nothing but Consul-like presidence above others; for this he pleaded for, writing against Iovinian, lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselves, that schisme might be avoided. Wherefore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense, that the Bishop jure humano, hath a singularity of preheminence be­fore others, as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onely Archbishop.

13 Argument.

Those who had peerelesse power above others in ordination and jurisdiction, they were such as had preheminence and majority of rule over others. But the former is due to Bishops. Unlesse this sin­gularity of power were yeelded, there would be as many schismes as Priests. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who have a peculiar power of o [...]dination above others, they are in preheminence and power be­fore others. But Bishops have, Ergo, they are in, &c. The assumption proved. That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent, but in the Apostles, and af­ter in Timothy and Titus and their successours, that is a peculiar of Bishops. But ordination was not in the Presbyters, &c. Ergo. The assumption proved. That which these were sent to do [...], Presbyters had not power to doe. It was therefore in them, and such as suc­ceeded them, the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete▪ Againe, the Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, speake of the orde [...] nor as one. Ergo, it was the peculiar right of the Bishop, and the Bi­shop onely. He onely by Canon was punishable for irregula­rity in ordination. And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget f [...]thers by ordination, a [...] the [Page 56] Presbyters doth sonnes by baptisme. And Ierom doth except ordi­nation as the b [...]shops peculiar, wherein he is most unequall to them.


