Answer.

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

First, for Iames, we deny he was ordained Bishop, or that it can be proued from antiquitie, that he was more then other Apostles. That which Eusebius reporteth, is grounded on Clement, whom we know to be a forged magnifier of Romish orders, and in this story he doth [Page 28] seeme to imply, that Christ should haue ordeyned Peter, Iohn and James the greater, Bishops. Seeing he maketh these to haue ordey­ned Iames after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dig­nitie, which these forged deceitfull Epistles of Anacletus do plain­ly 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 Bishop properly so called. The fathers use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply, not in their strict & formall propri­etie. 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. Const. cap. 7. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. ult. Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 8. and others. In like manner they call the Apostles Bishops; not in proprietie 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 the Ancients called Bishops. Obj. This is granted true, touching others, but not in this instance of Iames: because it is so likely and agreeable to Scripture, as well as all other Story; that when all the rest of the Apostles departed out of Ierusalem, he did still abide with them even to death. An­swere, though this bee but very conjecturall, yet it nothing bettereth the cause here. It followeth not, Hee did abide with this Church. Ergo, he was the proper Bishop of this Church. For not abiding in one Church doth make a Bishop: but he must so a­bide in it, that he must from the power of his office, onely be bound to teach that Church: 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 Circum­cision 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 founded out of Iames, that he did in this circumstance of residing, more neerly expresse an ordinary Pastor then any other. It is plaine, Antiquitie did hold them all Bishops, and ga­ther them so to be, a Priori & Posteriori: the Author de quaest. vet. & nov. test. cap. 97. Nemo ignorat Episcopos salvatorem Ecclesijs in­ [...]ituisse priusquam ascenderet; imponens manus Apostolis, ordinavit eos in Episcopos. 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 be noted, sayth he, that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops: for they did not make Bishops onely, but Presbyters also. Now wee must conster the ancient, as taking them onely eminentlie and virtuallie to have been bishops, or els we must judge them to have been of this mind, That the Apostles had both as extraordinary 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 D. Downam himselfe confuteth, as Popish, and not without reason, though while he 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 be hissed forth as a most dangerous assertion. But to make Iames, & so any of them, haue both these offices in proprietie, might make us doubt. Ergo. The assumptiō 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 assumption no lesse true. For if there bee any rule to di­rect Iames infalliblie, as he was formally the ordinarie bishop of Ie­rusalem, 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 he taught them as an ordinary bishop, and did write his Epistle so, then certainly it might erre. If he did not teach them so, then did he not that he was ordained to, neither was he properly an ordina­rie Pastor, but taught as an extraordinary 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 plain, non 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 or­dinarie person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church. A­gaine, one can no sooner be called to doe this, but at least the exer­cise of the other is suspended. Thirdly, that which is to no end, is not to be thought to be ordained of God. But to give one an or­dinarie authoritie 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 hee 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 ordinarie Bishop properlie and for­mally so called. Secondly, I say power of governing ordinarie was not needfull for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where hee should come. Obiect. 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 they were guided by the spirit, it was thought meet, that Iames should abide in Ierusalem, there tending both the Church of the Iewes, 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 think it meet that he 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, yet his Apostolicke Pastorall care was as Iohns and Pe­ters, towards the whole multitude of the dispersed Iewes, 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 he could not be who did receive no such power of order as ordinarie Pastors have.

Fourthly, That calling which hee could not exercise without beeing much abased, that hee never was ordained unto, as a poynt of honour for him. But hee could not exercise the calling of an ordinarie Bishop, but hee must bee abased. Hee must bee bound by office to meddle with authoritie and jurisdicti­on, but in one Church, hee must teach as an ordinarie man lia­ble to errour. Ergo, hee was neuer ordained to bee a Bishop properlie. If it bee sacriledgee 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 been assigned to reside con­stantly in that Church without travelling, and bee no whit aba­sed: but then he must keepe there as Pastor of it with Apostolicall authoritie, caring not for that Church, but the whole num­ber of the Iewes, which he might doe without travelling. Be­cause [Page 31] who so keeped in that Church, hee did not need to goe forth as the rest; for the Iewes from all parts come to him. But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinarie teacher and governour, without becomming many degrees lower then hee was. For to live without going forth, in the mother Church of all the world, as an ordinary pastor, was much lesse honour then ro tra­vaile as Peter one while into Assyria, another while through Pon­tus Galatia, Bithynia, as an Apostle. Even as to sit at home in wor­shipfull privat place is lesse honourable then to goe abroad as Lord Embassadour hither or thither. Honour and ease are seldome bed-fellowes. Neither was Iames his honour in this circumstance of the [...]est, but in having such an honorable place wherein to exercise his Apostolicke calling. As for that question, who was their ordinarie Pastor, it is easily answered; Their Presbyters, such as Linus or Cle­ment in Rome, such as Ephesus and other Churches had. Iames was their Pastor also, but with extraordinary authoritie. What needed they an ordinarie Bishop, which grew needfull (as the favourers of the Hierarchie 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 proposition. For had some ordina­rie Pastors been so stiled, it might imply but a preheminencie of dignitie in them above other: wherefore unlesse this bee interser­ted, it is unsound, viz. Those ordinarie Pastors, who are called Apo­stles in comparison of others, because the Apostles did give to them po­wer of ordination, jurisdiction, and peerelesse preheminencie, which they did not give to others, they are above others. Secondly, the assump­tion is false altogether: First, that Epaphroditus was an ordinarie Pastor: secondly, that hee was called an Apostle in comparison of inferiour Pastors of that Church. Obj. But the iudgment of Ierom, Theodoret, Chrysostom, 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, S. Ambrose doth plainly insinu­ate, that hee was an Evangelist: for he sayth hee 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 he maketh him sent, not for perpetuall residence amongst them, but for the transient exhorting of them, and maketh him so desired of the [Page 32] Philippians, because hee was a good man, not because he was their ordinarie Pastor. Ieroms testimonie 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. Theod. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinarie bishop, but no otherwise then Timothy and Titus, and other Evange­lists are sayd to have been bishops: which how true it is, in the next argument shall bee discussed. For even Theodoret doth take him to have been such an Apostolick person as Timothy and Titus were. Now these were as truely called bishops as the Apostles themselves. Neither is the rule of Theodoret to be admitted: for it is unlike that the name of Apostle should be 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 be ascribed to them. Againe, how shall we know that a bishop is to be placed in a citie, that hee must be 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 under the name of Apostles & Angels. Thirdly, antiquitie doth testifie, that this was an honour to bishops, when this name was Ecclesiastically appropriated to them. But if they ever had been termed by the name of Apostles before, this had been a debasing of them. Neither is there reason why they should be called Apostles. In jurisdiction Apostolical the Apostles were not succeeded. Iurisdiction Episcopal they never exercised, nor had, and therefore could not be succeeded in it. The Apostles gave to Presbyters that 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 tyrannie where there is no power of government? But lay authorities aside, consider the thing from the text it selfe. First, Paul seemeth but occasionallie to send him, he having purposed to have sent Timothy, who as yet could not bee employed. I thought it necessarie to send Epaphroditus to you. Secondly, hee doth implie, that Epaphroditus had not returned to them, but that he sent him; and that therefore he was not the ordinary Bishop of it. It is like, hee was but sent till Timo­thy might be dispatched to them. Neither is it any thing probable he should be called an Apostle, as their ordinarie 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 probabl when he is [Page 33] called 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 needfull which you sent by him. Object. But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelue, should be used of those sent civily. 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 Iesus, 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 Chrysostome there understandeth those whom the Churches had sent for that present. That doth not hinder, they were sent 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 themselues and E­vangelists also more ordinarily, it being their office to goe from Church to Church, for the edification of them.

