THE DIOCESANS TRIAL.  
WHEREIN ALL THE SINEWS OF D. DOWNAMS' Defence are brought unto three heads, and orderly dissolved.  
By M. PAUL BAYNES.  
Imprinted. 1621.   

THE PREFACE.  
MAny writings, and sermons also have cause to wish that the men from whom they come were less known than they are. For than should they be free from much prejudice, and find better acceptance with those that they come to. But I wish nothing more unto this Treatise, which now is coming into the world, then that the Author of it were thoroughly known unto all those that shall meet with it; for than his work would need no borrowed commendation, the title itself carrying authority with it, even to force respect from every honest Reader, if either the sharpness of wit, variety of reading, depth of judgement, aptness to teach, holy and pleasant language, heavenly conversation, wise carriage, or any fullness of grace will so far prevail with him. I do not abuse good words, or load one with them whom they do not belong to, as many painters of Sepulchres in their funeral Orations use to do: but speak that in short, which M. Baines his person did largely preach unto all such as came near unto him: and that which his incomparable writings will sufficiently witness to future generations.  
Neither is this all that the Authors quality may suggest unto the considerate Reader: but he may arise from this to more important thoughts; especially if the remembrance of M. Baynes his worth do occasion him to think of many others like unto him: such as M. Deering, M. More, M. Greenham, M. Perkins, M. Rogers, M. Cartwright, M. Fenner, M. Brightman, M. Parker, M. Philip's, M. Hieron, & M. Bradshaw etc. to speak nothing of those which yet live, nor of D. Reinolds, D. Fulk, and D. whitaker's with many others. For all these being apprehended as men agreeing in one spirit, and having had indeed the spirit of glory resting on them, as their works do show, together with those letters testimonial which they left written in the hearts of many thousand Christians, it must needs cause at the least an inquiry, what the reason should be, that such famous men of God, could never like well of our Bishoply courses in England, nor ever be favoured of them. The case is plain to all: and the cause is as evident to those that have eyes to see: but no where more apparent then in the person of M. Baines, and the place where he, and others like him were made signs of this antipathy. Cambridge is or should be, as an eye to all our land: so that the alterations that fall out there cannot but be felt of all parts. It is the place of light; the spiritual oppressions which in other corners are covered with darkness (as all the works of darkness would be) when past all shame they come to confront the Sun itself, how can they then be hidden?  
When M. Perkins had there for many years held forth a burning and shining light, the sparks whereof did fly abroad into all corners of the land, and after he had served his time was taken up into heaven, there was none found so meet for to receive, as it were, the torch out of his hand, and succeed him in that great office of bearing it before such a people, as this M. Baines, upon whom also the spirit of that Elias, was by experience found to be doubled. In this station he so demeaned himself for some years, that impiety only had cause to complain: for all that favoured the ways of God, rejoiced and gloried in him and his ministery, as a spiritual treasure. But at length the hour of darkness came from Lambeth, when Arch. Bancroft sent M. Harsenet to visit, as they call it, that is (if terms may be interpreted by common practice) to pick the purses of poor men, and to suppress those that are not friends to the Bishop's Kingdom. For though in that circuit there were a multitude of unable and notoriously scandalous Ministers, yet none were found worthy of censure, but only M. Baynes, of whom the world was not worthy, and one other Preacher like unto him. Now it is hard to say, whether the silencing of him was more odious, or the manner of it shameless. There must be a Sermon (ye know) at such visitations, for fashion sake, though the Visitor himself can seldom find leisure to make it. This part was therefore appointed to M. Baynes by the visitors, that he might either be ensnared in his words, if he did not apply himself to their humours, or else grace their ungracious courses, if he did. But it did not succeed handsomely either way: For he delivered wholesome doctrine appertaining to the present audience, in such wary manner, that no specious occasion could be taken thereby of questioning his liberty. Yet fairly or foully the mischievous intention must not fail. M. Baines having heat his weak body by straining to speak unto a great audience, retired himself presently upon his coming down from the Pulpit to provide for his health, which otherwise would have been endangered. They in the mean time going on with their business, as they are wont in the masterly form of a muster, called for M. Barnes among the rest, and upon his not answering, though he was not cited thither as to a Court, but only entreated to preach, as he did, yet for not appearing, he was immediately silenced. Afterward in deed, the Chancellor being informed of that gross nullity, which was in that sentence, urged him about subscription and conformity; and so to make sure work, silenced him over again: In which business he was so conscious unto himself of unreasonable and ridiculous dealing, that when M. Baynes standing to receive the sentence of a corrupt man, did lift up his heart and eyes unto God with a heavenly smiling countenance, as he used, he interpreted that gesture to be a scorning of his authority. This being done, M. Baines was persuaded by his friends to try the Archbishop's courtesy, unto whom, when he presented himself, at the very first salutation, the gravity and severity of B. Bancroft led him sharply to rebuke the good man for a little black-work, which was upon the edges of his cuffs, ask him how he durst come before him with such cuffs, telling him very bishoplike, that it were a good turn to lay him by the heels for so doing. After this he would have no more to do with such absurd unreasonable men: but preached sometime where he might have liberty, as his weakness of body would suffer; and spent the rest of his time in reading, meditating, praying and writing, saving that upon occasion he did instruct or comfort those which came to him in private, wherein he had a heavenly gift. He was indeed all his life after, beside the weakness of his body pressed with want, not having (as he often complained to his friends) a place to rest his head in: which me thought was an upbraiding of the age and place where he lived with base regardlessness of piety and learning: yet he never so much as consulted with himself of denying his sincerity by pleasing the Bishops, of whom and their courses he was wont to say, They are a generation of the earth, earthly, and savour not the ways of God. Which saying of his, they, and some Doctors of Cambridge have since made good, in that they could not endure, that the place from whence they thrust him, should be supplied by other honest men, though they were conformable, but with absolute authority at length forbade it, alleging that Puritans were made by that lecture: whereas the truth is, that one lecture hath done more good to the Church of God in England, than all the doctors of Cambridge: though I do not deny, but some of them have wrought a good work.  
By this one instance (of which kind I would there were not a hundred in our land) it may easily appear to the understanding Reader, that there is as much agreement betwixt our Bishops in their managing of Religion (except some two or three, which went out of their elements, when they ventured on those places) and those powerful Preachers who have been the chief means of revealing God's arm unto salvation, as there is betwixt the light which cometh down from heaven, and that thick mist which ariseth from the lowest pit.  
But we need not seek for demonstrations of the spirit which worketh in our Hierarchy from this opposition, look but at the fruits of it, where it hath all fullness of consent, as in Cathedral Palaces, or Parishes of Bishops and Archbishop's residence, such as Lambeth is, where all their canons are in force, and have their full sway without contradiction: nay come nearer unto them, and take a view of their families, even to them that wait in their chambers, and see what godliness there is to be found. Have there not more of God and his Kingdom appeared in some one Congregation of those Ministers which they have silenced for unconformity, then in all the Bishop's families that are now in England? Was there ever any of them that could endure such a Parish as Lambeth is, if they had such power of reforming it as the Archbishops have?  
To return therefore unto our Author: whilst he lived a private life, being thus strucken with the Bishop's Planet, he had time to apply his able wit and judgement unto the discussing of many questions, which if the Prelates had not forced such leisure upon him, it may be he would have passed by with others. And among the rest, by God's providence he was directed to these Ecclesiastical Controversies which concern our Diocesan state in England: wherein, as in all other questions which he dealt in, he hath showed such distinct and piercing understanding, together with evidence of truth, as cannot but give good satisfaction to him that in these things seeketh light.  
He might in deed have chosen other particular corruptions to have written on, if it had been his purpose either to have taught men, what they daily see and feel, or to have laboured about the branches, and leave the root untouched: But it was no delight unto him, for to prove that which no man doubted of, as that the common course and practise of our Prelates their courts, their urging of subscriptions, with human superstitious ceremonies, are presumptuous insolences against God and his Church: or preposterously to begin at the end of the stream for to cleanse the water. He chose rather to search the fountain of all that foulness wherewith our Churches are soiled: which he judged to be found in the constitutions here in this Treatise examined. And if these few questions be well considered, it will appear that a multitude of pernicious abuses do depend on those positions which in them are confuted. One fundamental abuse in our Ecclesiastical oppression is in the disposing of charges, or placing of Ministers over Congregations: It is called usually bestowing of Benefices or Live, in an earthy phrase which savoureth of the base corruption commonly practised. For Congregations ought not to be bestowed on Ministers, but Ministers on Congregations: the benefit or benefice of the minister, is not so much to be regarded, as of the Congregation: It is the calling and charge which every Minister should look at, not his living and benefice. Now these Benefices are bestowed ordinarily by the Patron (whether Popish, profane, or religious, all is one) and the Bishop, without any regard of the people's call or consent: so as no lawful marriage is made; no servant placed: against all Scripture, Counsels and ancient examples. Whereby it cometh ordinarily to pass, that Lawyers must determine of Ministers callings, after long suits and great charges; as if Congregations and Farms were held by one title and right. And sometime it is found that the Minister is a continual plague unto his people, living in contention, spite and hatred with them, as many law-suits do too too plainly witness. What is the reason? Because Parishes are esteemed as no Churches, that ever were ordained by Christ, or received any power and privileges from him, but as man's creatures, and by man to be ordered as it pleaseth him. Another practice of like nature with the former, is that the Minister being called to one Congregation, becometh a Pluralist by taking another, or more live, in spite of that Congregation, to which he was first and is still personally tied. And after all this he may be a non-resident, abiding or preaching at none of his many live. Nay he may chop and change, sell and buy like a merchant, so he do it closely; which is such an abomination, as Rome and Trent condemneth, and hell itself will scarce defend. What is the ground? Because (forsooth) Christ hath not appointed Parishes, their officers, and offices, and therefore no man is bound further in this kind, than men's Laws, canons, customs, and injunctions do prescribe unto them. For a grave Doctor of Cambridge answered one that questioned him for his gross non-residency, viz. that Parishes were divided by a Pope: insinuating as it seemeth that he accounted it a point of Popery, for to tie Ministers unto their particular charges,  
A third gross corruption is, that the officers in Congregations, Ministers, Churchwardens, etc. are made servants to the Bishops, Chancellors, Archdeacon's, &c. being, as it were, their promoters, informers, and executioners, in all matters of jurisdiction and government, for to bring in money into their purses: for performance also of which service to them, the Churchwardens upon every occasion are enforced to take such corporal oaths as not one of them doth ever keep. What other ground of this, beside the forementioned, that particular Congregations are no spiritual incorporations, and therefore must have no officers for government within themselves?  
Now all these confusions with many other of the same kind, how they are condemned in the very foundation of them, M. Baines here showeth in the first question, by maintaining the divine constitution of a particular Church, in one Congregation. In which question he maintaineth against his adversaries a course not unlike to that which Armachanus, in the days of King Edward the third, contended for against the begging Friars in his book called The Defence of Curates: For when those Friars encroached upon the privileges of Parochial Ministers, he withstood them upon these grounds: Ecclesia Parochialis juxta verba Mosis Deut. 12. est locus electus a Deo, in quo debemus accipere cuncta quae praecipit Dominus ex Sacramentis. Parochus est ordinarius Parochiani: est persona a Deo praecepta, vel mandato De● ad illud ministerium explendum electa: Which if they be granted, our adversaries cause may go a begging with the foresaid Friars.  
Another sort of corruptions there are, which though they depend upon the same ground with the former, yet immediately flow out of the Hierarchy. What is more dissonant from the revealed will of Christ in the Gospel, even also from the state of the Primitive Church, then that the Church and Kingdom of Christ should be managed as the Kingdoms of the world; by a Lordly authority, with external pomp, commanding power, contentious courts of judgement, furnished with chancellors, officials, commissaries, advocates, proctor's, paritors, and such like human devises? Yet all this doth necessarily follow upon the admitting of such Bishops as ours are in England: who not only are Lords over the flock but do profess so much in the highest degree, when they tell us plainly, that their Laws or Canons do bind men's consciences. For herein we are like to the people of Israel, who would not have God for their immediate King, but would have such Kings as other Nations: Even so the Papists, and we after them, refuse to have Christ an immediate King in the immediate government of the Church; but must have Lordly Rulers with state in Ecclesiastical affairs, such as the world hath in civil.  
What a miserable pickle are the most of our Ministers in, when they are urged to give an account of their calling? To a Papist in deed they can give a shifting answer, that they have ordination from Bishops, which Bishops were ordained by other Bishops, and they, or their ordeyners by Popish Bishops: this in part may stop the mouth of a Papist: but let a Protestant which doubteth of these matters move the question: and what then will they say? If they fly to popish Bishops, as they are popish, then let them go no longer masked under the name of Protestants. If they allege succession by them from the Apostles, than (to say nothing of the appropriating of this succession unto the Pope's chair, in whose name, and by whole authority our English Bishops did all things in times past) than I say they must take a great time for the satisfying of a poor man concerning this question, and for the justifying of their station. For until that out of good records they can show perpetual succession from the Apostles unto their Diocesan which ordained them, and until they can make the poor man which doubteth, perceive the truth and certainty of those records (which I wisse they will do at leisure) they can never make that succession appear. If they fly to the King's authority, the King himself will forsake them, and deny that he taketh upon him to make or call Ministers. If to the present Bishops and Archbishops, alas they are as far to seek as themselves, and much further. The proper cause of all this misery is the lifting up of a lordly Prelacy, upon the ruins of the Church's liberties.  