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

To the proofe of the assumption. The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing it selfe, not to ministring the rite, and executing the act, which m [...]y be reserved for honour sake to one, by those who otherwise have equall power with him. Tha [...] b [...]shops have this power in order, the thing it selfe agreeing to them, Vt pro­prii offuii, not by commission from others, we deny. The assumpti­on is wholly denyed. As for the proofe of it. First, we that deny that Evangelists h [...]d not power to ordeine, as well as Apostles. Se­condly, that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they. Every one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination. The Ev [...]ngelists power did not derogate from the Apostles, the Pre [...]byters from neither of them. But power of im­posing hands solitarily, whereas [...] Churches were not constitu­ted, this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Evan­gelists, whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of Churches. Secondly, the assumption is false; in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands, contrary to that in Timothy; The grace given thee by [...]aying [...] of the hands of the Presbytery. Thirdly, it is false, in presupposing others then Presbyters to have beene Timothy and Titus their successours. To the proofe of this as­sumption. The proposition is not true: For it might be convenient that the same th [...]ng should be done by Evangelists, and by ordinary Pastors, each concurring in their severall orders to the same ser­vice of Christ the Lord. Secondly, I answer to the assumption. That Presbyters were to be placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters, or where there were as yet none. In the [Page 57] first Churcher' they are bid ordaine, if any need further, but salv [...] j [...]re Ecclesiae, not without the concurrence of others. In the latter Churches which were to be constituted, they may be conceived as Evangelists, with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands. We hold Apostles might doe it, Evange­lists might, and the Presbyteries also. Yea, Presbyters in Alexan­dria when now their first Presbyter was d [...]ceased, did ordaine the following: For the Canon of three bishops, and Metropolitans, added by the Ni [...]ene Councell, was not knowne yet. Neverthelesse it grew timely to be restrained to bishops, the performing I meane of the outward rite and signe; but onely by Canon, as Consignation was also, for which there is as ancient testimonies as this, that it was appropriate to the B [...]sh. We grant therefore that antiquity doth sometime speake of the ordainer as one. In the Churches of Affrica one did not lay on hands, yet in some other Churches the rite was by one administred. And it is to be noted by the way, that [...] in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters, but to the number of Three, or many bishops required in the ordi­nation of a bishop. They might therefore by their Canons be punish­able, because regularly and canonically the executing of it was com­mitted to them. This is all that Epiphanius or Ierome excepta ordinatione can prove. But these two conclusions we would see proved out of scriptures and Fathers. First, that ordination is an action of power, of order, a power sacramentall, which a Presbyter hath not. Second­ly, that by vertue of this power, the bishop doth ordaine, and not by Ecclesiasticall right or commission from the Church. Certainly, the act of promoting a minister of the Church, is rather an act of jurisdiction then order. As it belongeth to policy and government, to call new Magistrates, where they are wanting. Object. But a new spirituall officer may be instituted by a sacrament. Answ. If God would so have collated the grace of spirituall callings; but he hath appointed no such thing. The Apostles and 72. were not institu­ted by a sacrament or imposition of Christs hands. Now the grea­ter the grace was which was given, the more need of a sacrament whereby it should be given. Object. They were extraordinary. Answ. They might have had some ambulatory sacrament for the time. Againe, imposition of hands was used in g [...]ving extraordi­nary graces, Acts 8. Secondly, were it a sacrament, it should conferre the grace of office, as well as grace sanctifying the person to use it hol [...]ly. But we see that this it could not do As for Paul and Barn [...]bas the Church did separate them at the command of God, and lay hands on them, and pray for them, but they were already before this, immediately chosen by God to the grace of their office. It could be nothing then but a gesture accompanied with prayer, seeking [Page 58] grace in their behalfe. For the sacramentall collating of grace san­ctifying all callings, we have in these two sacraments of Christs in­stitution. Thirdly, there are many kindes of imposition of hands in the old and new Testament, yet cannot it be proved, that it is any where a proper sacrament. It is then a rite, a gesture, a ceremony, signifying a thing or person separate, presented to God, prayed for to God. Thus Antiquity did thinke of it, as a gesture of one, by prayer to God, seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministery. So Ecclesiastically it was used in baptising, in consecrating, in reconciling penitents, as well as ordaining: but ne­ver granted as a sacrament in those other cases by grant of all. It is then a rite or gesture of one, praying. Tertul. de [...]pt. sheweth this saying, Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans spiri­tum sanctum. Ierom also contra Luciferanos, Non ab [...]no, hanc esse Eccle­siae consuetudinem ut Episcopus manum impositutus excurrat ad inve­cationem spiritus sancti. Ambr. de d [...]gait. sacerdot. [...]dos imponit sup­picem dexiram. August. Quid aliua est manus impositio quam oratio? &c. The Greeke Churches have ever given Orders by a forme of prayer conceived, with imposition of hands. Hence it is, that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses, where it could not be otherwise considered then a deprecative gesture. Neither is it like the African Fathers ever thought it a sacrament, which no other had vertue and power to minister, but the Bishop. For then they would never have admitted Presbyters to use the same rite with them. For so they had suffered them to pro­phane a sacrament, wherein they had no power to intermed­dle. Object. If one say they did lay on hands with them, but the Bishops imposition was properly Consecrative and sacramen­tall, th [...]i [...] Dep [...]rative onely. Answer. Besides that this is spo­ken without foundation, how absurd is it, that the very selfe-same sacramentall r [...]te should be a sacrament in one ministers hand, and no sacrament performed by another: Yea, when the Bishop doth it to a Presbyter, or Deacon, then a sacrament; when to a Subdeacon, and other inferiour officers, then none, let any judge. Austin did account no other of imposition of hands, then a prayer over a man, accompanied with that gesture. Secondly, they doe not thinke that the B [...]shop ordaineth by divine right, it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramentall power: but that he onely doth ordaine quoad signum & ritu [...] extrin­secum, by the Churches commission, though the right of ordaining be in all the Presbytery also. As in a Colledge the society have right to choose a fellow, and to ordaine him also, though the master doth alone lay on hands, and give admission. Thus Ierom speaketh of confirmation, that it was reserved to the Bishop for honour sake, [Page 59] rather then any necessity of Gods law. Whence by analogie and proportion, it followeth they thinke not ordination, or those other Episcopall royalties to have beene reserved to him by divine right. Beside, there are more ancient proofes for C [...]nonicall appropriating confirmation, then for this imposition of hands. Corn [...]tus speaketh thus of Novatus, he wanted th [...]se things which he should have had after Baptisme, according to the Canon, the sealing of our Lord from a Bishop, Euseb. Lib. 6. cap. 25. So Cyprian to [...]ul. Never­thelesse, Ier [...]m judgeth this also to have beene yeelded them for ho­nour sake. And we know that in the Bishops absence, Presbyters through the East did Consignare, through Grecia, through Arme­nia. Neither would Gregory the great have allowed Presbyters in the Greeke Churches to have confirmed, had he judged it other­wise then Canonically to belong to the bishops. T [...]t therefore which is not properly a sacramentall action, and that which is not appropriate to a bishop further then Presbyters h [...]ve committed it to him, that cannot make him in higher degree of ministery then Presbyters are.