For the instance of Archippus 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 prosillogisme we deny the Assumption: that the Epistles doe presuppose so much. And to the prosillogism, ten­ding to proue this assertion denyed, we answer: first, to the propo­sition, by distinguishing the Episcopall authoritie, which is consi­dered both in regard of that which is materiall, and in regard of the formall reason which doth agree to it. The Propsition is true, un­derstanding it of authority in both these regards; those who are pre­supposed to haue 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 haue and exercise power Episcopall for the materiall of it, as Apostles had also; but not to haue and exer­cise in that manner and formallitie which doth agree to a Bishop, but which doth agree to an Euangelist, and therefore they are bid­den to doe the worke of an Euangelist, to exercise all that power they did exercise as Euangelists. There is nothing that Paul writeth to Timothy to doe in Ephesus, or to Titus Crete, which himselfe pre­sent in person might not and would not haue done. If we should reason then thus: He who did exercise Episcopall power in these churches, he is presupposed to haue been Bishop in them. This pro­position is not true, but with limitation: He who exercised Epis­copall power after that formall manner, which doth agree to the office of a Bishop, he was Bishop; but not he who exerciseth the [Page 34] power secundum aliam rationem & modum; viz. after such a manner as doth agree to an Apostle.

To the second maine proofe, wee denie the proposition. If patternes for Bishops, then written to Bishops. The rea­son is, Apostles, Euangelists, ordinarie Pastors, haue 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. Councels haue 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 verie duties of Bishops, hee doeth take them to haue 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 therfore presuppose them Bishops, because these are duties of Euangelists, agreeing to Bishops onely by usur­pation. Againe, should he propose those duties which, say they, the word 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: nor that Paul doth propose the verie duties of Bishops, both in substance and manner of performance. Secondly, wee deny him to propose 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 directiue and correctiue over others. This exceedeth the bounds of all ministeriall power. Thirdly, Timothie is not bid to lay on hands or doe any other act, when now churches were constituted, but with concurrence of those churches; salvo uni­uscujusque Ecclesiae jure, the Apostles did not otherwise. For though Paul wrote to him alone, that was because he was occupied not one­ly in Churches perfectly framed, but also in the erecting & framing of others. Secondly, because they were in degree and dignity aboue all other ordinary governours of the Church, which their Consul­like preheminence was sufficient, why they should be written to alone.

To the fourth reason: Those things which were written to informe, not onely Timothy and Titus, but all their successours, who were Diocesan Bishops, those were written to Diocesan Bishops. But these were so. Ergo, The Proposition is not true, because it presupposeth that nothing written to any persons, can informe Diocesan Bishops, unlesse the persons to whom it is written be formally in that selfe same order. For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apo­stolique, it might informe any Doctor or Pastor whatsoever. Second­ly, we deny Diocesan Bishops are ( de jure) successours. As for the [Page 35] equivocal Catalogue which maketh all who are read Bishops to haue been Diocesan, we shall speake of them hereafter. The Bishops be­tween Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedom Councell, were not all of one cut: and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations. There is no more to proue Phillip of Gor­tina a Metropolitan, then to proue Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria. For what doth storie 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 necessarie. For as Iames might reside exercising an Aposto­licall inspection in a particular Church, so might these exercise an Euangelisticall function how long soever they resided. Secondly, the assumption will not be found true for ordinarie constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers. For Timothie, 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 haue known, he might not being their ordinary Pastor leaue 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 plain 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 exedifie the fa­bricke, which Paul had begunne. God gaue Ceremonies [...], is not euer 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, whē now he 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, he had a meaning to come unto Ti­mothy thither 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 wee may say, that of wolues arising was, and call all into question. Neither is it likely, but that teares would haue broke his heart, and made him yeeld in the peremptories of his speech, had not his soule been divinely per­swaded. Thirdly, he had no meaning when he left them to constitute [Page 36] Timothy to be their Bishop: for he would not haue omitted such an argument of consolation to hearts so heavie. Nor he doth not men­tion any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle. He telleth Churches usually when himselfe hath meaning to see them, or to send others. Fourthly, Timothie was with Paul while he was in bonds at Rome as witnes those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Collossians and Philippians; yea Timothy was so with him, as to bee imployed by him, sent forth, and returne to him, which is manifest. Phillip. 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 Marke, that they might minister to him. Againe when he did write the 2 Epistle, Timothie was not Ephesus, for he doth bid him salute Aquila and Pricilla and Onesiphorus. Obj. But is like these were at Ephesus, for their Paul left Aquila and Pri­scilla. They came occasionally, they did not fixe 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 na­tiue countrey at this time, even Iconium, Listra, Derbe, which hap­pily is the cause why the Scholasticall storie doth make him Bishop of Lystra, because hither he was last sent. He was so here, as that the Apostle did but send him to see them, for hee biddeth him come before winter. Besides, there are many probabilities hee was not at Ephesus, for he speaketh of it through the Epistle, as a place now re­mote from him. Thou knowest what Onesiphorus did for me at Ephe­sus, not where now thou are. I haue sent Tychius to Ephesus, not to thee, to supply thy place while thou shalt bee absent. Finally, after Paules death he 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 therfore in this point, if they testifie ordinarie residence, which they doe not, wee haue libertie to renounce them; but they testifie onely that he re­mained in that Church, because his stay was longer there then Euangelists did use to make, and he is thought to haue 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, & as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did meane to winter at Nicopolis. When he did write the Epistle he doth shew it was not his meaning that Titus should stay there, for he doth bid him to meet him at Nicopolis, where he meant to be as it is likely, but Titus comming did not meet him there but at length found him in Macedonia, whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians, thanking God for his promptnesse even of his own accord to be imployed amongst them, 2. Cor. 8.16. which doth [Page 37] shew he had not been made an ordinarie 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 Dalmatia. Whence Aquinas doth thinke him to haue been Bishop of that place. Where­fore we thinke him that will be carried from such presumptions, (yea manifest arguments) by Hegesippus, Clemens, and historie groun­ded on them, to be too much affected to so weak 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 their function was Euangelisticall and extraordinarie, or ordinarie. But their function as as­signed to those Churches was not extraordinary. We deny this assumpti­on, with the proofe of it. That the function that these exercised as as­signed to certain 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 Euangelists; and assignation of them to doe those things in certaine Churches after this manner, was not ne­cessarie to perpetuate the being of the Church. Assignation to chur­ches to doe the work of ordinarie Pastors is indeed necessarie: not assignation to doe the worke of Euangelists.