How intolerable a bondage is it, that a Minister being called to a charge, may not preach to his people except he hath a licence from the Bishop or Archbishop: Cannot receive the best of his Congregation to communion if he be censured in the spiritual Courts, though it be but for not paying of six pence which they required of him in any name, be the man otherwise never so innocent: nor keep one from the communion, that is not presented in those Courts, or being presented is for money absolved, though he be never so scandalous: and must often times (if he will hold his place) against his conscience put back those from communion with Christ, whom Christ doth call unto it (as good Christians if they will not kneel) and receive those that Christ putteth back, at the command of a mortal man.  
What a burden are poor Ministers pressed with, in that many hundreds of them depend upon one Bitshop and his Officers: they must hurry up to the spiritual Court upon every occasion, there to stand with cap in hand, not only before a Bishop, but before his Chancellor, to be railed on many times at his pleasure: to be censured, suspended, deprived, for not observing some of those Canons, which were of purpose framed for snares, when far more ancient and honest canons are every day broken by these judges themselves for lucre sake, as in the making of Utopian Ministers, who have no people to minister unto; in their holding of commendams, in their taking of money, even to extortion, for orders and institutions: in their simony, as well by giving as by taking: and in all their idle, covetous, and ambitious pomp? For all these and such like abuses, we are beholding to the lordliness of our Hierarchy: which in the root of it, is here overthrown by M. Bayne in the conclusions of the second and third Question. About which he hath the very same controversy, that Marsilius Patavinus in part undertook long since, about the time of Edward the second, against the Pope. For he in his book called Defensor pacis, layeth the same grounds that here are maintained. Some of his words, though they be large, I will here set down for the Readers information.  
Potestas clavium sive solvendi & ligandi, est essentialis & insparabilis Presbytero inquantum Presbyter est. In hac authoritate, Episcopus a sacerdote non differt, teste Hieronymo, imo verius Apostoi●, cuius etiam est aperta sententia. Inquit enim Hieronymus super Mat. 16. Habent quidem eandem judiciariam potestatem alii Apostoli, habet omnes Ecclesia in Presbyteris & Episcopis: praeponens in hoc Presbyteros, quoniam authoritas haec debetur Presbytero, in quantum Presbyter, primo, & secundum quod ipsum. Haec nomina Presbyter & Episcopus in primitiva Ecelesia fuerunt synomina, quamvis a diversis proprietatibus eidem imposita fuerint, Presbyter ab aetate nomen impositum est, quasi senior: Episcopus vero a dignitate, ceu cura super alios, quasi superintendens. Many things are there discoursed to the same purpose, dict. 2. c. 15. It were too long to recite all. Yet one thing is worthy to be observed how he interpreteth a phrase of Jerome so much alleged, and built upon by the patrons of our Hierarchy. Jerome saith ad Evagr. that a Bishop doth nothing, excepting ordination, which a Presbyter may not do. Of this testimony D. Downam avoucheth, that nothing can be more pregnant than it, to prove that Bishops were superior to Presbyters in power of ordination. But hear what this ancient Writer saith, Ordinatio non significat ibi potestatem conferendi, ceu collationem sacrorum ordinum: sed oeconomicam potestatem regulandi vel dirigendi Ecclesiae ritus, atque personas, quantum ad exercitium divini cultus in templo; unde ab antiquis legumlatoribus vocantur Oeconomi reverendi.  
It would be overlong to declare all the use which may be made of this Treatise, which being itself so short, forbiddeth prolixity in the Preface. If the Author had lived to have accomplished his purpose in perfecting of this work, he would (it may be) have added such considerations as these: or at least he would have left all so clear, that any attentive Reader might easily have concluded them from his premises. For supply of that defect, these practical observations are noted: which with the dispute itself, I leave to be pondered by the conscionable Reader.   

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER CHRIST DID INSTITUTE OR THE APOSTLES frame any Diocesan form of Churches, or Parishional only.  
FOR determining this Question, we will first set down the Arguments which affirm it. Secondly, those which deny. Thirdly, lay down some responsive conclusions, and answer the objections made against that part we take to be the truth.  
Those who affirm the frame of Diocesan Churches, vouch their Arguments: partly from Scripture: partly from precedents, or instances sacred and Ecclesiastical. Finally, from the congruity it hath with reason, that so they should be continued.  
The first objection is taken from comparing those two Scriptures. Titus 1.5. Act. 14.23. Ordain Elders City by City. They ordained Elders Church by Church. Hence it is thus argued. They who ordained that a City, with the Suburbs and region about it, should make but one Church, they ordained a Diocesan Church. But the Apostles, who use these phrases as aequipollent, To ordain Presbyters in every City, and to ordain them in every Church, appointed, that a City, with the suburbs and region about it, should make but one Church. Ergo, the Apostles constituted a Diocesan Church.  
The reason of the proposition is, because Christians converted in a City, with the suburbs, villages, and countries about it, could not be so few, as to make but a Parishional Church. The Assumption is clear, for these phrases are used, as add aequate, and being so used, needs it must be that the Apostles framed Cities, suburbs, and regions into one Church.  
2 They argue from examples: Sacred and Ecclesiastical. Sacred are taken out of the old and new Testament. Ecclesiastical, from the Primitive times, and from Patterns in our own times: yea, even from such Churches, is we hold reform, as those in Belgia and Geneva.  
To begin with the Church of the jews in the old Testament, whence they reason thus. That which many particular Synagogues were then (because they were all but one Common wealth, and had all but one profession) that may many Christian Churches now be upon the like grounds. But they then, though many Synagogues, yet because they were all but one Kingdom, and had all but one profession, were all one national Church. Ergo, upon like grounds many Churches with us, in a Nation or City, may be one Nationall or Diocesan Church.  
Secondly, the Church of jerusalem in the New-testament is objected. 1 That which the Apostles intended should be a head Church to all Christians in judea, that was a Diocesan Church. But this they did by the Church of jerusalem. Ergo: 2. That which was more numbersome, then could meet Parishionally, was no parishional but Diocesan Church. But that Church was such. First, by growing to 3000, than 5000, Act. 2.41. & 4.4. then to have millions in it, Act. 21.20. Ergo, the Church of jerusalem was not a Parishional, but a Diocesan Church.  
Thirdly, the Church of Corinth is objected to have been a Metropolitan Church. He who writing to the Church of Corinth, doth write to all the Saints in Achaia with it, doth imply, that they were all subordinate to that Church. But this doth Paul, 1. Cor. 2.1. Ergo. Secondly, He who saluteth jointly the Corinthians and Achaians, and calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia, and names it with pre-eminence before the rest of Achaia, doth imply that the Church of Corinth was the Metropolitan Church to which all Achaia was subject. But the Apostle doth this, 2 Cor. 9.2. & 11.11.8.9.10. Ergo.  
Fourthly, that which was the mother City of all Macedonia, the Church in that City must be, if not a Metropolitan, yet a Diocesan Church. But Philipi was so. Ergo.  
The fifth is from the Churches of Asia, which are thus proved, at least to have been Diocesan. 1 Those seven Churches which contained all other Churches in Asia strictly taken, whether in City or Country, those seven were for their circuit, Metropolitan, or Diocesan Churches. But those seven did contain all other in Asia. Ergo. 2 He who writing to all Churches in Asia, writeth by name, but to these seven, he doth imply, that all the rest were contained in these. But Christ writing to the seven, writeth to all Churches in Asia, not to name that two of these were Metropolitan Cities, viz. Philadelphia, & Pergamus, seats Diocesan at least. 3 He who maketh the singular Church he writeth to, to be a multitude of Churches, not one only (as the body is not one member only) he doth make that one Church, to which he writeth in singular, to be a Diocesan Church. But Christ in his epiphonematical conclusion to every Church, which he had spoken to in singular, doth speak of the same as of a multitude. Let him that hath cares, hear, what the Spirit saith to the Churches. Ergo  
Thus leaving Sacred examples, we come to Ecclesiastical.  
First, in regard of those ancient Churches, Rome, Alexandria. It is impossible they should be a Parishional Congregation 200 years after Christ. For if the multitude of Christians did in Jerusalem so increase within a little time, that they exceeded the proproportion of one Congregation, how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 years, that they could not keep in one particular Assembly. But the first is true. Ergo, also the latter. Which is yet further confirmed by that which Tertullian and Cornelius testify of their times.  
To come from these to our modern reformed Churches, these prove a Diocesan Church. That respect which many congregations distinct may have now assembled in one place, that they may have severed in many places. For the unity of the place is but extrinsicke to the unity of the congregation. But many distinct congregations gathered in one City Church, may make, we say, one Church as they do in the Netherlands. Ergo, distinct congregations, severed in divers places may make one Church. It many Churches, which may subject themselves to the govornment of one Presbytery, may so make one, they may subject themselves to a Bishop and Cathedral Consistory, and so make one. But the 24 Churches of Geneva, and the territories belonging to it, do subject themselves to the government of one Presbytery, and so make one. For so far as two meet in a third, they are one in it Ergo.  
The third principal Argument is from reason. If City Churches only, and not the Churches of Villages, and Country Towns, had Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons placed in them, than were those City Church's Diocesan Churches. But City Churches only had these. Ergo, City Churches were Diocesan, distinguished from Parishional Churches. The Assumption is proved first by Scripture, Titus 1.5. Act. 14.23. Secondly, this is proved by Ecclesiastical Story. They who are given to labour the conversion of the Regions, rather than tend those already converted, they were not given to a Parishional Church. But the Presbyters planted by the Apostles were so. Ergo. They who were set in a Church before Parishes were, could not be given to a Parishional Church. But such were the Presbyters of the Apostles institution, Ergo. For it is plain in the practice of all ages, from the first division, that no Church but the mother Church had a Presbytery and a Bishop, but Presbyters only. Nay, it was ever by Counsels condemned, and by the judgement of the ancient forbidden, that in Towns or Villages, any but a Presbyter should be planted. 3 This is also proved by reason, for it was no more possible to have Bishops & Presbyters in every Parish, then to have a Mayor and Aldermen (such as we have in London) in every Town. 2 If every Parish had a Presbyter, than had they power of ordination, and furnishing themselves with a Minister, when now they were destitute. But they were always in this case dependent on the City. Ergo, there was then a Diocesan Church having government of others. Presbyters could not ordain: sede vacant, though they did at first, as in the Church of Alexandria. Let any show for 400 years a Parishional Church with a Presbytery in it.  
Now we must muster those forces which oppose these Diocesan Churches, allowing only such Churches to be instituted of Christ, which may meet in one Congregation ordinarily.  
The word which without some modification superadded, doth signify only such a company as called forth, may assembly Politically, that word being alone, doth signify such a Church as may to holy purposes ordinarily meet in one. But the word Church, which Christ and his Apostles did institute, is used indefinitely, and signifieth no more. Ergo. Vbi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum. 2 The Scripture speaketh of the Churches in a Kingdom or Province, always in the plural number, without any note of difference, as equal one with the other. Ergo, it doth not know Provincial, Nationall, or Diocesan Churches. Let a reason be given, why it should never speak in the singular number, had they been a singular Church.  
Secondly, let us come to examples: the Churches the Apostles planted were such as might and did congregate.  
First, that of Jerusalem, though there were in it toward 500 Synagogues, yet the Christian Church was but one, and such as did congregate into one place ordinarily after the access of 5000 to it. Act. 2.46. & 5.12. & 6.1. & 15.25. & 21.22. & 25.22. For their ordinary meeting, as it is, Act. 2.46. daily, could not be a Panegericall meeting. Again, if they might meet Synodically, why might they not meet then in daily course; though the universal meeting of a Church is not so fitly called Synodical: And though they are said to be millions of believers, yet that was by accident of a circumstance, happily the Passeover. We must not judge the greatness of a water by that it is, when now it is up and swelleth by accident of some inundations. They had not a settled state there, by which they did get the right of being set members. Yea, it is likely, they were and continued but one congregation. For 40 years after they were not so great a multitude, but that P●lla, like to the Zohar of Lot, a little Town could receive them. But more of this in the answer to the objection.  
Secondly, so the Church of Antiochia, was but one church. Act. 14.27. they are said to have gathered the Church together. Ob. That is the Ministers, or representative Church. Ans. 1 For Ministers only the Church is never used. 2 By analogy, Act. 11. Peter gave account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithful. Ergo. 3. They made relation to that Church, which had sent the forth with prayer & imposition of hands, & this Church stood of all those who assembled to the public service and worship of God. 4. The people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of decrees sent them by the Apostles from Jerusalem. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, the church of Corinth was one congregation, which did for the service of God, or exercise of Discipline meet together. 1. Cor. 5.4. 1. Cor. 14.25. ver. 26. 1. Cor. 11.17. ver. 23. in uno & eodem loco. That whole church which was guilty of a sinner uncast forth, could not be a Diocesan church, neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming together, ever be showed to signify any thing else, besides one particular Assembly.  
Fourthly, the church of Ephesus was but one flock. First, it is likely that it was of no other form then the other. Secondly, it was but one flock; that flock which Presbyters might jointly feed, was but one. They had no Diocesan Pastor. If Presbyters only, than none but Parishional Churches in and about Ephesus. There may be many flocks, but God ordained none, but such as may wholly meet with those, who have the care of feeding and governing of them. Peter indeed, 1. Pet. 5.2. calleth all those he writeth to, one flock: but that is in regard either of the mystical estate of the faithful, or in respect of the common nature which is in all churches one and the same: but properly, and in external adunation, one flock is but one congregation. Thirdly, Parishes according to the adverse opinion, were not then divided. Neither doth the long and fruitful labours of the Apostles argue, that there should be Parish churches in Diocesan wise added; but a greater number of sister churches. But when it is said that all Asia did hear: the meaning is, that from hand to hand it did run through Asia, so as Churches were planted every where, even where Paul came not, as at Colosse. There might be many churches in Asia, and many converted by Peter and others fruitful labour without subordination of churches.  