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

Fourthly, Amalarius in a certaine booke of sacred orders, doth con­fu [...]e the doctrine of an uncertain author, who taught that one bishop onely was to lay hands on a Deacon: because he was consecrated not to Priesthood, but to ministery and service. Nunquid scriptor libell. [...]ctio [...] & sanctior Apostolis quiposuerunt plures manus super Diaconos quan­do consecr [...]bantur, & prop [...]ea solus Episcopus manus ponat super Di [...]conum, [...]c si solus possit precari virtutem gratiarum quam plures Apostoli precabantur. Op imum est b [...]nos duces sequi, qui certaverunt us (que) ad plenam victori­ [...] ▪ Whence it is plaine, he did know no further thing in imposition then prayer, which the more imposed, is the more for [...]ible.

The fourteenth Argument.

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

[Page 60]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 Pr [...]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 B [...]shops had. Ergo. The assumption proved. First, for directive power, the Presbyters were to doe nothing without them. Ig [...]a ad Mag. ad Smyr. They might not minister the sacrament of the sup­per but under the B [...]shop, Clem. Epist. 1. ad Iacob. Tert. lib. de [...]pt. Can. Apost. 38, Can. Carth [...]g. 4.38. Con. C [...]r. 2. Con. 9. Con. Can. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5.

Secondly, that they had corrective power, it is proved, Ap [...]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 Rega [...]ian he had power to have censured his Deacon. Ierom. adversus Vigilantium, marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilanti [...]s was, did not breake the unprofitable vessell. Epiphaniu [...] 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, Cypr [...]li. 1. Epist 3. Concil. Carth. 4. [...]ap. 59. Conc. Chal. cap. 9. conc. Nice. cap. 4. conc. Ant. cap. 4. ibid. cap. 6. cap. 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. conc. Afric. cap. 29. conc. Ephes. cap. 5. conc. Chal. cap. 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrisostome prove this. All Presbyters were counted acepheli, headlesse, that lived not in 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.