To that finall reason, what antiquity doth testifie agreeing with Scriptures is true, and so to be taken. What they speak so agreeing, that it is virtually conteyned in them, and may rightly be deduced from them, is to be beleeved and received by a divine faith. But what they speake not plainly contradicted, but yet no way included, may be admitted fide humana, if the first relators be well qualified witnesses. But what they speake from such as Clement and Hegesip­pus, it is in effect of light credulity. A corrupt conscience bent to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justifie it selfe in declyning.

To the assumption we answer. What doe not some ancient enough call Timothy? Ambrose saith he was a Deacon one while, a Presbyter another while, and in like sense a Primate and a Bishop. Lyra proveth him from many authorities to haue been an Arch-bishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. But to gather on these, that he was in proprietie of speech all these, were absurd. Obj. I, but they call him Bishop on other grounds, because assigned to this Church. Ans. They call him Bishop because he was assigned to this Church, not onely to teach, but also to ordeyne Deacons Presbyters. For wheresoever they found this done, and by whomsoever, they did call them Bishops, as I noted before from Oecumen. The fathers therfore may be well construed calling these Bishops, because they made lon­ger stay in these Churches then Euangelists did usually; & did preach [Page 38] and ordaine, and doe in these Churches all such things which Bi­shops in their time used to doe. But that he was not an Euangelist, and more then an ordinary Bishop they doe not deny. Salmeron himselfe in his first Disputation on 1. Tim. pag. 405. Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusqnam Episcopus, etiamsi ad tempus in ea civitate ut Pastor prae­dicaverit & sacros ordines promoverit, unde quidem vocant eum Episcopum. Finally, should they in rigour and formall propriety make him an ordinarie Pastor, from the first time Paul did write to him, ordina­rily resident to his end; they should testifie a thing, as I hope I haue shewed, contrary to Scripture, yea contrarie to that text which maketh him to haue done the worke of an Euangelist. As for the shew from the Subscriptions we haue spoken sufficiently.

Now to shew that they were not properly Bishops. First, we haue shewed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Episto­pall duties a while, but were not there fixed, to make their ordinary abode. Therfore not Bishops properly. Secondly, they who did the work of an Euangelist in all that they did, did not perform formally the worke of a Bishop. But these did so. As is vouched of Timo­thy, Doe the worke of an Euangelist. Ergo. The Proposition is pro­ved. If an Euangelist & Bishop cannot be formally of one office, then the act of an Euangelist, and the act of an ordinarie Pastor or Bi­shop cannot be formally one. For when everie thing doth agere secundum quod actu est, those things which are not the same formally, their worke and effect cannot be formally the same. But the Euangelist and the ordinarie Pastor or Bishops, are not for­mally the same. Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth, by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gaue now ascen­ding, by the work of the Ministerie to gather and build his Church. For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet, a Prophet from an Euangelist, so an Euangelist from an ordinary Teacher.

Object. But it may be said, they were not distinct, but that the superiour contained the inferiour, and Apostles might be Euange­lists properly, as Matthew and Iohn were.

Answ. That former point is to be understood with a graine of salt. The superiour contained the inferiour virtually and eminently, in as much as they could doe altiori tamen ratione, what the inferi­our did. This sense is tollerable. But that formallie the power of all other offices suites which the Apostles is false. My Lord chiefe Iu­stice of England is not formally a Constable. As for the latter, true, an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospell, but this maketh not an Euangelist no more then an Apostle, but doth per accidens, come to them both. And even as a Preacher or Pastor, writing Commentaries, and publishing other Treatises, this cometh per acce­dens to his calling, it doth not make him a Pastor, but more il­lustrious [Page 39] and fruitfull in that regard then another. So Marke and Luke was not therefore Euangelists because they did write the Gos­pels, for then none should haue been Euangelists that had not writ­ten, but in this regard they were more renowmed then other. Cu­stome hath so prevailed, saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew, that we call them Euangelists, ( viz. the Writers of the Gospels) whom the Scriptures never call Euangelists. These Euangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christs ascension, but the first writer of the Gospell, being an Apostle, was at least eight yeares after. Se­condly, they were a distinct order of workemen from the Apostles, but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles. Thirdly, they were such as by labour of ministerie (common for the generall of it to all the other) did gather Saints, and build Christs Bodie. Now writing the Gospell was not a labour of Ministerie common to Apostles, Prophets, Euangelists, Pastors, but the publishing of it.

Those degrees which Christ did distinctly giue to othersome, and othersome, those he did not giue conjoynedly to one and the same persons. But these callings he gaue to some one, to others another. Else he must haue said, he gaue the same men to be Apostles and E­vangelists, the same to be Euangelists and Pastors. Ergo.

That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an E­uangelist, that Paul never annexed to an Euangelist. But the Calling of a Bishop is such. For a Bishop is tyed to a particular Church. The Calling of an Euangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the worke of the Ministerie, to gather Saints, and edifie, Christs body, without any limitation to any particular Church. Ergo, Paul never annexed the Calling of a Bishop to an Euangelist.

The Calling of an Euangelist is not to write the Gospell, nor to preach it simply: for then every Minister of the Word should be an Euangelist. But this doth difference them, to preach it without li­mitation or assignation to any particular church. Thus Phillip, thus all those who were the Apostles helpers, working the work of the Lord as they did were Euang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperour, as Eusebius reporteth, Euseb. hist. li. 5. cap. 9. Now a Calling wherby I am thus called to publish the Gospel, with­out fixing my selfe in any certain place; and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle my selfe in one Church, are incompatible.

Lastly, that which would haue debased Timothy and Titus, that Paul did not put upon them. But to haue 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. Obj. The assumption is 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 receiue imposition of hands, and a new ordina­tion, if they did not receiue an ordinarie calling? we meane if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands. I answer, This denyall with all whereon it is builded is grosse: For, to bring them from a Superiour order to an Inferiour, is to abase them. But the Euangelists 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 Euangelists power of teaching and governing was il­limitted. Ergo. The assumption proved. Where ever an Apostle did that part of Gods worke which belonged to an Apostle; there an Euangelist might doe that which belonged to him. But that part of Gods work which belonged to an Apostle he might doe any where, without limitation. Ergo. Secondly, Every Minister by how much [...]e doth more approximate to the highest, by so much he is higher. But the companions, & coadjutors of the Apostles, were neerer then ordinarie Pastors. Ergo. Who are next the King, in his Kingdome, but those who are Regis Comites. The Euangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiasticall Cheiftaines. Chrysostome doth expresly say on Ephes. 4. That the Euangelists in an ambulatorie course spreading the Gospell, were aboue any Bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certain Church. Wherefore to make them Pres­byters is a weake conceite. For, every Presbyter (properly so called) was constituted in a certain Church to doe the work of the Lord in a certaine Church. But Euangelists 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; Timothie 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 gaue 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 Philip could not, and could they enter one into an extraordinary office? Ans. 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 preca­torie 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 haue power. Neither is it certaine, that Phillip could not haue imposed hands, and given the Holy Ghost. For though he could, he might choose in wisedom for their greater confirmation and edification to let that bee done by persons more eminent. Finally, imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinarie office. [Page 41] For every extraordinarie office is not attended with immediate vo­cation from God. As the calling of Evangelists, though extraordi­narie, was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets.! Se­condly, men called immediatly may be promoted to the more fruit­full exercise of their immediate and extraordinarie callings by imposition of hands from their inferiours, as Paul and Barnabas were. Howsoever, it is plaine, that Timothie by imposition 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 hee is called on by him to doe the work of an Evangelist. Ergo, that calling he was ordained to.