Examples Ecclesiastical. 1 Ignatius exhorteth the church of the Ephesians, though numbersome, to meet together often in one place, Epist. to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians: where the Bishop is, let the people be gathered to him, as where Christ is, there is the whole host of heaven. He calleth his church of Antioch a Synagogue of God, which cannot agree to a Diocesan church: For these were particular congregations, opposed as to that Nationall church, so to all Provincial and Diocesan. Neither doth he call himself Bishop of Syria, but as he was, Bishop of the congregation in Syria, as a Minister styleth himself a Minister of the church of England.  
2 justine and Ireneus knew no kind of church in the world which did not assemble on the Sabbath. But a Diocesan church cannot.  
3 Tertullian Apol. cap. 39 doth show that all churches in his time did meet, and did worship God, in which prayers, readings, exhortations, and all manner of censures were performed. He knew no churches which had not power of censures within themselves.  
4 Churches are said at first to have been Parishes, & Parishes with in cities, in Euseb. lib. 3.44. lib. 4. cap. 21. lib. 2. c. 6. l. 4. c. 25. and S. john l. 3. c. 23. saith to the Bishop, red juvenem quem tibi ego & Christus teste Ecclesia tua tradidimus. That church in whose presence john might commit his depositum, or trust, was but one congregation, lib. 4. c. 11. Hyginus and Pius are said to have undertaken the ministery of the church of Rome: which church was such therefore, as they might minister unto. l. 7.7 Dionysius Alex. writeth to Xistus, and the church which he governed. A Diocesan church cannot receive letters. Before julian and Demetrius his time, there is no mention of churches in a Bishop's parish. The church of Alexandria was within the city, l. 7. c. 2. Cornelius is said, officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae ex Cyp. l. 1. epist. 3. Cornelius Foelicissimum ex Ecclesia pepulit qui eum tamen de provincia pellere non potuit. Vide Ruffinum lib. 1. c. 6. suburbicarariarum Ecclesiarum tantum curam gessit. Cyprian was Pastor Paroeciae in Carthagine, of the Parish in Carthage, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. ex verbis Cipriani, llb. 1. ep. 4.  
5 It is the rule of Scripture, that a Bishop should be chosen in sight of his people. Bishops were chosen long after by the people. As of Rome, and others by the people committed to them. lib. 4. epist. 1. Neighbour Bishops should come to the people over whom a Bishop was to be set, and chose the Bishop in presence of the people. Schisms were said to be from thence, Quod Episcopo universa fraternitas non obtemperat, Cipr. ep. 55. tota fraternitas i unius congregationis tota multitudo, ex qua componitur Ecclesia particularis. Sabino de universae fraternitatis suffragio Episcopatus fuit delatus. Cipr. l. 1. ep, 47.58.68. Ecclesiae igitur circuitus non fuit maior, quàm ut Episcopus totam plebem suam in negotiis huiusmodi convocare potuerit. Soc. lib. 7. c. 3. de Agapeto. Convocavit omnem clerum & populum qui erat intra illius jurisdictionem.  
6 The Chorepiscopi were Bishops in Villages; there is no likelihood of the other notation. Their adversaries in opposing them never object that they were as Delegates, or Suffragan Bishops to them.  
7 Bishops were wont to go forth to confirm all the baptised through the Diocese.  
8 They were neighbours, and might meet a dozen, six, three, in the cause of a Bishop.  
9 They were united, sometimes in Provincial Counsels, in which many Bishops met twice yearly, Ruffian. l. 1. c. 6. Victor Vticensis reporteth in a time when they were fewest in Africa in persecution Vandalica, 660 fled to save themselves. Austin saith there were innumerable orthodox Bishops in Africa: and the Prouninciall Counsels do confirm the same.  
Now by reason it is clear that churches were not Metropolitan or Diocesan.  
1 That church whose causes are wanting, that church is wanting. But in a Diocesan church causes are not to be found. Ergo.  
First, the efficient cause, God ordaining. For none can take on him to be a minister Diocesan: no place to be a place, where the Assembly Diocesan should be held; no people can worship God in repairing to this place and ministry, without warrant of his word. Ergo. The Nationall church of the jews, Aaron and his sons took not that honour, it was given them: The place of the Nationall meeting, God chose Jerusalem. The people he precisely bound to practise some ordinances of worship no where but there, and to appear there before him. Secondly, the matter of a Diocesan church is people within such a circuit, obliged to meet at least on solemn days, wheresoever the Diocesan Ministers and Ordinances of worship are exercised; Pastors who have callings to tend them and minister to them in this Diocesan meeting now assembled. Finally, the actual meetings of them to such end, as such more solemn and public meetings are ordained to, are no where commanded, nor in any fashion were ever by any warrant of the Word practised.  
If any say, these are not the causes of a Diocesan church, but an ordinance of God binding persons within such a circuit to subject themselves to such a church and the ministery thereof, that they may be governed by them.  
I answer. First, there is no ordinance of God for this, that can be showed, that churches within such a circuit should be tied to a certain head church for government. Nay it is false. For every church by Christ's institution hath power of government; and the Synagogue had in ordinary matters, the government that the Church of jerusalem had; (being all over) except only in some reserved causes. Secondly, I say, that this will not make a Diocesan church formally so called. As a Nationall church could not formally be without binding the whole Nation to exercise ordinances of worship in the head church of it: So by proportion. Yea government is a thing which doth now accidere to a church constituted, and doth not essentially concur as matter or form to constitute a church of this or that kind. Again, were this true, that the Diocesan Pastors and Ministers have only government committed to them, than it will follow, that they only have the governing of particular churches, who are not any way Pastors of them, ministering Word and Sacraments to them. But this is most absurd, that their proper and ordinary Pastors, who dispense Word and Sacraments to them, should not have potestatem pedi, nothing to do in governing those flocks which depend on them. If any say, they were not actu, but they were virtute potenty: I say, it is also to make the Apostles churches imperfect: and how can this be known but by a presumed intention, which hath nothing to show it, but that after event of things.  
From the effect I argue.  
2 Those churches which Christ did ordain and the Apostles plant, might ordinarily assemble to the ordinances of worship. But a Diocesan church cannot ordinarily assemble. Ergo. For when God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and the Sabbath is for man, he will not for ever ordain a thing so unequal and impossible, as is the ordinary assembling of a Diocesan multitude. If any distinguish the assumption, and consider a Diocesan as she is in her parts, or as she is a totum, standing of her parts now collected together, and say she may, and doth meet and communicate, and edify herself in the first respect. I answer, this is nothing, and doth prove her to be nothing, as she is a Diocesan Church; quia quid quid est, agit secundum quod est. If therefore a Diocesan Church were a real Church, she must have the effect of such a Church; to wit, assembling, as she is Diocesan. The Synagogues through Israel met Sabbath by Sabbath, but were no Nationall Church in this regard; that is to say, as it is a Nationall Church, it had her Nationall real meetings.  
I reason thirdly from the subject.  
3 That Church which doth per se, essentially require local bounds of place, that must have local limits set forth of God. But a Diocesan Church doth so. Ergo. Whence I thus infer, He who institutes a Diocesan Church, must needs set out the local bounds of this Church. But God hath not set out any local bounds of the Church in the New Testament: Ergo, he hath not instituted any Diocesan Church. The proposition is certain: for this doth enter in the definition of a Diocesan Church, as also of a Nationall. And therefore God instituting the Nationall Church of the jews, did as in a map set forth the limits of that nation. So also if he had instituted Diocesan and Provincial Churches, he would have appointed local bounds, if not particularly described, yet known and certain. But God hath not done this. For the Church of the New Testament is not thus tied to places; it being so with the power of teaching, and the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, that it doth respicere subditos only per se, not terminos locales. Civil jurisdiction doth respicere solum primarily, the subjects on it in the second place. As for that commandment of appointing Presbyters City by City, it is too weak a sparr for this building. Again, that Church which may be said to be in a City, is not Diocesan. But the Churches which the Apostles planted, are said to be in Cities. Ergo. If one say to the proposition, they may; because the head Church is in the City. Answer. The Churches the Apostles planted are taken for the multitude of Saints united into such a body Ecclesiastical. But the multitude of Saints through a Diocese cannot be said to be in a City. Ergo, The soul may be said to be in the head, though it be in other parts; and God in heaven. God, because of his most infinite and indivisible nature; And so the soul, because it is indivisible, and is as all of it in every part, not as a thing placed in a place containing it, but as a form in that which is informed by it. But in things which have quantity, and are part out of another, there is not the like reason.  
4 From the adjuncts. That Church which hath no time set, wherein to assemble, is no Church. I suppose the ground above, that nothing but union of a Diocese in worship, can make a Diocesan church. But this Church hath no time. Ordinary it cannot have; extraordinary solemnities God hath not commanded. Ergo, there is no such Church. For if it be a real Diocesan Church, it must have a real action according to that nature of which it is. The action formal of a Church indefinite is to meet and communicate in worship. Of a Nationall Church, is to meet nationally and communicate in worship. If then it must meet, it must have some time set down, ordinary or extraordinary. But God hath done neither. The Churches, which the Apostles planted, were in their times most perfect and flourishing. But Diocesan Churches were not: for in those times they were but in seminali enfolded, not explicated, as the adversaries confess.  
4 That which maketh God's dispensation incongruous to his ministers, is absurd. But a Diocesan frame of Church doth so. Ergo. That which maketh God give his extraordinary gifts to ministers of churches in the Apostles times, when now they had but one congregation, and give ordinary gifts only when now they had 800 churches under them, is absurd. But this doth the Diocesan frame. Ergo.  
5 The churches through out which a Presbyter might do the office of a teaching Presbyter, and a Deacon the office of a Deacon, were not Diocesan. But every Presbyter might minister in the word and sacraments throughout the Church to which he was called; so might a Deacon tend to the poor of the whole church, whereof he was a Deacon. Ergo, these were not Diocesan. The reason of the proposition is. No Presbyter can through many congregations perform ordinary ministery. In which regard the Canon law forbiddeth that Presbyters should have many Churches, C. 10. q. 3. una plures Eccles●e uni nequaquam committantur Presbytero; quia solus per Ecclesias nec officium valet persolvere, nec rebus earum necessariam curans impendere.  
6 If God had planted Diocesan churches, that is, ordained that all within city, suburbs, and regions, should make but one Diocesan Church, then may not two Dioceses be united into one Church, or another Church and Bishop be set within the circuit of a Diocesan church. But neither of these are so. The judgement of the African fathers show the one, and the Canon law doth show the other. p. 2. c. 16.41. Ergo.  
7 If God appointed the frame of the church Diocesan standing of one chief church, others united in subjection: then can there not be the perfection of a church in one congregation. But where there may be a sufficient multitude deserving a proper Pastor or Bishop, requiring a number of Ptesbyters and Deacons to minister unto them, there may be the perfection of a church. But in some one congregation may be such a multitude. Ergo.  
8 Those churches which may lawfully have Bishops, are such churches as God instituted. But churches in Towns, populous Villages, have had, & may have their Bishops. Ergo. This is proved by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every populous Town, such as our market towns, and others; yea by a synecdoche, villages; for there they taught as well as in Cities. There were Synagogues as well as in Cities. They excepted against them afterward in unconformitie to Law. The testimony of Zozomen showeth what kind of congreations were they of which Epiphanius testifieth. And the fathers of Africa did not require, that a Diocesan multitude, but a sufficient multitude, not through every part, for than they should have had to do in City churches, but in that part of the Diocese where a Presbyter only had served the turn, should have their Bishop.  
If Diocesan churches, and provincial churches be God's frame, than we had no Churches in Britain of God's frame, before that Austin was sent by Gregory the great. But here were churches from before Tertullian, after the frame God requireth, at least in their judgements. Ergo.  
Now to come to open the terms, and lay down conclusions: whether Diocesan or Parishional Churches were constistuted.  
First, the word Church we understand here, not figuratively; taken Metonymically for the place, Synced. for Minister's administering ordinances: but properly, for a body politic, standing of people to be taught and governed, and of teachers and governors.  
Secondly, it may be asked, what is meant by a Diocesan church? Ans. Such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head church, as partaking in holy things, or at least in that power of government which is in the chief church, for all the other within such or such a circuit. These phrases of a Diocese, a Diocesan Bishop, or Church, are all since the time of Constantine, yea the two last much later. A Diocese seemeth from the commonwealth to have been taken up in the Church, from what time Bishops had Territories, ample domains, and some degree of civil jurisdiction annexed to them. For a Diocese by the Lawyers, is a circuit of provinces, such as the Romans Precedents had: or active, an administration of those Provinces with jurisdiction. L. unica. c. nt omnes judices. And in the Canon law, sometimes Provincia and Diocoesis are used promiscuously. dist. 50. c. 7. But the ancientest use of this word was to note the Territory, or Country circuit, opposed to the City. Thus the Country churches are called Diocaesame Ecclesiae, cont. tur. c. 8.  
Thus Baptismales Ecclesiae were contradistinguished to Parishional. These had every one a Diocese, and the inhabitants were called Diocoesani: these churches had a moyite of houses dwelling in neighbourhood that belonged to them; but at length by a Synecdoche, the whole Church was called a Diocese; though the Canonists dispute whether it may be so called, seeing the Diocese is the meaner part by much, in comparison of the City, and should not give the denomination to the whole. So at length the Bishop was called Diocoesanus and the Church which had been called Ecclesia civitatis, matrix, nutrix, Cathedralis, grew to be called Diocesan. But here we take a Diocesan Church for such a head Church, with which all Churches in such a circuit hath real union, and communion in some sacred things. Now a Diocesan Church may be put objective, that is, for a Church in which are ministers and ministery for the good of the whole Diocese, though they should never assemble, as the worship in the Church of jerusalem was for all judea, & profited though absent. Or it may be put formally for a body politic, a congregation of believers through a Diocese, with the ministers of the same, having some real union and communion in sacred things. We deny any such Church.  