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 [Page 61] 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 Princip [...]tum vocatos, ad servitium totius Eccl [...]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 th [...]y had it over any by humane constitution infallible. Presbyters were in great difference. Those who are called propry sacerdotes, Rectores, Seniores. Minor [...]m Ecclesiarum praepositi, the B [...]shop had not, not challenged not that directive power over them, which hee did ever those who were numbred amongst his Cleri [...]kes, who were helpes to him in the Liturgy, in Chapells and parish [...]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 b [...]shops, and called Episcopi, or Coepiscopi, even of the Ancient: But the Presbyters which were part of their Clergy, they had [...]his directive power over them, the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same. But I take these latter to have beene but a corruption of governing Presbyters, who came to bee made a humane 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 h [...]s Church: then I say, they could not have any direction, but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists: and this p [...]wer is g [...]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 justifi [...]ble as th [...]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 b [...]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 [Page 62] 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 R [...]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 no [...] co [...]legae tui [...]mnesid ratum haberemus. Cyprian was of judgement, that he h [...]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 alone: but propounded, made request for them, confessing, that fur­ther then God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them, they had the right of suffrage, no lesse then himselfe, as by these epistles may [...]ppeare, lib. 1. [...]pist. 20. lib. 2. epist. 5. lib. 4. epist. 10. Ierom (though grandil [...] quen [...] sometimes) did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence, excommunicate. If he were as Moses, yet he would have these as the seventy. Againe, Ierom doth write expresly of all in generall, Et nos sen [...]cum habemus, coetum Presbytero [...]m, sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quaquam li­cet, [...] ut Romani habuerunt sen [...]tum cujus confilio cuncta gerebantur. Epiphanius s [...]ith. Bishops governed Presbyters: but it doth not fol­low, that therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com Presbyters. As for the fixed Presbyters, the proofes are more uns [...]fficient. The Bishop supplyed them, therefore they were under him. For Colleges supply Churches, yet have they no jurisdiction over them. Secondly, the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presby­ter obtruderetur. Thirdly, we [...]iStinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction. We grant the B [...]shop had such a jurisdiction as concer­ [...]ing the Church, so farre as it was in society with others, such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province: but this did stand with the Re­ctors power of jurisdiction within his owne Church. Fourthly, though they had power by his ministeriall interposition, yet this doth not prove them dependant on him. For bishops have their power from others ordaining them, to whom notwithstanding they are not sub­ject [Page 63] in their Churches. In case of delinquency they were subject to the bishop with the Presbytery, yet so that they could not be pro­ceeded against till consent of many other bishops did ratifie the sentence. Thus in Cyprians judgement; bishops themselves delin­quent, turning wolves, as Samosatenus, Liberius, &c. are subject to their churches and Presbyteries, to be deposed and relinquished by them. As for those that were part of his clerks, it is true, they were in grea­ter measure subject to him, absolutely in a manner for their directi­on: but for his corrective power he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow bishops, do any thing. The bishop indeed is onely named many times: but it is a common Synecdoche, familiar to the Fathers, who put the primary member of the church for the representative church, as Austine saith, Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Eccl [...]siae g [...]ssisse. See concil. Sardicen. cap. 17. conc. Carth 4. cap. 2.3. Tol. 4 cap. 4. Socr. lib. 1.3. Soz. lib. 1. cap 14. As for such examples as Alexanders, it is strange that any will bring it, when he did it not without a Synod of many bishops, yea without his Clergie, as sitting in judgement with him. Ch [...]ysostomes fact is not to be justified: for it was altogether irregular, savouring of the impetuous nature to which he was inclined, though in regard of his end, and unworthinesse of his Presbyters, it may be excused, yet it is not to be imitated. As for those headlesse Clerkes, it m [...]ke [...]h no­thing for the B [...]shops majority of rule over all Churches and Pres­byters in them. For first, it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop, a colleg [...]at life together, Eode refectorio & dormitori utehantur, & Canonice viventes ab Episcopo in­stru [...]bontur. Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a master, it is no wonder if th [...]y be called head­lesse, who did belong to no Bishop. Secondly, say it were alike of all Presbyters, which will never be proved (for all Presby [...]ers in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Cl [...]rkes) say it were, yet will it not follow, [...]hat those who were under some, were subject to his authority of rule. For there is a head in regard of presidency of order, as well as of power. Bishops were to finde out by Canon the chiefe bishop of their Province, and to associate themselves with him. So bishops doe now live ranged under their Archbish [...]ps as heads. Priests therefore as well as Clerkes, di [...] l [...]ve under some ju­risdiction of the bishops; but such as did permit them coer [...]ive power in their owne Churches, such as made the bishop a head in regard of dignity, and not of any power, whereby he might sw [...]y all at his pleasure. Thirdly, if the bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny, it is better to be without such heads then to have them: as we are more happy in being withdrawen from the headship of the bishop of Rome, then if he still were head over us. [Page 64] To the last insinuation proving that bishops had the governement of those Churches which Presbyters had, because neitheir Presbyters a­lone had it, nor with assistents. I answer, they had as well the power of government, as of teaching: and though they had not such assi­stants as are the presbyters of a cathedral church, yet they might have some, as a deacon, or other person sufficient in such small Churches. When the Apostles planted a bishop and Deacon onely, how did this bishop excommunicate? When the fathers of Africa did give a bishop unto those now multiplied, who had enjoyed but a Presby­ter, what assistants did they give him? what assistants had the Chore­piscopi, who yet had government of their Churches?

The fifteenth Argument.

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


To the proposition, we deny that it must needs be presently true, the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie. As the re­presentative catholicke Church may propound an error, so she m [...]y condemne a particular truth, and yet remaine a catholicke church. To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority, but that onely which Aerius runne into. Now his opinion I take to have been this. 1. He did with Ierom de­ny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance: for this o­pinion was never counted heresie, it was Ieroms plainely. 2. Hee did not deny the fact, that bishops were superiour in their actuall admi­stration; h [...] could not be so mad. If he had all that a bishop had ac­tually, how could he have affected to be a bishop, as a further ho­nou [...] ▪ Deniall of superiority, such as consisteth in a further power of ord [...]r then a P [...]e [...]byter hath, and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule, this denyall is not here condemned: for all the fathers may be [...]rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church. What then was condemned in him? A deniall of all superiority in one mi­nister before another, though it were but of honor and dignity: and secondly, the de [...]ying of this in schismaticall manner, so as to for­s [...]k [...] communion with the Church wherein it is. For in these words, [...], it seemeth [...] should bee read [...], that there ought to be none. How­so [...]ver hee is to bee conceived as apposing practically the difference of honour & dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiasticall in­stitut [...]on. What is this to us? Deniall of superiority in regard of ho­nor & dignity, joyned with schisme, was condemned: Ergo, deniall of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule, kee­ping the bond of love was condemned.