That work which exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie Bishop, was not put upon an ordinarie Bishop. But Titus his work did so: for it was to plant Presbyters towne by towne through a Nation. Ergo. For the ordinarie plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame, exceedeth the calling of an ordinarie 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 been a Bishop: he is no warrant for ordinarie Bishops, but for Primates, whose au­thoritie did reach through whole Ilands. Nay, if the Doctors rule out of Theodoret were good, it would serve for a Bishop of the plu­ralitie cut. For it is sayd he placed Presbyters citie by citie, or town by towne, who are in name onely Bishops, but not that hee placed Angels, or Apostles, in any part of it. He therefore was the sole Bi­shop of them, the test were but Presbyters, such as had the name, not the office and government of Bishops.

Finally, were it granted that they were ordinarie Bishops, and written to doe the things that Bishops doe, yet would it not bee a ground for their majoritie of power in matter sacramentall and ju­risdiction, as is aboue excepted.

Answer.

First, we deny the proposition. For first; this doth presuppose such an assistance of Gods spirit with the Church, that she cannot gene­rally take up any custome, or opinion, but what hath Apostolicall warrant, whereas the contrary may be shewed in many instances. Keeping of holy dayes was a generall practise through the Chur­ches, before any Councell enacted it, yet was no Apostolicall tradi­tion. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. Evangelium non imposuit hoc, ut dies festi obser­ventur, sed homines ipsi suis quique locis ex more quodam introduxerunt. Taking the Eucharist fasting, the fasts on wednesday, and Saturday, fasting in some fashion before Easter, ceremonies in Baptising, the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any Councel 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 were Oecumenicall Doctors, but I see no reason for such a pre­sumption.

3 This doth presuppose, that something may bee which is of A­postolicall authoritie, which neither directly nor consequentlie is included in the word written. For when there are some customes which haue been generall, which yet cannot bee grounded in the word written, it is necessarie by this proposition, that some things [Page 43] may be in the Church having authoritie Apostolicall, as being deli­vered by word unwritten. For they cannot haue warrant from the 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 will make cleare. Si constat id bonum quod prius, & id prius quod est ab ini­tio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariter uti (que) constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Touch­ing Austins rule, we would ask what is the meaning of these words, Non nisi Apostolica authoritate traditum rectissimè creditur. If they 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. Consuetudinem ex Apostolorum traditione venientem, sicut multa non inveniuntur in literis eorum, & tamen quia custodiuntur per u­niversam Ecclesiam, non nisi ab ipsis tradita & commendata cre­duntur. And we wish them to shew from Scripture what they say is contained in it. If they yeeld, he doth mean as he doth of unwrit­ten tradition, we hope they will not iustifie him in this; we will take that libertie in him, which himselfe doth in all others, and giveth us good leave to use in his owne writings. Now count him in this to favour Traditions, as some of the Papists do not causelesly make this rule the measuring cord, which doth take in the latitude of all traditions: yet wee appeale to Austines judgement otherwhere, who though by this rule hee maketh a universall practise not begun by Councels, an argument of Divine and Apostolicall au­thoritie, yet dealing against Donatists, Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. hee sayth, he will not use this argument, because it was but humane and uncertaine, ne videar humanis argumentis illud probare, ex Evangelio profero certa documenta.

Wee answer to the assumption two things: First, it cannot bee proved, that universally there were such Diocesan Bishops as ours. For in the Apostles times it cannot bee 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 bee like our Diocesan Bishops. And though there bee doubtfull relations, that Rome was divided under Eva [...]istus, yet this was not common through the Church. For Tripartite story testifi­eth, that till the time of Sozomen, they did in some parts continue together. Trip. hist. lib. 1. cap. 19. Secondly, those Bishops which had no more but one Deacon to helpe them in their ministerie to­ward their Churches, they could not be Diocesan Bishops. 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 towns, could not have Diocesan Bishops. But such there were after the Apostles times in Cyprus and Arabia, as Sozom. in his 7. book, cap. 10. testifieth. Ergo, Diocesan Bishops were never so u­niversally received. Secondly, Bishops came to bee common by a Councell, sayth Ambrose, Prospiciente Concilio. Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Decree passing through the world: toto orbe decretum est, sayth Ierom ad Evag. which is to be considered, not of one Oecumenicall 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 interpretativè, 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 aboue Presbyters, magis consuetudine Ecclesiae, 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 then 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 think that decretum est imported no more, then that it was took 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 Ambrose his place is plain, Prospi­ciente Cōcilio, he meaneth not a councel held by Apostles. For he ma­keth this provision by Coūcel to haue 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, ther were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria, as Eu­sebius and Jerom both affirme. Wherefore briefly, seeing no such u­niversall custome can be proved, all the godly fathers 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 humaine frailtie, as these errours in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faith­full Martyrs: the rather because the alteration was so little at the first, and Aristocraticall government was still continued. Thirdly, say, they had wittingly and willingly done it through the world, they had not cospired, because they might haue 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 iudgement, that if it were but an Apostolical institution, as Apostolical is cōtra­distinguished to divine, they might change it. But if the Apostles did enact this order, as Legats and Embassadors of Christ, then is it not theirs, but Christs own institution. What an Embassador speak­eth as an Embassadour, it is principally from him that sent him: but if they who were Legates, did 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 Christ.

As for those proofes, that Bishops have been throughout all Churches from the beginning, they are weak. For first, the Coun­cell of Nice useth [...], not simpliciter, but secundum quid, in or­der happily to that time wherein the custome began, which was bet­ter known to them then to us: the phrase is so used, Act. 15.8. in respect of some things which had not continued many years. They cannot meane the Apostles times, for then Metropolitans should haue actuallie been from the Apostles time. Second­lie, 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 the former, Canones Apostolorum. It is plaine the de­cree of the Councell doth ascribe this thing onely to an­cient custome, no lesse then that of Nice, Constantinople and Chalcedon; and therefore cannot rise to the authoritie of sacred Scriptures. Let him shew in all antiquitie 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 authoritie of Cyprian, he doth testifie what was Communiter in his time, Bishops ordained in cities; not universaliter, as if there were no citie but had some. Secondly, he speaketh of Bishops who had their Churches included in Cities, not more then might meet together in one, to a­ny common deliberations. They had no Diocesan Churches, nor were Bishops who had majoritie of rule over their Presbyters, nor sole power of ordination. As for the Catalogue of succession, it is pompae aptior quam pugnae; Rome can recite their successours. But be­cause it hath had Bishops, Ergo, Oecumenicall Bishops is no conse­quence. All who are named Bishops in the Catalogue, were not of one cut, and in that sence we controvert.

Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by a­ny Councell, it is very weak. For though wee read of no generall [Page 46] Councell, yet there might be, and the report not come to us. Se­condly, 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, beeing there respectively, not absolutely u­sed. Neither doth Ierom ever contrary this: for he doth not use those words in proprietie, 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 iure Ecclesiastico, when the time served for it.

Answer.

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

An order is reputed higher, either because intrinsecallie it hath a higher vertue, or because it hath a higher degree of dig­nitie and honour. Now wee deny that ever antiquitie did take the Bishop above his Presbyters to bee in a higher order then a Presbyter, further then a higher order doth signifie an order of higher dignitie and honour, [...] or [...], as the Councell of Sardica speaketh. Which is further proved: be­cavse 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 sacerdotium vocari. 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 these, must bee circumstantiall, not so essentiall as betwixt the other. Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bi­shops, not that one exceedeth the other, as a power of higher vertue, but of higher dignitie then then the other. More plainly; There may be a fourefold difference in gradu. 1. in potestate gradus. 2. in Exercitio. 3. in Dignitate. 4. in amplitudine Jurisdictionis. The first difference is not betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter, ac­cording [Page 48] to the common tenent of antiquitie, or the Schoole, but on­ly is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bi­shop inwardlie. 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 Bishops, &c. but a Bishop can doe also. So neither doth a Presbyter from a Bi­shop. Obiect. But the Priest cannot ordaine a Presbyter, and con­firme as the Bishop doth, and therefore differeth potestate gradus. To this I answer, that these authours meane not this difference in power ( de fundamentali & remota potestate, sed ampliata, immediata, et iam actu horum effectuum productiva) as if Presbyters had not a re­mote and fundamentall power to doe those things: but that they haue not, before they be ordained bishops, their power so enlarged, as to produce these effects actuallie. As a boy hath the generative facultie while 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 defectiue in regard of them, further then they be with-held from the exercise of it. For that cause which standeth in compleat actualitie 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 sa­cramental power standing in ful actualitie to higher sacramental ac­tions, & therfore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in his power, further then they are excepted & kept from be­in applied to him. And therfore power sacramentall cannot bee in a Presbyter, as the generative facultie is in a child, for this is inchoate onely, and imperfect, such as cannot produce that effect. The po­wer of the Priest is compleat. Secondlie, I say, these are no sacra­mentall actions. Thirdlie, were they, yet as much may bee 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 ioyne with their Bishops. If that rule stand not maior ad minori, nor yet equalis ab equali, I marvel how Bishops can beget Bishops equal, yea superi­or to them, as in cōsecrating the Lord Archbishop, & yet a presbyter may not ordain a presbyter. It doth not stand with their Episcopall majoritie, that the rule ( every one may give that which be hath) should hold here in the exercise of their power. Those who are in one order, may differ jure [...]o or humane. Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramentall, for they might all offer incence, and make intercession. But the solumne intercession in the holy of holies [Page 49] God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priests would haue 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 though God hath not excepted any thing from the one free to the other, yet commonly confirmation, ordination, absolu­tion by imposing hands in receiving Penitents, consecrating Chur­ches and Virgines, haue been referred to the Bishop for the honour of Priesthood, rather then any necessity of law, as Ierome speaketh. Finally, in dignity, those may differ many wayes, 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 another. But were it manifest that God did giue Bishops Pastorall power through their Diocesse, and an Archbishop through his Province, though but when he visiteth, this would make one differ in order from the other; as in this regard Euangelists differred from ordinary Pastors. But that jurisdiction is in one more then another, is not established, nor hath apparencie in any Scripture.

To the proofes therefore 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 haue not deserved it. As for that of Ierom it is most plain, he did meane no further order, but onely in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their Bishop, or first Presbyter, as that they did mount him up in a higher seate, the rest sitting lower about him, and gaue him this preheminence, to sit first, as a Consul in the Se­nate, and moderate the carriage of things amongst them: this Cel­siori gradu, being nothing but his honourable [...], not im­porting sole authoritie. For by a Canon of the Councill of Laodi­cea, we finde that the Bishop had this priviledge to sit first, though Presbyters did together with him enter, and sit as Iudges of equall commission. For though Deacons stood, Presbyters did alwaies sit in circuitu Episcopi.

Answer.

If Bishops &c. and Presbyters, 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 essentially in their power, but onely in degree of dignitie, wherein the high Priest was aboue others. For every Priests power would haue reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest onely. 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 maiorite of directiue or correctiue 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 imployed in a set course, and ex­traordinary sent by occasion onely: They were both messengers, the Apostles habitu and abidingly, the other in act onely, and after a transitorie manner.