A Parishional Church may be considered Materially or Formally, Materially, as it is a Church within such local bounds, the members whereof dwell contiguously one bordering upon the other. This God instituted not, for it is accidental to the Church, may abbess and adesse a Church remaining one. If a Parishional Church in London should dwell, as the Dutch do, one far enough from the other, while the same believers were united with the same governors, the Church were not changed, though the place were altered. Secondly, it is put formally, for a multitude which do in manner of a Parish ordinarily congregate; such Churches, and such only we say God erected.  
Now for some conclusions, what we agree in, than what severs us.  
Conclus. 1. Churches of Cities, Provinces, Kingdoms, may be called Diocesan, Provincial, National Churches, as the Churches of the world are called Ecumenical, yea haply not without warrant of Scripture; As 1. Pet. 1.1. writing to all those dispersed Churches, speaketh of them singularly as of one flock, 1. Pet. 5.2. The reason is, things may be called not only as they are really in themselves, but according to some respect of reason, under which we may apprehend them.  
Concl. 2. That there may be a real Diocesan, Nationall, or head Church, wherewith others should be bound to communicate more solemnly in word & sacraments, and in some more reserved cases concerning their government. This was done in the Church of judea. Our men are to shy, that fear to come to this proposition, de posse. I am sure our adversaries will grant us, that our parishional frame might have been so constituted.  
Conclus. 3. That there cannot be such a frame of Church, but by God's institution. No Ministers can take this honour, but they must (as Aaron) be called to it. When nothing in nature can have further degree of perfection, than the author of nature putteth into it; how much more must the degree of perfection and eminence in things Ecclesiastical, depend on God? We may reason from the Church of judea, as a pari, to prove, That there cannot be such a Church, but that all subordinate's must communicate with the chiefest head Church in some sacred things, which may make them one Church. Thus there would not have been a Church Nationall of the jews, but that all the Nation had union and communion together even in the worship and ordinances of worship. The men only went up, so the male only were circumcised: but the female representativelie went up in them.  
Object. It is enough if the communion be in government, which all our opposites grant necessary.  
Answ. This maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separibili, then one Church: government being a thing that cometh to a Church now constituted, and may be absent, the Church remaining a Church. The first Churches of Bishops, when now they were divided, did keep all other, who were the Bishop's presbyters strictly so called, and the people also in some communion with the head Church; for in greater solemnities one and other went up thither. See decret. dist. 3. dist. 38.  
4 Conclus. We agree in this, that Churches were in their first planting, either not actually Diocesan, being one congregation without any other subordinate, or if they had any, yet were they imperfect, wanting many parts or members of particular Churches, which belonged to them.  
That wherein we contradict one another, is, we affirm that no such head Church was ordained either virtually or actually, but that all Churches were singular congregations, equal, independent each of other in regard of subjection. Secondly, we say, were there a Diocesan granted, yet will it not follow, that Parish churches should be without their government within themselves, but only subject in some more common & transcendent cases. As it was with the Synagogues and that Nationall Church of the jews, & as it is betwixt Provincial and Diocesan Churches. If any say there is not the same reason of a Diocesan Church & Parishional: for that hath in it all the perfection of a Church. I answer, not; taken in comparison to a Provincial Church, it is but a part and member, and hath not perfection, no more than a parochial Church hath, compared with a Diocesan.  
Now followeth to answer the Arguments first proposed.  
To the first, I answer to the proposition by distinction. Those who ordained that the Civitas and Vrbs people taken in regard of the whole multitude of the one, and local bounds of the other should make but one Church, they did institute a Diocesan church. But those who so instituted a Church in City, suburbs, Country that their number might be compared fitly to one congregation, they did not therefore ordain a Diocesan Church. Again to the assumption. But those who use City by City, and Church by Church as equivalent (which the Apostles do) they ordained that City, suburbs, and Country should make but one Church. I answer by the like distinction. They who use, City by City, people being taken for the whole multitude within the extent of these local bounds, as equivalent with Church by Church, they may be said to have ordained that city, suburbs, and territories, should make but one Church. But thus the Apostles do not use them, as of equal signification. For the City had a reason of an ample continent, the Church of a thing contained. These phrases are, the one proper, the other metonymical, and are therefore to be expounded the one by the other. He placed Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lest we should understand it of the multitude and local bounds, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles that they placed them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Church by Church: because Presbyters were not given but to Disciples and Christians now converted out of the multitude and local limits wherewith cities were bounded. Secondly, there is an adequate acception of these phrases per accidens, not because the city and church was to make but one church, but because the Christians by occasion of their number, not being then too great, were framed into one church; or because by occasion there was yet but one church, not because there was to be but one. Now he who thus useth them promiscuously, doth imply that one church was as yet constituted, not that there was to be but one through the circuit of city, suburbs and country. Thus likewise it is easily answered to the proof of the proposition: For thus the multitude of citizens converted and unconverted, could not be a church of one congregation, yet the number of those who in city, suburbs, and territories, were actually converted, was no more than might be ordered into one church, and the Apostles framing these into one on the present occasion, did not exclude the after constituting of any other within the same local bounds.  
To the second Argument: and First, to the objection from the Nationall church of the jews. I answer, denying the assumption. That the Synagogues being many, made one Church; because they were all one kingdom, one possession. For thus there was one Occumenicall Church, when the world was under one Emperor, and of one profession. It is accidental to the unity of a Church whether the kingdom be one or no. If Israel, when God had divided the kingdom into two, had gone up to Jerusalem, and kept there communion in the worship of that Church, they had still been one Church, though two Kingdoms. If here were as many Kings and Kingdoms as have been in England, so many as should belong to one Provincial Church, should be one Church, though many Kingdoms. The truth is, they were one Church, because they had union and Nationall communion in the ordinances of worship, which were in that one Church to which they all belonged. The high Priest was their proper Priest, he made intercession for them, blessed them, they were not to offer any where, but there. If any think this cannot be the cause, why they were one Church, under the government of one high Priest, for than should Aaron have been as well as Melchisedeck, a type of Christ's kingly office. I answer, there is Priestly Prelacy and government, as well as Princely; They were under Aaron in the former regard, in which he was a shadow of Christ.  
To the second instance of Jerusalem; we deny the proposition. It might be intended for a head and mother Church in regard of order, and yet not be a Nationall Church having power over others: If it should have been a head, having pour accordingly, as it was a mother Church, it should have been head to all the world. Secondly, We deny the Assumption. That the Apostles ever intended, that it should be a head to Christian Churches through judea: as it had been before under the High Priest. That constitution was typical, and may better plead for an universal Christian Church, then for a Nationall. Secondly, there is not the least intimation of Scripture this way. Thirdly, had this Divinity been known, the Fathers would not have suffered, that it should have been made a Diocesan church, and subjected to Caesarea. To the Prosillogisme. The Church which was so numbersome, that it could not meet ordinarily, could not be a parishional Church. This was so. Ergo, etc. To the proposition I answer. That which was by inhabitants, who had fixum domicilium, so numbersome that it could not meet, I grant it. But so this was not; by accident often many others were there in transitu. Secondly, nay we read that they did meet ordinarily, as is above said, and in that deliberation about which the Church of Antioch did send to them, as Irenaeus affirmeth. l. 3. c. 12. Vniversam eam convenisse. Luke affirmeth the same. As for that of millions of believers, it is certain, they were not fixed members of this Church. For would Luke, who reckoneth the growth of them to 5000. have concealed so notable accessions, whereby they say, they grew up to I know not how many thousands; there is no likelihood. Whether therefore they were such believers as are mentioned, john 2. or whether by occasion of the Passover, or Pentecost, or such like feast, they were in transitu, only there for the present. How ever it is, there is no likelihood that they were constant members of that Church. Nevertelesse, say, they were more than could fitly meet, yet might they be tolerated, as in one Congregation. The Apostles seeing such times to ensue, wherein many of them should translate themselves, and be dispersed hither and thither. God letting it grow a while more rank and abundant then ordinary Churches are to be, because it was Ecclesia surcularis, many of whose branches were to be transplanted in their time. Yea had there been five thousand settled members, we read of some ordinary Auditories, spoken to by ordinary Pastors, as great; as Chrysostome on Math. 24. doth signify, to his esteem they might be five thousand that then heard his voice.  
Touching the third instance, As to the first reason, The proposition is denied: for naming the rest of Achaia with them, doth no more signify the subjection of all Achaians, then in the 1. Corinth. 1.2. naming all Saints in every place, doth signify their subjection. The second reason, hath the sequel of the proposition denied: for the contrary is rather true. He who without any note of difference calleth the Church of Corinth by the name of Achaia, he doth imply that it is but one particular Church, equal with the other Churches in Achaia. To the third, the proposition is again denied, That he that speaketh of all the Churches as one, doth imply a metropolitan Church. For by the first conclusion we may speak of things not only as they are really, but according to any respect of reason, under which they are apprehended. Again, the assumption is false: He speaketh not of them as one Church, but as diverse Churches in one Province. But it is named and set before others. Ergo. etc. The sequel is again denied. For it may be named before other, because it is the most illustrious and conspicuous Church; but not because it hath any power over other. Finally, it is too gross to think, that all in Achaia came to Corinth to be instructed and make their contributions, every Church using the first day of the week when they assembled to make their collections within themselves.  
The fourth instance is Crete; where the many Churches in that Island so full of Cities are said to be one Church of Crete, whereof Titus was Bishop. Those manifold Churches which made but one, whereof Titus was Bishop, those were all one Nationall Church. But the Churches of Crete, as saith the subscription, were so. Ergo. Ans. The proposition might be questioned on the ground above: but the assumption is false; proved by a subscription, which is like his proof, which was brought out of the book after the Revelation. For first, they are not in the Syriack testament. Secondly, they are not thought of Antiquity ancienter than Theodoret. Thirdly, the subscription is false, and most unlikely. For had Paul written from Nicopolis, he would have wished Titus to come to him to Nicopolis, where he was for the present and meant to winter, rather than have spoken of it as a place from which he was absent, and whether he meant to repair.  
The fift instance. Philip. 3. That church, which was in the chief city of all Macedonia, must needs be at least a Diocesan. But the Church of Philippi was so. Ergo. This will prove an argument, when Churches must needs be conformed to the civil regency of the Emperor: his four chief Governors called praefecti praetorii, his precedents of Provinces under them, and inferior judges, and Magistrates, under these in one city, and the regions of it. But this is an error giving ground to a patriarchal and Ecumenical Church, as well as a Provincial and Diocesan. This rule of planting Churches varieth at man's pleasure: For the Roman Provinces after the people of Rome gave up their right to the Emperor, were brought all into one, under one head and Monarch, and Provinces have been diversely divided from time to time. From this Monarchy arose the Pope's plea against the Greek Churches for his Ecumenical sovereignty. What form of Churches must we have amongst them who never received any such government, nay any government at all. If I were a Conformitant I should object otherwise for a Provincial Church in Philippi: viz. thus. That Church which had many Bishops in it could not be Parishional nor Diocesan, but Provincial. For the Provincial Church hath the Metropolitan and Suffragan Bishops in it, and no other. But Philippi had so. Ergo. But the Proposition is true only when it is understood of Diocesan Bishops, not of Parishional Bishops. Again, Paul writeth not to the Bishops in the Church, but in the City: Now many Bishops are not in the Provincial City, though many are in a Provincial Church.  
Now to come to the churches of Asia. I answer to the proposition of the first Syllog. by distinction. One church may contain others, as an example doth contain in it a thing exemplified: o● as a head Church doth Churches united in subjection to it. Those Churches which contain all other in the latter sense, it is true, they were at least Diocesan: but in this sense the assumption is denied. The same answer sitteth the Prosyllog. He that writing to these, writeth to all other by virtue of their subjectionall subordination, he doth imply that all others are contained in these as member Churches under one head. But he who writing to these, writeth to all other as exemplified only in them, he doth not imply any such thing. Now this is manifest, because he writeth to seven Churches: whereas this were superfluous, if Christ did intend his letter only to head Churches containing other. For than five Churches should have been written to only, seeing in them all others were contained, as they say. For by law of this virtual continency, Philadelphia and Thiatira were included in two of the other, viz. Sardis, & Pergamus, which were their mother cities. What needed he have named Thyatira, which by law of this virtual continency did intend to direct his letter only to head Churches? Again, the assumption is false: For he doth write principally to the seven, and to all other Churches in Asia no further than he writeth to all the Churches in the world. There were other Churches in Asia, such as were Colosse, Hierapolis, Troas, the Church at Miletum, and Assos, which the Centuries mention, which depended not on those seven. If Colosse and Hierapolis were not, as Laodicaea, re-edified when john did write the Revelation, yet these other Churches were then extant. Not to name Magnesia and Tralles, the independency whereof is fully cleared whatsoever Doct. Downam objecteth.  
To the third reason; from Christ's manner of concluding his Epistles, it is answered by denying the assumption. For Christ doth not use the plural number in respect of that one Church preceding, but in respect of the seven collectively taken, it being his will that the members of each singular Church should lay to heart both severally and jointly, what ever was spoken to them and to others.  