[Page 65]The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall, then can it not conclude against us. Ergo, it is a truth that some Ministers may be above othersome, in order, honor, and dignity. But [...]h [...]y un­derstand not by order such an order onely as is distinct, because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it, which is not to other. Though th [...]s argument therefore touch us not, yet to speake a little further about it, this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too se­verely: neither our authors, D. Whitakerus, D. Reynolds, Danaeus, to be blamed, who doe in some sort excuse him. For bishops were growne such that many good persons were offended at them, as the Audiani. Yea, it was so ordinary, that Ierom distinguisheth schisme from heresie, because the one conteined assertions against the faith, the other served from the Church by reason of dis­senting from Bishops. See him on Tit. 3.10. Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian. Epiphanius reporteth it, but no other, though writing of this subject and story of these times. Sure it is, Eusta­thius was a strong Arian, whom Aerius did oppose. Neither is it strange to bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold, any thing whereof there is but ungroun­ded suspicion. Are not we traduced as Donatists, Anabaptists, Pu­ritanes? As for this opinion▪ th [...]y thought it rather schismaticall, then hereticall: & therfore happily called it heresie, because it included er­rour in their understanding, which with schismaticall pertinacy was made heresie. Neither is it like that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie, nor Austin following him. For thou [...]h Austine was aged, yet he was so humble, that hee sai [...]h, Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri. Neither was it prejudice to h [...]s worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe, who in like­lihood should know this matter also better. As for his calling it heresie, it is certaine he would not have this in rigour streined. F [...]r he doth protest (in his preface unto that booke of heresie) that none to his thought, can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie. Though th [...]refore he doubted not of this, that A [...]rius was in errour, such as Catho­lickes should decline: yet it doth not argue that hee thought this errour in rigour and former propriety, to have beene heresie. Thus much for this last Argument.

On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be serio [...]sly considered.

Argument. 1.

Those whom the Apostles placed as [...]hiefe, in their first consti­tuting of Churches, and left as their successours in their last fare­wels which they gave to the Churches, they had none s [...]periour to them in the Ch [...]rches. But they first placed Pres [...]y [...]e [...]s, fee [...]ing [Page 66] with the Word and governing: and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches. Ergo. The assumption is denied: they did not place them, as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those churches, but placed them to teach and governe, in fore interno; with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor, which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them. The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction: they give to Presbyters power of order, power to teach, minister sa­craments, and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted; but kept the coercive power in their owne hands, meaning, when now by the Presbyters labour, the churches were growne to a greater multitude, meaning (I say) then to set over them some more eminent Pastors, Apostolicall men, to whom they would commit the power of government, that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches; and to these with their successours, not to the Presbyters, were the churches recom­mended. All which is an audacious fiction, without any warrant of Scripture, or shew of good reason. For it is confessed that Pres­byters were placed at the first constitution, as the Pastors and tea­chers of the Churches. Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour, they would have intimated somewhere this their intention: but this they doe not; yea, the contrary purpose is by them declared. For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks, as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ, the Arch shepheard of them all. Againe, the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government. There may be governours without pastorall power; but not a Pastor without power of governing. For the power of the Pedum, or shepheards staffe, doth intrinsecally fol­low the Pastorall office. What likelihood is there, that those who were set as parents to beget children, should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith ch [...]ldren now begotten are to be nur­t [...]red and kep [...] i [...] awe beseeming them? If it be said, every one sit for the office of a Teacher, was not sit for a Governour: I answer, he that is fit to be a Pastor [...]eaching and gov [...]rning in foro interno, is much more fit to be a Governour externally: he who is fit for the greater, is fit for the lesser. It was a greater and more Apostolicall worke to labour conversion, and bring the churches a handfull in t [...]e planti [...]g (as some thinke) to become numbersome in people, then it is to governe them being converted. And it is absurd to thinke that those who were fit to gather a church, and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings, should not be fit to governe it, but stand in need to have som [...] one sent, who [...]ight rule them and the chur­ches they had collected. Secondly, these Presbyters were (as them­selves [Page 67] confesse) qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the ho­ly Ghost, and chosen by speciall designation: so that to impute in­sufficiency unto them, is harsh, and injurious to God, as well as to man. Finally, by the twenty of the Acts, and the first Epistle of Peter, cha. 5. it is plaine, they doe in their last farewels, commit the Chur­ches unto the Presbyters, not suggesting any thing of a further Pa­stor to be sent, who would supply their roomes; which yet they would not have forgotten, being a thing of so great consolation, had it been intended by them.