Againe, had Aaron and his sonnes been divers orders, differing essentially in the inward power of them, yet is not the proposition true, but with addition in this wise. Those who are identically 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 haue 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 pollicie, and make the Bishop, as it were Primum Presbyte­rum or Antistitem in primo ordine, Presbyters in secundo, Whence Bishops 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 com­mon analogie, which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters, and them; and conceiue them to be so by humane accommodation, not by divine institution. But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministerie typified by them by Gods owne appointment, this the fathers ne­ver thought. 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, Euangelists, 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 they 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 streyne it further, and take it, that Christ instituting those two orders, did in so doing, institute Bishops and Presbyters, the one wherof suc­ceeded the Apostles, the other the 72, and that thus the Fathers take it. To which I answer, First, in generall, this analogie 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, Apostolos id est Episcopos & prepositos, that is, ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum, as Austin speaketh, else it should bee all one with the former: when hee maketh the Presbyter as well as the Bishop to be ordained in the Apostles. Finally, these Fa­thers who take the 72 to haue beene Apostles, as well as the o­ther, could not imagine this proportion of diverse or­ders set 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 Manna, noting and pre­figuring as by a type, a further thing which hee would worke: viz. that he would institute Bishops and Presbyters for Teachers ordi­nary in his Church: but both these are gatis spoken, without any foundation or reason. For the first, we haue shewed that the A­postles could not bee Bishops ordinarily; nor yet the calling of these seventie 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 haue giuen a Sacrament, when he ordained his Apostles, and sent forth his 72. Secondly, the type or the shadow is lesse then the thing typified, the substance of it. But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Thirdly, 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 gradum, or in Caput, as the jurists distinguish. In gradum eundem, 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 inherite after him, not a brother, but a cosin to him. Thus the Apostles haue 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 euery 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 quatenus est Legatus non succeditur. Fourthly, that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order suc­ceed the Apostles no lesse fully then any other. First, they must needs succeed them 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 baptizing. Ergo, Pres­byters must needs succeed the Apostles. Secondly, those whom the Apostles did institute in the Churches, which they had planted for their further building them up, they were their next successors. But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up, whom they had now converted. Ergo, these were their successors most proper and immediate. Thirdly, these to whom now taking their farewels they resigned the Chur­ches, these were their successours. But this they did to Presbyters, Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20, Peter neere death, 1. Pet. 5.2. Ergo. Fourthly, if one Pastor or Minister doe more properly resemble an Apostle then another, it is because hee hath some power Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to ano­ther But this was not done. Ergo. The assumption is manifest: for. First, their power of teaching and ministring the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any, unlesse we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office, but a Bishops; or at least that a more rudimentall preaching belongs to a Presbyter, the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the Bishop, which are both too absurd. Secondly, for govern­ment, the Apostles did no more giue the power of government to [Page 53] one then to another. Obj. This is denyed, for the Apostles are said to haue kept the power of ordination, and the coerciue power in their own hands, & to haue committed these in the end onely to A­postolique men, as Timothy, Titus, who were their successors succee­ding them in it. Ans. A notable fiction: for it is most plain by Scrip­ture; that ordination, power of deciding controversies, excommuni­cation, were given to Presbyters, and not kept up from them; they should otherwise haue provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care. Secondly, if the Apostles did commit some or­dinary power of government to some men aboue others, in which regard they should be their successours, then the Apostles did not onely enjoy as Legates power over the Churches, but as ordinarie Ministers. For what power they enjoyed as Legates, this they could not aliis Legare. Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Chur­ches they never reserved, and therefore did never substitute others to themselues in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed. And it is to be noted, that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this, that the Apostles were not onely Apostles, but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches. For the Papists themselues urged with this, that the Apostles haue none succeeding them, they doe consider a double respect in the Apo­stles, the one of Legates, so Peter, nor any other could haue a suc­cessour. The other of Bishops Oecumenicall in Peter, of Bishops National or Diocesan, as in some other. Thus onely considered, they grant them to haue other Bishops succeeding them: For the Apo­stolick power precisely considered, was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum. Now we haue proved that this ground is false, and therefore that succeding the Apostles, more appropriate to Bi­shops then other Ministers grounded upon it, is false also.

Lastly, the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first, in all that is spoken to the 72, the full dutie and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe. Secondly, it doth not appeare that they had any ordinarie power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament. For they are sent to Evangelize, to preach the Gospell: but whether from power of ordinarie office, or from com­mission and delegation onely for this present occasion it is doubtful. Thirdly, it is not read that tney ever baptized, or had the power of administring the Supper given to them: Yea, that they had neither ministerie of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario, seemeth hence plaine; That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care, which was so cumbersome that themselues could not tend the mini­stery of the Word with it, much lesse then could these not having such extraordinarie gifts as the Apostles had. Fourthly, if they were set Ministers, then were they Euangelists in destination. For the act [Page 54] enjoyned them, is from Citie to Citie, without limitation to Euan­gelize; and after we reade of some, as Phillip, that he was an Euan­gelist; the same is in Ecclesiasticall storie testified of some others. Thus we Presbyters should succeed Euangelists those Apostolique men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops, and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles. These Euangelists succeeded them by all grant, we succeed these. Finally, Armachanus doth take these 72 to haue been ordinary disciples, in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest. cap. 7.

Answer.

The proposition is denyed: for it is sufficient to a new ordinati­on that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church where before they had nothing to doe. Secondly, I answer by distinction, a new order, by reason of new degrees of dignity, this may be granted: but that therefore it is a new order, that is, having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God, is not true. Hath not an Arch­bishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop? yet is hee not of any order essentially differing. The truth is, ordination, if it be looked into, is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen, but onely more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it.

Answer.

I answer to the Assumption. That there may be said to bee but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates with in the same Church. It may be said, there must be but one Bishop in or­der to all the other Churches of the Cities. Secondly, this may be affirmed as standing by Canon, or as divine institution. Now the as­sumption is true, onely by Law Ecclesiasticall. For the Scripture is said to haue placed Presbyters who did Superintendere, Act. 20. and [Page 55] that there were Bishops at Philippi. True it is, the Scripture doth not distinguish how manie of the one sort, nor how many of the other, because no doubt for the number of the Congregations, a single Presbyter labouring in the Word, or two, the one coadjutor to the other might be placed. Secondly, it is testified by Epiphanius, that or­dinarilie all Cities but Alexandria had two. Thirdly, Ierom on 1. Tim. 3. doth saie, that now indeed there may be but one Bishop, meaning Canonicallie, making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique. Fourthlie, Austin, did not know it was unlawfull: Yea he did onelie in regard of the decree of Nice account it so. Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contrary, but as a point against Canon, which might in some cases be dispensed with, as the storie of Narcissus, and Alexander, and Liberius, and Foelix doth more then manifest. For though the people of Rome cried out one God, one Christ, one Bishop, yet they yeelded at their Empe­rours suite, wheras had it been a thing they had all thought to haue been against Christs institution, they would not haue done. Vide Soz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly, Ieroms peerelesse power, is nothing but Consul­like presidence aboue others; for this he pleaded for, writing against Iovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselues, that schisme might be avoided. Wherfore 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.

Answer.