Now to come to the Ecclesiastical examples, as of Rome, and Alexandria, two hundred years after Christ. And first to answer the reason brought for their increase, such as could not keep still in a Parishional meeting. The Proposition is not of necessary consequence; for there were very extraordinary reasons of that which which was effected in the Church of jerusalem: From Christ himself, from the residence of all the Apostles; from the state of the people there assembled; from the state of that Church; from the time in which these were done, Christ had prayed for them particularly, to which some attribute the first miraculous conversion by Peter's preaching. Again, it was fit, that being now ascended into his glory, he should there more abundantly display his power, and more conspicuously swallow up the scandal of his cross. Again, this Church had the labour of all the Apostles for a time in it: whose care and industry we may guess by their ordination of Deacons, that they might not be distracted. Thirdly, the confluence and concourse to Jerusalem was of much people, who though explicitly they did not believe in Christ, yet had in them the faith of the Messiah, and therefore were nearer to the kingdom of God than the common Heathen. The state of this Church was such, that it was to send out light to all other, a common nursery to the world. Finally, the time being now, the beginning of planting that heavenly Kingdom, seeing beginnings of things are difficult, no wonder if the Lord did reveal his arm more extraordinarily. It doth not therefore follow from this particular, to the so great increasing of these churches in tract of time. Nay, if these other Churches had enjoyed like increase in their beginnings, it would not follow, as thus. Those Churches which within a few years had thus many in them, how numbersome were they many years after. Because the growing of things hath a Period set, after which, even those things which a great while increased, do decrease and go downward, as it was in jerusalem. Not to mention, that we deny the assumption.  
But though the Argument is but Topical, and can but breed an opinion only, yet the testimonies seem irrefragable. Tertullian testifying that half the Citizens in Rome was Christians. And Cornelius, that there was beside himself, and 45 Presbyters, a numbersome Clergy.  
I answer, That Tertullians' speech seemeth to be somewhat Hyperbolical: for who can believe that more than half the City, and world, after a sort, were Christians. But he speaketh this, and truly in some regard, because they were so potent through the world, that if they would have made head they might have troubled happily their persecutors. Or else he might say they were half of them Christians, not because there were so many members of the Church: but because there were so many who did bear some favour to their cause, and were it as safe as otherwise, would not stick to turn to them. But Tertullian knew no Churches which did not meet, having prayers, exhortations, and ministering all kinds of Censures: If therefore there were more Churches in Rome in his time, it will make little for Diocesan Churches.  
Touching Cornelius: we answer. It is not unlike but auditories were divided and tended by Presbyteries. Cornelius keeping the Cathedral Church, and being sole Bishop of them: but we deny that these made a Diocesan Church. For first, the Cathedral and Parochial Churches were all within the City, in which regard he is said, Officium Episcopi implevisse in civitate Romae. Neither was his Church as ample as the Province, which that of Foelicissimus sufficiently teacheth. Secondly, we say that these Parochial churches, were to the mother church, as chapels of case are to these churches in metrocomüs, they had communion with the mother church, going to the same for Sacraments and hearing the Word, and the Bishop did go out to them and preach amongst them. For some of them were not such as had liberty of Baptizing, and therefore could not be severed from communion with the head Church.  
Now to answer further, it is beyond 200 years for which our defence is taken. For there is reason why people which had been held together for 200 years as a Congregation, might now 50 years after be exceedingly increased. The Ecclesiastical story noteth a most remarkable increase of the faith, now in the time of julian before Cornelius. Neither must we think that an Emperor, as Philippus, favouring the faith, did not bring on multitudes to the like profession. Secondly, we say, there is nothing in this of Cornelius which may not well stand, that the Church of Rome, though now much increased, did not keep together as one Church. For the whole people are said to have prayed and communicated with the repentant Bishop, who had ordained Novatus: and we see how Cornelius doth amplify Novatus his pertinacy: From hence, that none of the numerous Clergy, nor yet of the people, very great and innumerable, could turn him, or recall him, which argueth that the Church was not so abundant, but that all the members of it had union and communion, for the mutual edifying and restoring one of another. And I would feign know, whether the seven Deacons, seven Subdeacons', 42 Acolouthes, whether those exorcists, Lectors, Porters about 52 are so many, as might not be taken up in a Congregation of fifteen or twenty thousand? Surely the time might well require them, when many were to be sent forth to do some part of ministery more privately. Not to name the error of the Church in superfluous multiplications of their Presbyters, to vilifying of them, as they were superfluous in the point of their Deacons. There were 60 in the church of Sophia for the help of the Liturgy. True it is, the Congregation could not but be exceeding great, and might well be called in a manner innumerable, though it were but of a twenty thousand people. But because of that which is reported touching division by Evaristus, Hyginus, Dionysius, and Marcellinus, though there is no authentic author for it; neither is it likely in Hospinianus judgement. Let it be yielded that there were some Parochial divisions, they were not many, and within the City, and were but as Chapels of ease to the cathedral or mother Church.  
Concerning the objection from the Churches of Delgia, or the low Countries, we deny the proposition: for we cannot reason thus. If many Masters, and distinct forms of Scholars, in one free School, be but one School: then many Masters and company of Scholars, severed in many Schools, are but one School. Secondly, they have communion in the community of their Teachers, though not in the same individual word tended by them. But it is one thing, when sheep feed together in one common Pasture, though they bite not on the same individual grass: Another thing when now they are tended in divers sheep gates. Not to urge, that in the Sacraments and Discipline, they may communicate as one Congregation.  
Touching the objection from Geneva: I answer to the proposition by distinction. Those who subject themselves to a Presbytery, as not having power of governing themselves within themselves, as being under it by subordination, these may in effect, as well be subject to a Consistory: But thus the twenty four Churches of Genevae do not. They or have power of governing themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confederate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutual communication, one ask the counsel and consent of the other in that common Presbytery. Secondly, it is one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage: Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery, wherein themselves are members and judges with others. Thirdly, say, they had no power, nor were no members in that Presbytery, yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocracy, another to the Bishop's Monarchical government. For while his Presbyters are but as counsellors to a King, though he consulteth with them, he alone governeth. Geneva made this consociation, not as if the Prime Churches were imperfect, and to make one Church by this union: but because though they were entire Churches, and had the power of Churches, yet they needed this support in exercising of it, and that by this means the Ministers and Seniors of it might have communion. But what are all the 24 churches of Geneva to one of our Diocesan Churches.  
Now to answer the reasons. The first of them hath no part true: the proposition is denied. For these churches which had such Presbyters and Deacons as the Apostles instituted were Parishional, that is, so conjoined that they might and did meet in one Congregation. The Doctor did consider the slenderness of some of our Parishes, and the numbersome Clergy of some Cathedral Church●…, but did not consider there may be Presbyteries much lesser, and congregations ampler and fuller, and yet none so big as should require that multitude he imagineth, nor made so little as might not have Presbyters and Deacons. What though such Mayor and Aldermen as are in London cannot be had in every Town, yet such a Town as Cambridge may have such a Mayor and Aldermen as Cambridge affords, and the meanest market Town may have, though not in degree, yet in kind like Governnours. So is it in Presbyters and other Officers: the multitude of Presbyters falling forth per accidens, not that a Bishop is ever to have a like numbersome Presbytery, but because the Church is so numbersome that actions liturgical require more copious assistance, & so wealthy, that it can well maintain them. And beside, because of that Collegiate reason which was in them rather than Ecclesiastical, which the fathers had in their Presbyteries; for the nursing of plants, which might be transplanted for supply of vacant Churches, which was a point that the Apostles in planting Churches no what intended.  
To come to the assumption: But city Churches only had a Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons. Answer, First, not to stand upon this▪ that S. Paul set no Bishops with Presbyters, but Presbyters only, and they say Bishops were given, when the Presbyters had brought the Church to be more numbersome, the assumption is false, that City Churches only had them. For the Scripture saith, they planted them Church by Church, that is, through every Church. Then every Church had her Governors with in herself. we must use as ample interpretations as may be. Contrarily, the sense which arrogateth this to one from the rest we cannot without evidence receive it, in ambitiosis restricta interpretatio adhibenda est. Ecclesia doth not signify any Church without difference, Parishional, Diocesan, or Provincial; but only a company orderly assembling, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such a company therefore as congregate decently to sacred purposes is a Church by translation. Besides the indefinite is equivalent to the universal, as, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now their interpretation beggeth every thing without any ground. For when Presbyters may be taken but three ways: divisim, conjunctim, and divisim and conjunction: divisim one Presbyter in one, another in another, conjunctim, divers Presbyters in every Church, neither of these will serve their turn, the latter only being true: for Scripture making two kinds of Presbyters without which the Church cannot be governed, it is sure it did give of both kinds to every Church they planted. Now they seeing some Churches in our times to have many, and some one, construe it both ways Collective, many Presbyters, and Singularly, one here and one there, and because many Presbyters cannot be thus placed in our frame of Churches, imagine the Church to contain Parochial and Diocesan Churches?  
But they will not seem to speak without reason; the Scripture say they placed City by City Presbyters, and therefore in such Churches as occupied City, Suburbs and Country, which Parishional ones do not. But may not a Church of one Congregation be in a city, without occupying limits of city, suburbs and country: and if Presbyters be placed in such a Church, may they not be said to be placed in Cities. Indeed, if the Presbyters placed in Cities were given to all the people within such bounds, the case were other; but the city is not literally thus to be understood, but metonymically for the Church in the City. Neither was the church in the city, all within such bounds; for the Saints of a place and Church of a place, are all one in the Apostles phrase of speech. As for that which is objected from Ecclesiastical history, it is true, that in process of time, the Bishop only had a company of Presbyters. Before, Churches kept in one Congregation and had all their Presbyters. Church's should so have afterward been divided, that all should have been alike for kind, though in circumstantial excellency some were before other. What a gross thing is it to imagine, that the first frame the Apostles did erect was not for posterity to imitate? A fit example then to take out of the custom of Metropoles, who sending out there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Colonies, do use to reserve some cases in civil jurisdiction over them, which the state of later Churches did express.   

THE SECOND QUESTION WHETHER CHRIST ORDAINED by himself, or by his Apostles, any ordinary Pastors, as our Bishops, having both precedency of order, and majority of power above others.  
WE will follow the same method: First, setting down the arguments for it, with answers to them: Secondly, the arguments against it: Thirdly, lay down conclusions. The arguments for it are: First, taken from Scripture: secondly from practice of the Churches: thirdly from reason evincing the necessity of it.  

The first Argument.  
Those whom the Holy Ghost instituted, they are of Christ's ordaining. But the Holy Ghost is said to have placed Bishops, Act, 20. Ergo, Bishops are of Christ's ordaining.  
Answer. We deny the assumption: viz. That those Presbytere of Ephesus were Diocesan Bishops. It is most plain they were such who did Communi consilio tend the feeding and government of the Church; such Bishops whereof there might be more than one in one congregation. The common gloss referreth to this place that of jerom: that at first Presbyters did by common council govern the Churches. Yea D. Downam doth count Ephesus as yet to have had no Bishop, who was sent unto them after Paul's being at Rome, as he thinketh. And others defending the Hierarchy, who think him to have spoken to Bishops, do judge that these words belong not to Presbyters, but are spoken in regard of others together then present with them, to wit, of Timothy, Sosipater, Tychicus, who, say they, were three Bishops indeed; but that he speaketh of these who indeed were in company, is quite besides the text.   

The second Argument.  
Such Pastors as the seven Angels, Christ ordained. But such were Diocesan Bishops. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who were of singular pre-eminency amongst other Pastors, and had corrective power over all others in their Churches, they were Diocesan Bishops. But the Angels were singular persons in every Church, having Ecclesiastical pre-eminency and superiority of power. Ergo, they were Diocesan Bishops. The assumption is proved. Those who were shadowed by seven singular Stars, were seven singular persons. But the Angels were so. Ergo. Again, Those to whom only Christ did write, who only bore the praise, dispraise, threatening, in regard of what was in the Church amiss, or otherwise: they had majority of power above others. But these Angels are written to only, they are only praised, dispraised, threatened. Ergo. etc.  
Answ. 1. In the two first syllogisms the assumption is denied. Secondly, in the first Prosyllogisme the consequence of the proposition is denied, That they must needs be seven singular persons. For seven singular stars may signify seven Unites, whether singular or aggregative: seven pluralities of persons who are so united as if they were one. And it is frequent in Scripture to note by a unity, a united multitude. Thirdly, the consequence of the proposition of the last prosyllogisme is denied. For though we should suppose singular persons written to, yet a pre-eminency in order and greater authority, without majority of power, is reason enough why they should be written to singularly, and blamed, or praised above other. Thus the master of a College, though he have no negative voice, might be written to, & blamed for the misdemeanours of his college, not that he hath a power overruling all: but because such is his dignity, that did he do his endeavour in dealing with, and persuading others, there is no disorder which he might not see redressed. Fourthly, again the assumption may be denied: That they are only written to. For though they are only named, yet the whole Churches are written to in them; the supereminent member of the Church by a Synecdoche put for the whole Church. For it was the custom in the Apostles times, and long after, that not any singular persons, but the whole Churches were written unto, as in Paul's Epistles is manifest, and in many examples Ecclesiastical. And that this was done by Christ here, the Epiphonemaes testify. Let every one hear what the spirit speaketh to the Churches.   

The third Argument.  
Those whom the Apostles ordained, were of Apostolical instituon. But they ordained Bishops. Ergo. The assumption is proved by induction.  
First, they ordained james Bishop of jerusalem presently after Christ's ascension. Ergo they ordained Bishops. This is testified by Eusebius, lib. 2. Histo. cap. 1. out of Clement and Hegesippus: yea that the Church he sat in was reserved to his time, lib. 7. cap. 19 & 32. This our own author jerom testifieth, Catalogue. Script. Epiph. ad haer. 66. Chrysost. in Act. 3. & 33. Ambros. in Galath. 1.9. Dorotheus in Synopsis. Aug. contra Cris. lib. 2. cap. 37. the general Council of Const. in Trull. cap. 32. For though he could not receive power of order, yet they might give him power of jurisdiction, and assign him his Church. So that though he were an Apostle, yet having a singular assignation, and staying here till death, he might justly be called the Bishop, as indeed he was. If he were not the Pastor, whom had they for their Pastor.  