Argument 2.

Those who have the name and office of Bishopscommon to them, they have no superiour Pastors over them: but the Presbyters Pa­storall have that name and office attributed to them. For first they are said to governe in generall. Secondly, there is nothing found be­longing to the power of the keyes in foro 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 [Page 68] 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, y [...]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 powe [...] to teach, or their power to govern, or in the application of this power to their persons, or in regard of the people whom they teach and governe, or finally in regard the 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 sacra [...]entall, there being other sacraments of ordina­tion and [...]onfirmation which wee may not minister, all which are gro [...]e, we [...] must yeeld their power of order to be the same. Yea, were these sacraments properly, they are both grounded in the [Page 69] power a Presbyter hath: Ordination in do [...] this in remembrance of me: confirmation in power to baptize. The power being the same, it is happily in one immediately, and in the other by derivation from him. Nothing lesse. All grant that Christ doth immediately give it, even as the inward grace of every Sacrament commeth 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 tru [...]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 furni [...]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 for [...] 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 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 [Page 70] and ordinary Pastor. Yea, when censure is the most sharp spirituall medicine, it were ill with every Church, if he who is resident alwayes among them as their spirituall Phisition, should not have power in administring it. Thirdly, I say, no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person. In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed: but so that Christ onely is the cause with power, not onely why Presbyters are in the Church, but why Thomas or Iohn is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place. A Master onely doth out of power take every servant into his house: so God in his. God did choose Aarons sonnes with the Levites, and Christ the 70. not 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 [...] imm [...]dia [...]i [...] suppositi qu [...]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 Sa­ [...]el to anoint Saul. Or else ordinarily, when God doth by his Writ and Spirit, guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church, which he doth partly by his written statutes, and partly by his Spirit: and thus he doth make the application onely immediatione virtutis, not suppositi.

Object. But yet Bishops have the Churches, and the care of them wholly committed to them; though therefore Ministers have equall power to them, yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Chur [...]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 m [...]y at [...]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 [Page 71] they may exercise their power received, as the Emperours did make Chartul [...]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 thei [...] flocke. A man taking a steward, or other servant into his house, doth give him a power of doing something to his family; and 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 [Page 72] should minister [...]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 Fervi [...]rdinarli or praepofiti, some are under others to do this or that commanded by them, commonly called servi vicarii: but in the Church all servants serve their Master Christ, neither having any that they can command, nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them. But it may be objected, that God hath 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 assistan [...]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. Vitu [...] w [...]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 [...] porf [...]lis [...] re [...]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 b [...]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 p [...]tes [...]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 [Page 73] hither and thither, as may be gathered, 2 Cor. 8.16, 17. and 2.7.14, 15.

The fift Argument.

That which the Apostles had not over Prophets, Evangelists, Presbyters, nor Deacons themselves that power wh [...]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 s [...]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, S [...]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: [Page 74] neither doth this make the Bishops lawfull in one Church, because one may manage it, and the Popes unlawfull, because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church: for then all the power the Pope doth challenge, is not per se, but per accidens, unlawfull, by reason of mans unsufficiency, who cannot we [...]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 sta [...] ye forgive. &c. Ergo. The proposition is denied: because the sence of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken. These words spoken to Apostles, they gave them larger power then to a Bishop: and so spoken to a 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 excep [...]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 th [...]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 B [...]shop ha [...]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 le [...]d light unto the deciding of this question.

Conclus. 1. Let this be the first. No Minister of the Word hath any power but ministeriall in the Church. Power is naturall or mo­rall. Morall is Civill or Ecclesiasticall. Civill is either Lord-like and ruling, or ministeriall and servile. So Ecclesiasticall, taken large­ly for all power subjectively in, or objectively about the Church, is either Lord-like and Regall, such as is in Christ, or it is ministeriall and servile, such as is in the Church and the principall members of it. The power therefore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists, is called [...], Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service, as doth make the ministers having it, so servants, that they are no way Lords. Ma­ny ministers, one Lord: we preach Christ, our selves your servants for Ie­sus sake. S. Paul maketh his power steward-like, not regall. Now as that is regall power which doth any thing from the authority one hath in himselfe, or from ones pleasure: so that is ministeriall power [Page 75] which doth nothing but eying the will and power of him that is pri [...]cipall: a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ix me­r [...] al [...]erium obsequi [...].