I answer the Proposition of the first Sillogisme by distinction. Those who haue 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 haue a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others haue, they are aboue others in degree. Againe, peerelesse power in a Bishop over Pres­byters may be said in comparison to them distributiuely or collec­tiuely considered. Hee that hath peerelesse power given him which no one of the other hath, is not presently of a greater degree, nor hath not majoritie of rule amongst others, as a Consul in the Senate: But if he haue a peerelesse power, such as they all collectiuely 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 may be reserved for honour sake to one, by those who otherwise haue equall power with him. That Bishops haue this power in order, the thing it selfe agreeing to them, Vipro­prii officii, not by commission from others, we deny. The assumpti­on is wholly denyed. As for the proofe of it. First, we that deny that Euangelists had not power to ordeyne, as well as Apostles. Se­condly, that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they. Euery one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination. The Euangelists power did not derogate from the Apostles, the Presbyters from neither of them. But power of im­posing hands solitarily, whereas yet Churches were not constitu­ted, this may happily be appropriated to the Apostles and Euan­gelists, 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, contrarie to that in Ti­mothie: The grace given thee by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Thirdly, it is false, in presupposing others then Presbyters to haue been Timothy and Titus their successors. To the proofe of this as­sumption. The proposition is not true: For it might be convenient that the same thing should be done by Euangelists, 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 bee placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters, or where there were as yet none. In the [Page 57] first Churches, they are bid ordaine if any need further, but salvo jure Ecclesia; not without the concurrence of others. In the latter Churches which were to be constituted, they may be conceived sa Evangelists, with sole power of setting Presbyters forth by this rite of imposition of hands. Wee hold Apostles might doe it, Evange­lists might, and the Presbyteries also. Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was deceased, did ordaine the fol­lowing: For the Canon of three Bishops, and Metropolitans, added by the Nicene 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 appropriat to the Bish. We grant therfore that antiquitie doth some­time speak 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 therfore by their canons be punish­able, because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to thē. This is all that Epiphanius or Ieroms 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 sacramental, 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. Certainlie, the act of promoting a minister of the Church, is rather an act of iurisdiction then order. As it belongeth to policie and government, to call new Magistrates, where they are wanting. Obiect. But a new spirituall officer may be instituted by a sacrament. Answ. If God would so have collated the grace of spirituall callings; but hee 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 bee given. Obiect. They were extraordinarie, Answ. They might have had some ambulatorie sacrament for the time. Againe, imposition of hands was used in giving extraordi­nary graces, Act. 8. Secondly, were it a sacrament, it should conferre the grace of office, as well as grace sanctifying the person to use it holily. But we see that this it could not do As for Paul and Barnabas the Church did separate them at the command of God, and lay hands on them, and pray for them, but they were alreadie before this, immediatlie chosen by God to the grace of their office. It could be nothing then but a a gesture accompanied with praier, 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, praied for to God. Thus Antiquitie did think of it, as a gesture of one, by praier to God, seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministery. So Ecclesiasticallie it was used in baptising, in consecrating, in reconciling penetents, 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 bapt. sheweth this, saying, Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans spiri­tum sanctum. Ierom also contra Luciferanos, Non abnuo, hanc esse Eccle­siae consuetudinem ut Episcopus manum impositurus excurrat ad invo­cationem spiritus sancti. Amb. de dignit. sacerdot. Sacerdos imponit sup­plicem dextram. August. Quid aliud est manus impositio quam oratio. &c. The Greeke Churches haue ever given Orders by a forme of praier conceived with imposition of hands. Hence it is, that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses, where it could not bee 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 haue 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. Obiect. If one say they did lay on hands with them, but the Bishops imposition was properlie Consecrative and sacramen­tall, theirs Deprecative onelie. Answer. Besides that this is spo­ken without foundation, how absurd is it, that the verie selfe­same sacramentall rite should bee 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 iudge. Austin did account no other of imposition of hands, then a praier over a man, accompanied with that gesture. Secondlie, they doe not thinke that the Bishop ordaineth by divine right, it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramentall power: but that he onelie doth ordain quoad signum & ritum extrin­secum, by the Churches commission, though the right of ordaining bee in all the Presbyterie also. As in a Colledge the societie have right to choose a fellow, and to ordain 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 necessitie of Gods law. Whence by analogie and pro­portion, it followeth they think not ordination, or those other Epis­copall roialties to have been reserved to him by divine right. Beside there are more ancient proofes for Canonicall appropriating confir­mation, then for this imposition of hands. Cornelius speaketh thus of Novatus, hee wanted those things which hee 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 Iul. Never­thelesse Ierom iudgeth this also to have been yeelded them for ho­nour sake. And wee know that in the Bishops absence, Presbyters through the East did Consignare, through Grecia, through Arme­nia. Neither would Gregorie the great haue allowed Presbyters in the Greek Churches to have confirmed, had hee iudged it other­wise then Canonicallie to belong to the Bishops. That therefore which is not properly a sacramentall action, and that which is not appropriate to a Bishop further then Presbyters have committed it to him, that cannot make him in higher degree of ministerie then Presbyters are.

Thirdly, in reconciling penitents, the Presbyters did it in case of the Bishops absence: as is to bee gathered from the third Councell of Carthage, 32. And who thinkes blessing so appropriate to a Bi­shop, that Presbyters may not solemnlie blesse in the name of the Lord, though antiquitie reserved this to him. These therefore were kept to him, not as actes exceeding the Presbyters power of order, but for the supposed honor of him & the Church. For as Am­brose sayth, Vt omnes eadem possent irrationale, & vulgaris res, vilis (que) videretur. It pleaseth antiquitie therefore to set up one who should quoad exercitium doe manie things alone, not because that Presbyters could not, but it seemed in their eyes more to the honour of the Church, that some one should be interessed in them.

Fourthlie, Amalarius in a certaine booke sacred orders, doth con­fute the doctrine of an uncertain authour, who taught that one Bi­shop onelie was to lay hands on a Deacon: because he was consecra­ted not to Priesthood, but to ministerie and service. Nunquid scriptor libelti doctior & sanctior Apostolis quiposuerunt plures manus super Dia­conos quando consecrabantur, & propterea sotus Episcopus manus ponat su­per Diaconum acsisolus possit precari virtutem gratiarum quam plures Apo­stoli precabantur. Optimū est bonos duces sequi, qui certaverunt us (que) ad ple­nam victoriam. Whence it is plaine, hee did know no further thing in imposition then praier, which the more impose, is the more forcible.

Answer.