Secondly, those ordinary Pastors who were called Apostles of Churches in comparison of other Bishops and Presbyters; they were in order and majority of power before other. But Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, though they had other called Bishops. Chap. 1.14. Ergo. The assumption; that he is so called, as their eminent Pastor, is manifest by authorities. jerom. in Phil. 2. Theod. and Chrysost. on the same place. Neither is it like this sacred appropriate name should be given to any in regard of mere sending hither or thither. Yea this, that he was sent, did argue him there Bishop: for when the Churches had to send any where they did usually entreat their Bishops.  
Thirdly, Archippus they instituted at Colosse. Ergo.  
Fourthly, Timothy and Titus were instituted Bishops, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete. Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus. That which is presupposed in their Epistles, is true. But it is presupposed that they were Bishops in these Churches. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those whom the Epistles presuppose to have had Episcopal authority given them to be exercised in those Churches, they are presupposed to have been ordained Bishops there. But the Epistles presuppose them to have had Episcopal authority given them to be exercised in those Churches. Ergo. The assumption proved. 1. If the Epistles written to Timothy and Titus, be the patterns of the Episcopal function, informing them, and in them all Bishops, than they were Bishops. But they are so. Ergo. 2 Again, whosoever prescribing to Timothy and Titus their duties as governors in these Churches, doth prescribe the very duty of Bishops, he doth presuppose them Bishops. But Paul doth so: For what is the office of a Bishop beside teaching, but to ordain and govern: and govern with singularity of pre-eminence, and majority of power in comparison of other. Now these are the things which they have in charge, Tit. 1.5. 1. Tim. 5.22. 1. Tim. 1.3.11. 2. Tim. 2.16. Ergo. 3 Those things which were written to inform not only Timothy and Titus, but in them all their successors who were Diocesan Bishops, those were written to Diocesan Bishops. But these were so. Ergo, to Diocesan Bishops. Now that Diocesan Bishops were their successors, is proved. 1. Either they, or Presbyters, or Congregations. Not the latter. 2. Again, Those who did succeed them were their successors. But Diocesan Bishops did. Ergo. The assumption is manifest by authorities. In Ephesus from Timothy to Stephanus in the Council of Chalcedon. And in Crete, though no one is read to have succeeded, yet there were Bishop's Diocesan. And we read of Philip Bishop of Gortina the Metropolis. 4. Those who were ordinarily resident, and lived and died at these Churches, were were there Bishops. But Timothy was bid abide here, Titus to stay to correct all things, and they lived and died here. For Timothy it is testified by Hegisippus, and Clement and Eusebius out of them, whom who so refuse to believe, deserve themselves no belief. Ergo, they were there Bishops. Again, jerom. in Cat. Isidorus de vita & morte Sanct. Antoninus par. 1. Tit. 6. cap. 28. Niceph. lib. 10. Cap. 11. these do depose, that they lived and died there. Further, to prove them Bishops. 5. Their function was Evangelisticall and extraordinary, or ordinary; not the first; that was to end. For their function as assigned to these Churches, and consisting especially in ordaining and jurisdiction, was not to end. Ergo. Assumption proved. That function which was necessary to the being of the Church, was not to end. But the function they had as being assigned to certain Churches, is necessary to the being of the Church, Ergo. etc. 6 Finally, that which Antiquity testifieth, agreeing with Scripture, is true. But they testify that they were Bishops, which the subscriptions of the Epistles also affirm. Ergo. Eusebius Lib. 5. Cap. 4. Dyonis. Arcepag. Doroth. in Synopsi. Ambrose proem. in 1. Tim. 1. jerom. 1. Tim. 1.14. 2. Tim. 4. in Catalo. Chrysostom. in Philip. 1. Epiph. in Haer. 5. Primas. prefat. in 1. Tim. 1.1. Theod. praefat. in Tit. Oecum. Sedulius. 1. Timoth. 1. as it is said in the book of histories. Greg. Lib. 2. Cap. 12. Theoph. in Ephes. 4. Niceph. lib. 2. Cap. 34.  

Answer.  
We deny the assumption of the first Syllogism, with all the instances brought to prove it.  
First, for james, we deny he was ordained Bishop, or that it can be proved from antiquity, that he was more than 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 seem to imply, that Christ should have ordained Peter, john and James the greater, Bishops. Seeing he maketh these to have ordained james after they had got of Christ the supreme degree of dignity, which these forged deceitful Epistles of Anacletus do plainly affirm. 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 father's use the words of Apostoli and Episcopi amply, not in their strict & formal propriety. jerom on the first to the Galathians, and in his Epistle to Damasus, affirmeth that the Prophets and john the Bishop might be called Apostles. So many fathers call Philip 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 propriety of speech, but because they did such things as Bishops do, and in remaining here or there made resemblance of them. Thus Peter, Paul, john, Barnabas, and all the rest, are by the Ancients called Bishops. Obj. This is granted true, touching others, but not in this instance of james: 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 jerusalem, he did still abide with them even to death. Answer, though this be but very conjectural, yet it nothing bettereth the cause here. It followeth not, He did abide with this Church. Ergo, he was the proper Bishop of this Church. For not abiding in one Church doth make a Bishop: but he must so abide in it, that he must from the power of his office, only be bound to teach that Church: secondly, to teach it as an ordinary Pastor of it: thirdly, to govern it with a power of jurisdiction, limited only to that Church. But james 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 Ambassador 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 james. This might happily make the phrase to be more founded out of james, that he did in this circumstance of residing, more nearly express an ordinary Pastor than any other. It is plain, Antiquity 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 think them Bishops because they received a limited jurisdiction of any Church; but because they were enabled to do all those things which none but Bishops could regularly do, Oecum. cap. 22. in Act. It is to be noted, saith he, that Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops: for they did not make Bishops only, but Presbyters also. Now we must construe the ancient, as taking them only eminently and virtually to have been bishops, or else we must judge them to have been of this mind, That the Apostles had both as extraordinary legates most ample power of teaching and governing suiting thereto, as also the ordinary office of Bishops and Pastors with power of teaching and governing, such as do essentially and ministerially agree to them: which indeed D. Downam himself confuteth, as Popish, and not without reason, though while he doth strive to have james both an Apostle and a Bishop properly, himself doth confirm it not a little.  
Wherefore it will not be unprofitable to show 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 james, & so any of them, have both these offices in propriety, might make us doubt. Ergo. The assumption proved thus. That which doth set them in office of teaching liable to error, 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 aught I see, of necessary truth, the assumption no less true. For if there be any rule to direct james infallibly, as he was formally the ordinary bishop of jerusalem, let us hear it: if there were none, may not I question, whether all his teaching and writing were not subject to error. For if he taught them as an ordinary bishop, and did write his Epistle so, then certainly it might err. If he did not teach them so, then did he not that he was ordained to, neither was he properly an ordinary Pastor, but taught as an extraordinary Ambassador from Christ.  
Secondly, Those offices which cannot be exercised by one, but the one must expel the other, were never by God conjoined in one person. But these do so: Ergo. The assumption is manifest. Because it is plain, none can be called to teach as a legate extraordinary, with infallible assistance, and unlimited jurisdiction, but he is made uncapable of being bound to one Church, teaching as an ordinary person with jurisdiction limited to that one Church. Again, one can no sooner be called to do 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 ordinary authority whereby to do this or that in a Church, who had a higher and more excellent power of office, whereby to do those same things in the same Church, is to no end. Ergo.  
Object. But it will be denied that any other power of order, or to teach and administer sacraments was given, then that he had as an Apostle: but only jurisdiction or right to this Church as his Church.  
Answer. To this I reply, first, that if he had no new power of order, he could not be an ordinary Bishop properly and formally so called. Secondly, I say power of governing ordinary was not needful for him who had power as an Apostle in any Church where he should come. Object. But it was not in vain, that by assignation he should have right to reside in this Church as his Church. Answer. If by the mutual agreement in which they were guided by the spirit, it was thought meet, that james should abide in jerusalem, there tending both the Church of the jews, and the whole circumcision, as they by occasion resorted thither, then by virtue of his Apostleship he had no less right to tend those of the circumcision by residing here, than the other had right to do 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 he was assigned to reside there, yet his Apostolic Pastoral care was as john's and Peter's, towards the whole multitude of the dispersed jews, Galath. 2. Now if it were assigned to him for his abode, as he was an Apostolic Pastor, what did he need assignation under any other title. Nay he could not have it otherwise assigned, unless we make him to sustain another person, viz. of an ordinary Pastor, which he could not be who did receive no such power of order as ordinary Pastors have.  
Fourthly, That calling which he could not exercise without being much abased, that he never was ordained unto, as a point of honour for him. But he could not exercise the calling of an ordinary Bishop, but he must be abased. He must be bound by office to meddle with authority and jurisdiction, but in one Church, he must teach as an ordinary man liable to error. Ergo, he was never ordained to be a Bishop properly. If it be 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, he might have been assigned to reside constantly in that Church without traveling, and be no whit abased: but then he must keep there as Pastor of it with Apostolical authority, caring not for that Church, but the whole number of the jews, which he might do without traveling. Because who so keeped in that Church, he did not need to go forth as the rest; for the jews from all parts come to him. But he could not make his abide in it as an ordinary teacher and governor, without becoming many degrees lower than he was. For to live without going forth, in the mother Church of all the world, as an ordinary pastor, was much less honour than ro travail as Peter one while into Assyria, another while through Pontus Galatia, Bythinia, as an Apostle. Even as to sit at home in worshipful private place is less honourable than to go abroad as Lord Ambassador hither or thither. Honour and ease are seldom bedfellows. Neither was james his honour in this circumstance of the ●est, but in having such an honourable place wherein to exercise his Apostolic calling. As for that question, who was their ordinary Pastor, it is easily answered; Their Presbyters, such as Linus or Clement in Rome, such as Ephesus and other Churches had. james was their Pastor also, but with extraordinary authority. What needed they an ordinary Bishop, which grew needful (as the favourers of the Hierarchy say) to supply the absence of Apostles, when now they were to decease? What needed then here an ordinary Bishop, where the Apostles were jointly to keep twelve years 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 drawn from it. First, we deny the proposition. For had some ordinary Pastors been so styled, it might imply but a pre-eminency of dignity in them above other: wherefore unless this be interserted, it is unsound, viz. Those ordinary Pastors, who are called Apostles in comparison of others, because the Apostles did give to them power of ordination, jurisdiction, and peerless pre-eminency, which they did not give to others, they are above others. Secondly, the assumption is false altogether: First, that Epaphroditus was an ordinary Pastor: secondly, that he was called an Apostle in comparison of inferior Pastors of that Church. Obj. But the judgement of jerom, Theodoret, Chrysostom, is that he was. Answ. the common judgement is, that he was an egregious teacher of theirs, but further than this, many of the testimonies do 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 he was an Evangelist: for he saith he was made their Apostle by the Apostle, while he sent him to exhort them, and because he was a good man, he was desired of the people. Where he maketh him sent, not for perpetual residence amongst them, but for the transient exhorting of them, and maketh him so desired of the Philippians, because he was a good man, not because he was their ordinary Pastor. jeroms testimony on this place doth not evince. For the name of Apostles and Doctors is largely taken, and as appliable to one, who as an Evangelist did instruct them, as to any other. Theod. doth plainly take him to have been as their ordinary bishop, but no otherwise than Timothy and Titus, and other Evangelists are said to have been bishops: which how true it is, in the next argument shall be discussed. For even Theodoret doth take him to have been such an Apostolic person as Timothy and Titus were. Now these were as truly 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 ordinary 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. Again, how shall we know that a bishop is to be placed in a city, that he must be a person thus and thus (according to Paul's 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 only under the name of Apostles & Angels. Thirdly, antiquity doth testify, 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. jurisdiction 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 fear of tyranny where there is no power of government? But lay authorities aside, consider the thing from the text itself. First, Paul seemeth but occasionally to send him, he having purposed to have sent Timothy, who as yet could not be employed. I thought it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. Secondly, he doth imply, 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, he was but sent till Timothy might be dispatched to them. Neither is it any thing probable he should be called an Apostle, as their ordinary and eminent Pastor. In the Scriptures, none are said to be Apostles further than 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 called their Apostle, it is in regard he was sent by them, which the Apostle pointeth at in the next words, who hath ministered to me the things needful which you sent by him. Object. But it is unlikely that this word appropriated to the Twelve, should be used of those sent civilly. Not so, for while the persons sending are signified, they are sufficiently contradistinguished; it being the Privilege of the Apostles, that they were the Apostles of Christ jesus, not simply that they were Apostles. Secondly, john 13. It is made common to all that are sent. For though Christ mean it of himself, 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 themselves and Evangelists also more ordinarily, it being their office to go from Church to Church, for the edification of them.  
For the instance of Archippus I find 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 do presuppose so much. And to the prosillogism, tending to prove this assertion denied, we answer: first, to the proposition, by distinguishing the Episcopal authority, which is considered both in regard of that which is material, and in regard of the formal reason which doth agree to it. The Propsition is true, understanding it of authority in both these regards; those who are presupposed to have had authority Episcopal given them, both for the substance of it, and the formal reason which doth agree to it in an ordinary Bishop, they are presupposed Bishops: but this is denied. For they are presupposed to have and exercise power Episcopal for the material of it, as Apostles had also; but not to have and exercise in that manner and formality which doth agree to a Bishop, but which doth agree to an Evangelist, and therefore they are bidden to do the work of an Evangelist, to exercise all that power they did exercise as Evangelists. There is nothing that Paul writeth to Timothy to do in Ephesus, or to Titus Crete, which himself present in person might not and would not have done. If we should reason then thus: He who did exercise Episcopal power in these churches, he is presupposed to have been Bishop in them. This proposition is not true, but with limitation: He who exercised Episcopal power after that formal manner, which doth agree to the office of a Bishop, he was Bishop; but not he who exerciseth the power secundum aliam rationem & modum; viz. after such a manner as doth agree to an Apostle.  