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

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

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

[Page 77] Co [...]cl. 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of [...]ctive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order o [...] Ministery and service. The reason is, because this exceedeth the [...]ounds of ministeriall power, and is a participation of that 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. Tha [...] which is committed to the Church, is committed to the principal member of the Church▪ But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church, Mat [...]. 18.17. Ergo. Either to the whole Church, or to a Church in the Church, or to [...]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 i [...] 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, [...] 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.

Th [...]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. [Page 79] 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 judge­ [...]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 excommunica­ [...]ed Hymen [...]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 Titu [...] 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, wh [...]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 w [...]s committed by Christ to one, and the execution of a [...]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 m [...]rke, [...]hat Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particul [...]r Church t [...]ken in dis­tinctly. For it is such a Church as any brother offended may pre­sently complaine to. Th [...]refore no univers [...]ll, or provinciall, or Diocesan Church g [...]thered in a C [...]uncell. Secondly, it is not any particular Ch [...]rch that he doth send [...]ll Christi [...]ns to, for [...]h [...] all Christ [...]ans in the world should come to one particular at Church, were [Page 80] 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 denunt [...]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 [...]he governour in open Court, is more then to tell it to twenty. Wee grant that this is true, and were the word C [...]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 [...]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 [Page 81] are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly, the chur [...]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 authori [...]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 Corin [...]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 [...]t is a plaine truth by many invincible argumen [...]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 au [...]em quis potestalem non h [...]b [...], 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 mu [...]ct o [...] many, writing to them that they would not proceed, 2 Cor. 2 6. Last­ly, Paul doth attrib [...]te power to them to forgive him, and to rece [...]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 h [...]ve no power to binde, have no power to loose. So it migh [...] be prov [...]d by the Church of the Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 3.14. If any man wa [...]k in [...]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, [...]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 [Page 82] 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 [...]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 the [...]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 offici [...], 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 b [...]shop of this Church? But Timothy and Ti­tus are said to have ordained Ministers. As Consuls and D [...]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 the first of Titus, &c. And it is manifest by Ecclesiasticall writings of all sorts, that Presbyters h [...]d right of su [...]rage, not onely in their owne Presbyteries, but in Provinciall Synods, and therefore in O [...]cumenicall Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their mindes went in the instructi [...]n of bishops received from their Churches. And A [...]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 the [...]e which have beene objected. Now to come to the con­clusio [...]s, let this be first.

Conclus. 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singu­lar [Page 83] 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 common­wealth, 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 Melan [...]thon, and the Sorbonists, who doe maintaine it at this day. Yea, this seemeth to have beene Tertullians errour; for in his book [...]: de p [...]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 th [...]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 [...]n [...]loga [...]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 natu [...]ll bodies, the power of seeing is first [Page 84] 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 serv [...]th more pro­perly th [...]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 deri [...]ed to the Priest [...]s but immedia [...]ly from Christ feared in Aaron and his sonnes. O [...]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 int [...]itu homin [...] 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 h [...]ve beene Doctors. But if the power of ordina­ry teachi [...]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. [...]. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministeriall government is committed with the execution of it, to the Senat or Presbytery of the church. If any f [...]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 wi [...]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 Chu [...]ch [...] committed to s [...]me principall member. And are deny the second part of the next. Syllogisme, proving this par [...] [Page 85] 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 Sacr [...]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 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 wh [...]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.

[Page 86]To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Cori [...]th, who judicially, (absent) sentenced his excommunica­tion, I have [...] or j [...]dged, leaving nothing to the Church, but ou [...] of their obedience to decline him, as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith, Fo [...] this [...] I have writt [...] to you, that I may proove whether you will in all things [...] obedient. What Argument [...] 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 he [...]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 Thessaloni­ [...]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 Alexa [...]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 a [...] he cast out the Corinthian, though the whole proceeding be not noted. Though Paul saith, I delivered [Page 87] them ▪ So he saith, grace was given Timothy by imposition of his [...] [...] 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 go­vernour. Truely, that the Affrican Fathers write to Celestive is true: It is unlikely that God will be present, with one, inspiring him with his spi­rit, and not be present with many who are in his name, and with his war­rant assembled. As for those comparisons they hold not in all: they hold in that which the Consull doth in calling the assembly, pro­pounding things, &c. Yet the Consuls never took the power to cen­sure their fellowes without the concurrence of their fellow Sena­tors, nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate.