The proposition of the first Syllogisme it must bee thus fra­med. Those who had power of iurisdiction in themselves, with­out the concurrence of other Presbyters, as fellow judges, they were greater in maioritie of rule. Thus Bishops had not iurisdiction. True it is, they were called governours and Princes of their Chur­ches, because they were more eminent ministers, though they had [Page 61] not Monarchicall power in Churches, but Consull-like authoritie: and therefore when they affected this Monarchie, what sayd Ie­rom, Noverint se sacerdotes esse non dominos, noverint se non ad Principatum vocatos, sed ad servitium totius Ecclesiae. 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 they had it over any by humane constitution infallible. Presbyters were in great difference. Those who are called proprij sacerdotes, Re­ctores, Seniores, Minorum Ecclesiarum praepositi, the Bishop had not, nor challenged not that directive power over them, which hee did over those who were numbred amongst his Clerickes, who were helpes to him in the Liturgie, in Chappells and parishes which did depend on him as their proper teacher, though they could not so ordinarilie goe out to him. The first had power within their Churches, to teach, administer, excommunicate, were counted brethren to the Bishops, and called Episcopi, or Coepisco­pi, even of the Auncient: But the Presbyters, which were part of their Clergie, they had this directiue power over them, the Canons Ecclesiasticall allowing the same. But I take these lat­ter to have been but a corruption of governing presbyters, who came to bee made a humane ministery, 1. by having singular actes permitted. 2. by being consecrate to this, & so doing ex officio, what they were imploied in by the Bishop. But sure these are but helps to liturgie, according to the Canons. Preaching did not agree to them further then it could be delegated or permitted. Finally, we read, that by law it was permitted them: that it was taken away from them a­gain by the Bishops: that it was stinted and limited sometime as to the opening of the Lords praier, the Creed and 10 commandements: as it is plain to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient. Se­condlie, let us account them as ministers of the word, given by God to his church: then I say, they could not have any direction, but such as the Apostles had amongst Evangelists: and this power is given to the Bishops onelie 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 Bilson himself. These decrees were as justifiable, as that which forbiddeth any to baptise, who hath not gotten chrisme from the Bishop Con. Carth. 4. ca. 36. unlesse the phrases doe note onelie a precedence of order in the Bishop aboue 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 de­nie this majoritie of corrective power to have been in the Apostles themselves: they had only a ministry executiue 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 Evanglist, where Churches were constituted. Neither is the wri­ting to one aboue others, an argument that he had the power to doe all alone without concurrence of others. To that of Cyprian against Rogatian, we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would haue done it alone, or that he and his Presbyterie could have done it without the con­sent of Bishops neighbouring: but that he might in regular manner have been bold to have done it, because he might be sure, quod nos collegae tui omnes id r [...]tum haberemut. Cyprian was of iudgement, that he himself might do nothing without the consent of his Presbyters, unlesse he should violate his dutie, by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren. It was not modestie in him; but due observancie, such as he did owe unto his brethren. Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarilie any thing alone. He received some, the people and the brethren contradicting, lib. 1. ep. 3. but not till he had perswaded them, and brought them to be willing. Thou seest (saith he) what pains I have to perswade the brethren to patience. So againe, I hardly perswade the people, yea even wring it frō 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 extraordinarilie prevent both him and them, they had the right of suffrage, no lesse then himselfe, as by these epistles may appeare, l. 1. ep. 20. l. 2. ep. 5. l. 4. ep. 10. Ierom (though grandiloquent sometimes) did never thinke a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence, excommunicate. If he were as Moses, yet hee would haue these as the seventie. Againe, Ierom doth write expreslie of all in generall, Et nos senatum babemus, coetum Presbyterorum, sine quorum consilio nihil agi à quoquam licet, sicut Romani habuerun: senatum cujus consilio cuncta gerebantur. Epiphanius saith, Bishops governed Presbyters: but it doth not fol­low, that therfore they did it alone without concurrence of their com-Presbyters. As for the fixed Presbyters, the proofes are more unsufficient. The Bishop supplyed them, therefore they were under him. For colleges supply Churches, yet haue they no jurisdiction over them. Secondly, the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presby­ter obtruderetur. Thirdly, we distinguish majoritie of rule from some jurisdiction. We grant the Bishop had such a jurisdiction as concer­ned the Church, so farre as it was in societie with others, such as an Arch-bishop hath over a Province: but this did stand with the Re­ctors power of jurisdiction within his own Church. Fourthly, though they had power by his ministeriall interposition, yet this doth not proue them dependant on him. For Bishops haue their power from others ordaining them, to whom notwithstanding they are not sub­ject [Page 63] in their Churches. In case of delinquencie they were subject to the Bishop with the Presbyterie, 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 subiect to their Churches & Presbyters, 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 hee 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 primarie member of the Church for the representative Church, as Augustine sayth, Petrum propter Apostola­tus simplicitatem figuram Ecclesiae gessisse. See concil. Sardicen. c. 17. conc. Carth. 4. c. 2.3. Tol. 4. c. 4. Socr. l. 1. 3. Soz. l. 1. c. 14. As for such examples as Alexanders, it is strange that any will bring it, when hee did it not without a Synod of many Bishops, yea without his Cler­gie, as sitting in judgement with him. Chrysostoms fact fact is not to be iustified: for it was altogether irregular, savouring of the im­petuous nature to which is 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 maketh no­thing for the Bishops maioritie 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 collegiat life together, Eodem refectorio & dormitorio utebantur, & Canonicè viventes ab Episcopo in­struebantur. Now when all such Clerkes did live then as members of a Colledge under a maister, it is no wonder if they bee called head­lesse, who did belong to no Bishop. Secondly, say it were alike of all Presbyters, which will never be proved (for all Presbyters in the Diocesse were not belonging to the Bishops Clerks) say it were, yee will it not follow, that those who were under some, were subject to his authoritie of rule. For there is a head in regard of presidencie 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 Archbishops as heads. Priests therefore as well as Clerkes, did live under some iu­risdiction of the Bishops: but such as did permit them coercive power in their owne Churches, such as made the Bishop a head in regard of dignitie, and not of any power, vvhereby he might sway all at his pleasure. Thirdlie, if the Bishops degenerate to challenge Monarchie or tyrannie, it is better bee without such heads then to have them: as we are more happie 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 government of those Churches which presbyters had, because neither 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 enioyed but a Presby­ter, what assistants did they give him? what assistants had the Chore­pis [...]opi, who yet had government of their churches?

Answer.

To the proposition, we denie that it must needs be presently true, the contrarie wherof is generallie condemned for heresie. As the re­presentative catholick church may propound an errour, so she may condemne a particular truth, and yet remain a catholick church. To the assumption we deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every deniall of superioritie, but that onely which Aerius run into. Now his opinion I take to have been this. 1. He did with Ierom de­nie superioritie of anie kind as due by Christs ordinance: for this o­pinion was never counted heresie, it was Ieroms plainlie. 2. He did not denie the fact, that Bishops were superiour in their actuall admi­stration; he could not be so mad. If he had all that a Bishop had ac­tuallie, how could he have affected to be a Bishop, as a further ho­nour? Denial of superioritie, such as consisteth in a further power of order then a Presbyter hath, and in a kinglie monarchical majoritie of rule, this deniall is not here condemned: for all the fathers may be broughs as witnesses against this superioritie in the Church. What then was condemned in him? A denial of all superioritie in one mi­nister before another, though it were but of honor and dignitie: and secondlie the denying of this in schismaticall manner, so as to for­sake communion with the Church wherin it is. For in these words, [...], it seemeth [...] should be read [...], that there ought to be none. How­soever he is to be conceived as apposing practicallie the difference of honour & dignitie which was in the Church by Ecclesiastical in­stitution. What is this to us? Denial of superioritie ia regard of ho­nor & dignitie, joined with schisme, was condemned: Ergo, deniall of superioritie in power of order and kinglie majoritie of rule, kee­ping the bond of loue 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 aboue othersome, in order, honor, and dignity. But they un­derstand not by order such an order onely as is distinct, because some degree of dignitie is appropriate to it, which is not to other. Though this 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. Reinolds, Danaeus, to be blamed, who doe in some sort excuse him. For Bishops were grown such that many good persons were offended at them, as the Audiani. Yea, it was so ordinarie, that Ierome distinguisheth schisme from heresie, because the one conteined assertions against the faith, the other severed 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 storie of these time. Sure it is, Eusta­thius was a strong Arian, whom Aerius did oppose. Neither is it strange for 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 his opinion, they thought it rather schismatical, then hereticall: & therfore happily called it heresie, because it included er­rour in their understanding, which with schismaticall pertinacie was made heresie. Neither is it likely that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie, nor Austin following him. For though Austine was aged, yet he was so humble, that hee saith, Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri. Neither was it prejudice to his worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe, who in like­lyhood should know this matter also better. As for his calling it heresie, it is certaine he would not haue this in rigour streined. For he doth protest (in his preface unto that book of heresies) that none to his thought, can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie. Though therefore he doubted not of this, that Aerius was in errour, such as all Catho­lickes should decline: yet it doth not argue that he thought this errour in rigour and formall propriety, to haue been heresie. Thus much for this last Argument.

On the contrarie side I propound these Arguments following to be seriously considered.