To the second main proof, we deny the proposition. If patterns for Bishops, then written to Bishops. The reason is, Apostles, Evangelists, ordinary Pastors, have many things common in their administration. Hence is it, that the example of the one may be a pattern to another, though they are not identically and formally of one calling. Counsels have enjoined all Presbyters to be well seen in these Epistles, as being patterns for them, Vide Aug. De doctrine. Christ. cap. 16. lib. 4.  
To the third reason. Who so prescribing them their duties doth propose the very duties of Bishops, he doth take them to have been Bishops. The Proposition is not true without a double limitation. If the Apostle should propose such duties of Bishops as they in later times usurped, he doth not therefore presuppose them Bishops, because these are duties of Evangelists, agreeing to Bishops only by usurpation. Again, should he propose those duties which, say they, the word doth ascribe and appropriate to Bishops, yet if he do not prescribe them as well in regard of matter as form exercised by them, it will not follow that he doth take them for Bishops: nor that Paul doth propose the very duties of Bishops, both in substance and manner of performance. Secondly, we deny him to propose for substance the duties of Bishops. For he doth not bid him ordain, as having a further sacramental power then other Ministers, nor govern with power directive and corrective over others. This exceedeth the bounds of all ministerial power. Thirdly, Timothy is not bid to lay on hands or do 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 only in Churches perfectly framed, but also in the erecting & framing of others. Secondly, because they were in degree and dignity above all other ordinary governors of the Church, which their Consul-like pre-eminence was sufficient, why they should be written to alone.  
To the fourth reason: Those things which were written to inform, not only Timothy and Titus, but all their successors, 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 inform Diocesan Bishops, unless the persons to whom it is written be formally in that self same order. For if one Apostle should write to another touching the duty Apostolic, it might inform any Doctor or Pastor whatsoever. Secondly, we deny Diocesan Bishops are (de jure) successors. As for the equivocal Catalogue which maketh all who are read Bishops to have been Diocesan, we shall speak of them hereafter. The Bishops between Timothy and Stephanus in the time of the Chalcedom Council, were not all of one cut: and there are no churches read in Crete which were not Congregations. There is no more to prove Philip of Gortina a Metropolitan, then to prove Ignatius Metropolitan of Syria. For what doth story relate, but that Philip was amongst other a Bishop of those Churches which were in Crete. There are many Churches in England, a Minister of which Churches is such an one, that is one Minister amongst others of those Churches. To that of their residing there and dying in these Churches. First, the proposition is not necessary. For as james might reside exercising an Apostolical 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 ordinary constant residence neither in Scripture nor fathers. For Timothy, though he be exhorted to stay at Ephesus, yet this doth not argue it, that he was enjoined ordinary residence. For first it was a sign he was not Bishop, because Paul did exhort him, for he would well have known, he might not being their ordinary Pastor leave them, further than 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 down his rest, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, further to set, as it were, and exedifie the fabric, which Paul had begun. God gave Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not ever a correcting of any thing amiss, but a settling every thing right, by erecting the substance foreshadowed. But say it were correcting, it were but such a correction as one might perform 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 Paul's being at Rome; for when Paul saith he prayed him, when now he was going to Macedonia, to stay at Ephesus, he doth intimate that when he 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 we say he doth foretell it for likely, so we may say, that of wolves arising was, and call all into question. Neither is it likely, but that tears would have broke his heart, and made him yield in the peremptories of his speech, had not his soul been divinely persuaded. Thirdly, he had no meaning when he left them to constitute Timothy to be their Bishop: for he would not have omitted such an argument of consolation to hearts so heavy. Nor he doth not mention any such purpose when he did write to them his Epistle. He telleth Churches usually when himself hath meaning to see them, or to send others. Fourthly, Timothy was with Paul while he was in bonds at Rome as witness those inscriptions of the Epistles to the Collossians and Philippians; yea Timothy was so with him, as to be employed by him, sent forth, and return to him, which is manifest. Philip. 2. If he were after this placed in Ephesus, yet he was not placed to be resident, for in the end of the Epistle, he doth bid Timothy come to him, and bring Mark, that they might minister to him. Again when he did write the 2 Epistle, Timothy 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 fix there, which Chrysostome also judgeth. And the house of Onesiphorus, Bernard taketh it, was at Iconium in Lycaonia, so that it is like he was in his native country at this time, even Iconium, Listra, Derbe, which happily is the cause why the Scholastical story 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 he biddeth him come before winter. Besides, there are many probabilities he 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 have sent Tychius to Ephesus, not to thee, to supply thy place while thou shalt be absent. Finally, after Paul's death he did not return to Ephesus, but by common consent went to john the Apostle, and very little before his death came to Ephesus, if ever. As for the Fathers therefore in this point, if they testify ordinary residence, which they do not, we have liberty to renounce them; but they testify only that he remained in that Church, because his stay was longer there then Evangelists did use to make, and he is thought to have suffered martyrdom there. So for Titus, when Paul sent him to Crete to do that work is uncertain; but this is certain, it was before his writing to the Corinth's the second time, and going to Rome. This likewise, that Paul was then in traveling, & as it is like being in the parts of Macedonia did mean to winter at Nicopolis. When he did write the Epistle he doth show 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 coming did not meet him there but at length found him in Macedonia, whence Paul did send him to the Corinthians, thanking God for his promptness even of his own accord to be employed amongst them, 2. Cor. 8.16. which doth show he had not been made an ordinary Bishop any where. We find that he did accompany Paul at Rome, 2. Tim. 4.10. and when Paul writ his second Epistle to Timothy, he was in Dalmatia. Whence Aquinas doth think him to have been Bishop of that place. Wherefore we think him that will be carried from such presumptions, (yea manifest arguments) by Hegesippus, Clemens, and history 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 swear what such men depose.  
Touching the proof that followeth. That either their function was Euangelisticall and extraordinary, or ordinary. But their function as assigned to those Churches was not extraordinary. We deny this assumption, with the proof 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 do those things which are to be done for ever in the church after a more transcendent manner; viz. as Evangelists; and assignation of them to do those things in certain Churches after this manner, was not necessary to perpetuate the being of the Church. Assignation to churches to do the work of ordinary Pastors is indeed necessary: not assignation to do the work of Evangelists.  
To that final reason, what antiquity doth testify agreeing with Scriptures is true, and so to be taken. What they speak so agreeing, that it is virtually contained in them, and may rightly be deduced from them, is to be believed and received by a divine faith. But what they speak not plainly contradicted, but yet no way included, may be admitted fide humana, if the first relators be well qualified witnesses. But what they speak from such as Clement and Hegesippus, it is in effect of light credulity. A corrupt conscience bend to decline is glad of every colour which it may pretend to justify itself in declining.  
To the assumption we answer. What do 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 have been an Archbishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. But to gather on these, that he was in propriety of speech all these, were absurd. 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 only to teach, but also to ordain Deacons Presbyters. For wheresoever they found this done, and by whomsoever, they did call them Bishops, as I noted before from Oecumen. The fathers therefore may be well construed calling these Bishops, because they made longer stay in these Churches than Evangelists did usually; & did preach and ordain, and do in these Churches all such things which Bishops in their time used to do. But that he was not an Evangelist, and more than an ordinary Bishop they do not deny. Salmeron himself 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 formal propriety make him an ordinary Pastor, from the first time Paul did write to him, ordinarily resident to his end; they should testify a thing, as I hope I have showed, contrary to Scripture, yea contrary to that text which maketh him to have done the work of an Evangelist. As for the show from the Subscriptions we have spoken sufficiently.  
Now to show that they were not properly Bishops. First, we have showed that they were but subrogated to do those supposed Epistopall duties a while, but were not there fixed, to make their ordinary abode. Therefore not Bishops properly. Secondly, they who did the work of an Evangelist in all that they did, did not perform formally the work of a Bishop. But these did so. As is vouched of Timothy, Do the work of an Evangelist. Ergo. The Proposition is proved. If an Evangelist & Bishop cannot be formally of one office, than the act of an Evangelist, and the act of an ordinary Pastor or Bishop cannot be formally one. For when every thing doth agere secundum quod actu est, those things which are not the same formally, their work and effect cannot be formally the same. But the Evangelist and the ordinary Pastor or Bishops, are not formally the same. Ergo. The assumption the Apostle proveth, by that distinct enumeration of those whom Christ gave now ascending, by the work of the ministery to gather and build his Church. For as an Apostle is distinguished from a Prophet, a Prophet from an Evangelist, so an Evangelist from an ordinary Teacher.  
Object. But it may be said, they were not distinct, but that the superior contained the inferior, and Apostles might be Evangelists properly, as Matthew and john were.  
Answ. That former point is to be understood with a grain of salt. The superior contained the inferior virtually and eminently, in as much as they could do altiori tamen ratione, what the inferior did. This sense is tolerable. But that formally the power of all other offices suits which the Apostles is false. My Lord chief justice of England is not formally a Constable. As for the latter, true, an Apostle might be also a penman of the Gospel, but this maketh not an Evangelist no more than an Apostle, but doth per accidens, come to them both. And even as a Preacher or Pastor, writing Commentaries, and publishing other Treatises, this cometh per accedens to his calling, it doth not make him a Pastor, but more illustrious and fruitful in that regard then another. So Mark and Luke was not therefore Evangelists because they did write the Gospels, for than none should have been Evangelists that had not written, but in this regard they were more renowned than other. Custom hath so prevailed, saith Maldonate in his Preface on Matthew, that we call them Evangelists, (viz. the Writers of the Gospels) whom the Scriptures never call Evangelists. These Evangelists Paul speaketh of were given at Christ's ascension, but the first writer of the Gospel, being an Apostle, was at least eight years after. Secondly, they were a distinct order of workmen from the Apostles, but two of the penmen of the Gospels were Apostles. Thirdly, they were such as by labour of ministery (common for the general of it to all the other) did gather Saints, and build Christ's Body. Now writing the Gospel was not a labour of ministery common to Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, but the publishing of it.  
Those degrees which Christ did distinctly give to othersome, and othersome, those he did not give conjoinedly to one and the same persons. But these callings he gave to some one, to others another. Else he must have said, he gave the same men to be Apostles and Evangelists, the same to be Evangelists and Pastors. Ergo.  
That Calling which is not compatible with the Calling of an Evangelist, that Paul never annexed to an Evangelist. But the Calling of a Bishop is such. For a Bishop is tied to a particular Church. The Calling of an Evangelist is a Calling whereby one is called to the work of the ministery, to gather Saints, and edify, Christ's body, without any limitation to any particular Church. Ergo, Paul never annexed the Calling of a Bishop to an Evangelist.  
The Calling of an Evangelist is not to write the Gospel, nor to preach it simply: for then every Minister of the Word should be an Evangelist. But this doth difference them, to preach it without limitation or assignation to any particular church. Thus Philip, thus all those who were the Apostles helpers, working the work of the Lord as they did were evang. of which sort some continued to the time of Commodus the Emperor, as Eusebius reporteth, Euseb. hist. li. 5. cap. 9 Now a Calling whereby I am thus called to publish the Gospel, without fixing myself in any certain place; and a Calling which bindeth during life to settle myself in one Church, are incompatible.  
Lastly, that which would have debased Timothy and Titus, that Paul did not put upon them. But to have brought them from the honour of serving the Gospel, as Collateral 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 denied, it was no abasement. For before they were but Presbyters, and afterward by imposition of hands were made Bishops. why should they receive imposition of hands, and a new ordination, if they did not receive an ordinary calling? we mean if they were not admitted into ordinary functions by imposition of hands. I answer, This denial with all whereon it is builded is gross: For, to bring them from a Superior order to an Inferior, is to abase them. But the Evangelists office was superior 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 less restrained. But the Evangelists power of teaching and governing was illimitted. Ergo. The assumption proved. Where ever an Apostle did that part of God's work which belonged to an Apostle; there an Evangelist might do that which belonged to him. But that part of God's work which belonged to an Apostle he might do 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 nearer than ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Who are next the King, in his Kingdom, but those who are Regis Comites. The Evangelists were Comites of these Ecclesiastical Cheiftaines. Chrysostome doth expressly say on Ephes. 4. That the Evangelists in an ambulatory course spreading the Gospel, were above any Bishop or Pastor which resteth in a certain Church. Wherefore to make them Presbyters is a weak conceit. For, every Presbyter (properly so called) was constituted in a certain Church to do the work of the Lord in a certain Church. But Evangelists were not, but to do the work of the Lord in any Church as they should be occasioned. Ergo, they were no Presbyters properly so called. Now for their ordination; Timothy received none as the Doctor conceiveth, but what he had from the hand of the Apostle and Presbyters, when now he was taken of Paul to be his companion. For no doubt but the Church which gave him a good testimony, did by her Presbyters concur 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 expressly 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 have power. Neither is it certain, that Philip could not have imposed hands, and given the Holy Ghost. For though he could, he might choose in wisdom for their greater confirmation and edification to let that be done by persons more eminent. Finally, imposition of hands may be used in promoting and setting one forth to an extraordinary office. For every extraordinary office is not attended with immediate vocation from God. As the calling of Evangelists, though extraordinary, was in this unlike the calling of Apostles and Prophets.! Secondly, men called immediately may be promoted to the more fruitful exercise of their immediate and extraordinary callings by imposition of hands from their inferiors, as Paul and Barnabas were. Howsoever, it is plain, that Timothy 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 he is called on by him to do the work of an Evangelist. Ergo, that calling he was ordained to.  