To the fift argument, to the proposition by distinction: if they have all power both of ministeriall application, and instituting others out of vertue and authority, then Pastours derive. But this is denyed. She hath no power but of Ministery, and no plenitude but so farre as they in their owne persons can discharge. It presup­poseth therefore we affirme in our question what we doe not. But to let the proposition passe, because of some derivation, it is true. If she have but all power of Ministeriall application, then Bishops [Page 88] [...] f [...]om [...] But [...]hey doe not. We say they doe. And where­ [...] it i [...] [...] th [...] which the Church ne [...]er had she cannot con­ve [...] [...], which the Church never had, she cannot vir­tually convey it▪ but she may a [...] ministering to him who hath the power and vertue of deriving i [...]. Nothing can give that which it hath not, either formally or virtually, unlesse it give it as an instru­ment to one who hath it. A man not having a penny of his owne, may give a [...] hundred pounds if the King make him his Almoner. A Steward may give all offices in his masters house, as ministerially ex [...]cuting his masters pleasure. Thus the Church deriveth, as ta­king the person whom Christ describeth, and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church. This answereth to the last suggestion. For if the Church did virtually, and out of pow­er make an officer, it is true, as we see with those whom the King maketh in the common-wealth. But if she doe it in Steward-like manner, ministring to the sole Lord and master of his house, then is not he so taken in to doe in his name, but in his masters name. As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office not in ma­ster Stewards name, but in his masters, who onely out of power did confer it on him.

The last objection I answer. That the particular Church may depose their Bishop. What member soever in the Church is the of­fending person, may be complained of to the Church. The Church of Philippi, if it had power to see that Archippus doe his dutie, then it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it. If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop, and so power of instituting him, then of destituting also. Instituere & destituere ejusdem es [...] [...]otestates. But he is given the onely judge in Christs roome, and though they elect him, yet as you have said, and truely, they have not the power of th [...]t authority in them to which he is elected. No more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the Imperiall dignity. Answer. We say therefore, that as the Church hath onely ministeriall power of application, that is, as they cannot out of power call a Pastour, but onely call one whom Christ pointeth out, and to whom Christ out of power gi [...]eth the place of Pastour. So she cannot censure or depose, but onely mini­sterially executing the censure of Christ, who will have such a one turned ou [...], or otherwise censured. But the Bishop never was sole judge, though [...] he may be said so. Christ instituted [...] Presbytery, in which all had equall power of judgement. Cyprian Ep. 68. in the case of Bes [...]des and Martialis, doth shew that the Church had power as of choosing worthy, so of refusing unworthy. He speaketh of an ordinary power, as by choosing is manifest, not extraordinary and in case of necessitie. And Mr. Field maintaineth, [Page 89] that L [...]erius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome. Surely I marvell men of learning will deny it, when no reason evinceth the Pope though a generall Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Oecumenicall, but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church. Unlesse they will say with some Schoolmen, Sot [...], viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the generall Church: but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ, and also representeth the generall Church in his Diocesse, whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular. As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter then to represent the generall Church, with whom in his calling the Church Oecumeni­call hath nothing to doe.

To that which is objected touching Fathers, Pastors; the simili­tudes hold not in all things. Naturall parents are no wayes children, nor in state of subjection to their children: but spirituall fathers are so fathers, that in some respect they are children to the whole Church. So shepherds are no way sheepe, but ministers are in regard of the whole Church. Secondly, Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds, be they good or evill: but spirituall Parents and Pastors are no longer so then they doe accor­dingly behave themselves. Besides, are not civill Kings Parents and Pastors of their people? yet if they be not absolute Monarches, it was never esteemed as absurd, to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them. If their owne Churches have no power over them, it will be hard to shew wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their owne churches. But Lord Bishops must take state on them, and not subject themselves unto any tri­all, but by their Peeres onely, which is by a Councell of Bishop [...].


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.