That work which exceedeth the calling of an ordinary Bishop, was not put upon an ordinary Bishop. But Titus his work did so: for it was to plant Presbyters town by town through a Nation. Ergo. For the ordinary plantation and erecting of Churches to their due frame, exceedeth the calling of an ordinary Bishop. But this was Titus his work. Ergo. Bishops are given to particular Churches when now they are framed, that they may keep them wind and wether tied, they are not to lay foundations, or to exedifie some imperfect beginnings. But say Titus had been a Bishop: he is no warrant for ordinary Bishops, but for Primates, whose authority did reach through whole islands. Nay, if the Doctor's rule out of Theodoret were good, it would serve for a Bishop of the plurality cut. For it is said he placed Presbyters city by city, or town by town, who are in name only Bishops, but not that he 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 ordinary Bishops, and written to do the things that Bishops do, yet would it not be a ground for their majority of power in matter sacramental and jurisdiction, as is above excepted.    

The fifth Argument.  
The Ministers which the Church had generally and perpetually the first 300. years after Christ and his Apostles, and was not ordained by any general Council, were undoubtedly of Apostolical institution. But the Church ever had Diocesan Bishops in singularity of pre-eminence during life, and in majority of power of ordination and jurisdiction above others, and these not instituted by general Counsels. Ergo. The proposition is plain both by Austin de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. & Epist. 118. and by Tertul. Consta● id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuit sacrosanctum. For who can think that all the Churches generally, would conspire to abolish the order of Christ planted by the Apostles, and set up other ministers than Christ had ordained. The assumption is plain: for if the Church had Metropolitans anciently, and from the beginning, as the Council of Nice testifieth, much more Bishops. For Diocesan Bishops must be before them, they rising of combination of Cities and Diocies. And the council of Ephesus testifieth, the government of those Bishops of Cyprus, to have been ever from the beginning, according to the custom of old received. Yea that the attempt of the Bishop of Antioch, was against the Canons of the Apostles. Again, Cyprian doth testify, that long before his time, Bishops were placed in all provinces and Cities, besides the succession of Bishops from the Apostles times: for they prove their original to have been in the Apostles times. Neither were they instituted by any general Council. For long before the first general Council, we read Metropolitans to have been ordained in the Churches. Yea jerom himself is of opinion, that no Council of after times, but the Apostles themselves did ordain Bishops; for even since those contentions wherein some said, I am Paul's, others, I am Apollo's, they were set up by general decree: which could not be made, but by the Apostles themselves. And in Psal. 44. he maketh David to prophesy of Bishops, who should be set up as the Apostles Successors.  

Answer.  
First, we deny the proposition. For first; this doth presuppose such an assistance of God's spirit with the Church, that she cannot generally take up any custom, or opinion, but what hath Apostolical warrant, whereas the contrary may be showed in many instances. Keeping of holy days was a general practice through the Churches, before any Council enacted it, yet was no Apostolical 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 baptizing, the government of Metropolitans were generally received before any Council established.  
2 It doth presuppose, that the Church cannot generally conspire in taking up any custom, if she be not led into it by some general proponent, as a general representative Council, or the Apostles, who were Ecumenical Doctors, but I see no reason for such a presumption.  
3 This doth presuppose, that something may be which is of Apostolical authority, which neither directly nor consequently is included in the word written. For when there are some customs which have been general, which yet cannot be grounded in the word written, it is necessary by this proposition, that some things may be in the Church having authority Apostolical, as being delivered by word unwritten. For they cannot have warrant from the the Apostles but by word written or unwritten. To the proof, we answer: That of Tertullian maketh not to the purpose, for he speaketh of that which was in Churches Apostolical, as they were now planted by them, which the sentence at large set down will make clear. Si constat id bonum quod prius, & id prius quod est ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariter utique constabit id esse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Touching Augustine's 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 do 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 show from Scripture what they say is contained in it. If they yield, he doth mean as he doth of unwritten tradition, we hope they will not justify him in this; we will take that liberty in him, which himself doth in all others, and giveth us good leave to use in his own writings. Now count him in this to favour Traditions, as some of the Papists do not causelessly make this rule the measuring cord, which doth take in the latitude of all traditions: yet we appeal to Austin's judgement otherwhere, who though by this rule he maketh a universal practice not begun by Counsels, an argument of Divine and Apostolical authority, yet dealing against Donatists, Lib. 1. Don. cap. 7. he saith, he will not use this argument, because it was but human and uncertain, ne videar humanis argumentis illud probare, ex Evangelio profero certa documenta.  
We answer to the assumption two things: First, it cannot be proved, that universally there were such Diocesan Bishops as ours. For in the Apostles times it cannot be proved, that Churches which they planted were divided into a mother Church, and some Parochial Churches. Now while they governed together in common with Presbyters, and that but one congregation, they could not be like our Diocesan Bishops. And though there be doubtful 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 help them in their ministery toward their Churches, they could not be Diocesan Bishops. But such in many parts the Apostles planted, as Epiphanius doth testify. Ergo. 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 be common by a Council, saith Ambrose, Prospiciente Concilio. Amb. in 4. ad Eph. or by a Decree passing through the world: toto orb decretum est, saith jerom ad Evag. which is to be considered, not of one Ecumenical Council, 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 interpretatiuè, though not formalitèr, is a general decree. But to think this was a decree of Paul's, 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 jerom (if this decree were the Apostles) conclude that Bishops were above Presbyters, magis consuetudine Ecclesiae, then Dominicae dispositionis veritate. If the Doct. do except, that custom is here put for Apostolical institution; let him put in one for the other, and see how well it will become the sense. Let Bishops know they are greater than Priests, rather by the Decree of the Apostle, then by the truth of Christ's disposition. Is it not fine, that the Apostles should be brought in as opposites, facing Christ their Lord? And this conclusion of jerom doth make me think that decretum est imported no more, then that it was took up in time for custom through the world. Which is elegantly said to be a decree, because custom groweth in time to obtain vim legis, the force of a decree. But Ambrose his place is plain, Prospiciente Concilio, he meaneth not a council held by Apostles. For he maketh this provision by Council to have come in, when now in Egypt & Alexandria, Presbyters according to the custom of that Church, were not found fit to succeed each other, but they chose out of their presbyteries men of best desert. Now to Heraclas and Donysius, there were a succession of Presbyters in the Church of Alexandria, as Eusebius and Jerom both affirm. Wherefore briefly, seeing no such universal custom can be proved, all the godly fathers never conspired to abolish Christ's institution. Secondly, could a custom have prevailed with all of them, whom we have to Constantine's time, yet it might enter and steal upon them through humane frailty, as these errors in doctrine did upon many otherwise godly and faithful Martyrs: the rather because the alteration was so little at the first, and Aristocratical government was still continued. Thirdly, say, they had wittingly and willingly done it through the world, they had not cospired, because they might have deemed such power in the Church, and themselves to do nothing but what they might with Christ's good liking for the edification of it. How many of the chief Patrons of this cause, are at this day of this judgement, that if it were but an Apostolical institution, as Apostolical is contradistinguished to divine, they might change it. But if the Apostles did enact this order, as Legates and Ambassadors of Christ, then is it not theirs, but Christ's own institution. What an Ambassador speaketh as an Ambassador, it is principally from him that sent him: but if they who were Legates, did not bearing the person of Legates, but of ordinary Ecclesiastical governors, decree this; than it is certain, Church governors may alter it without treasonable conspiring against Christ.  
As for those proofs, that Bishops have been throughout all Churches from the beginning, they are weak. For first, the Council of Nice useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not simpliciter, but secundum quid, in order happily to that time wherein the custom 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 mean the Apostles times, for then Metropolitans should have actually been from the Apostles time. secondly, the phrase of the Council of Ephesus, is likewise aequivocal; for they have reference to the fathers of Nice, or at least the decrees of the fathers, who went before the Council of Nice. For those words being added, definitiones Nicenae fidei, seem to explain the former, Canon's Apostolorum. It is plain the decree of the Council doth ascribe this thing only to ancient custom, no less than that of Nice, Constantinople and Chalcedon; and therefore cannot rise to the authority of sacred Scriptures. Let him show in all antiquity where sacred scriptures are called Canons of the Apostles. Finally, if this phrase note rules given by the Apostles, than the Apostles themselves did set out the bounds of Cyprus and Antioch. As for the authority of Cyprian, he doth testify what was Communiter in his time, Bishops ordained in cities; not universaliter, as if there were no city but had some. Secondly, he speaketh of Bishops who had their Churches included in Cities, not more than might meet together in one, to any common deliberations. They had no Diocesan Churches, nor were Bishops who had majority 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 successors. But because it hath had Bishops, Ergo, Ecumenical Bishops is no consequence. All who are named Bishops in the Catalogue, were not of one cut, and in that sense we controvert.  
Touching that which doth improve their being constituted by any Council, it is very weak. For though we read of no general Council, yet there might be, and the report not come to us. Secondly, we have showed, that the Council of Nice doth not prove this, that Bishops were every where from the beginning; the phrase of from the beginning, being there respectively, not absolutely used. Neither doth jerom ever contrary this: for he doth not use those words in propriety, but by way of allusion; otherwise if he did think the Apostle had published this decree, when the first to the Corinth's 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.    

The sixth Argument.  
Such as even at this day are in the reformed Churches, such ministers are of Christ's institution. But ministers having singularity of pre-eminence and power above others, are amongst them; as the Superintendents in Germany. Ergo. Answ. The assumption is utterly denied. For Superintendents in Germany are nothing like our Bishops: they are of the same degree with other ministers, they are only Precedents while the Synod lasteth; when it is dissolved, their prerogative ceaseth: they have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers; they are subject to the Presbyteries, Zepp. lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 324. The Synod ended, they return to the care of their particular Churches.   

The seventh Argument.  
If it were necessary that while the Apostles lived there should be such Ministers as had pre-eminence and majority of power above others, much more after their departure. But they thought it necessary, and therefore appointed Timothy and Titus, and other Apostolic men furnished with such power. Ergo, much more after their departure. Answ. The assumption is denied, and formerly disproved: for they appointed no such Apostolic men with Episcopal power, in which they should be succeeded.   

The eighth Argument.  
Such Ministers as were in the Apostles times not contradicted by them, were lawful. For they would not have held their peace, had they known unlawful Ministers to have crept into the Churches.  
But there were before john's death in many Churches a succession of Diocesan Bishops, as in Rome, Linus, Clemens, at jerusalem james, Simeon, at Antioch, Evodius, at Alexandria, S. Mark, Anianus, Abilius. Ergo, Diocesan Bishops be lawful.  
Answer. The Assumption is denied; for these Bishops were but Presbyters, Pastors of one congregation ordinarily meeting, governing with common consent of their Presbyteries. If they were affecting our Bishop's majority, they were in Diotrophes sufficiently contradicted.   

The ninth Argument.  
Those who have been ever held of a higher order than Presbyters, they are before Presbyters in pre-eminence, and majority of rule. But Bishops have been held in a higher order by all antiquity. Ergo. The assumption is manifest: In the Council of Nice, Ancyra, Sardica, Antioch ministers are distinguished into three orders. Jgnatius, Clemens in his Epistle to james, Dionys. Areopag. de Coelest. Hierom. cap. 5. Tertull. de fuga in persecutione, & de Baptismo. Ignatius doth often testify it. No wonder, when the scripture itself doth call one of these a step to another, 1. Timoth. 3.13. Cyprian. Lib. 4. Ep. 2. Counc. Ephes. Cap. 1.2.6. Yea the Council of Chalcedon counteth it sacrilege, to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter. This Hierome himself confirmeth, saying: That from Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters did set a Bishop over them in higher degree.  

Answer.  
The Proposition is not true in regard of majority of rule. For no Apostle had such power over the meanest Deacon in any of the Churches. But to the Assumption we answer by distinction.  
An order is reputed higher, either because intrinsically it hath a higher virtue, or because it hath a higher degree of dignity and honour. Now we deny that ever antiquity did take the Bishop above his Presbyters to be in a higher order than a Presbyter, further than a higher order doth signify an order of higher dignity and honour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Council of Sardica speaketh. Which is further proved: because the fathers did not hold a Bishop to differ from a Presbyter, as Presbyter from a Deacon. For these differ genere proximo; Noverint Diaconi se ad ministerium non ad sacerdotium vocari. But a Bishop differeth from a Presbyter, as from one who hath the power of Priesthood no less than himself, and therefore the difference betwixt these, must be circumstantial, not so essential as betwixt the other. Thus Bishops and Archbishops are diverse orders of Bishops, not that one exceedeth the other, as a power of higher virtue, but of higher dignity than then the other. More plainly; There may be a fourfold difference in gradu. 1. in potestate gradus. 2. in Exercitio. 3. in Dignitate. 4. in amplitudine Jurisdictionis. The first difference is not between a Bishop and a Presbyter, according to the common tenant of antiquity, or the School, but only is maintained by such as hold the Character of a Priest and Bishop inwardly. divers one from the other. For as a Bishop differeth not in power and degree from an Archbishop. Because nothing an Archbishop can do, as confirming, consecrating Bishops, etc. but a Bishop can do also. So neither doth a Presbyter from a Bishop. Object. But the Priest cannot ordain a Presbyter, and confirm as the Bishop doth, and therefore differeth potestate gradus. To this I answer, that these authors mean 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 fundamental power to do those things: but that they have not, before they be ordained bishops, their power so enlarged, as to produce these effects actually. As a boy hath the generative faculty 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 sacramental in the Priest, is an actual power which he is able to perform and execute, nothing defective in regard of them, further than they be withheld from the exercise of it. For that cause which standeth in complete actuality to greater & more noble effects, hath an inferior & lesser of the same kind under it also, unless the application of the matter be intercepted. Thus a presbyter he hath a sacramental power standing in full actuality to higher sacramental actions, & therefore cannot but have these inferior of confirmation and orders in his power, further than they are excepted & kept from bein applied to him. And therefore power sacramental cannot be in a Presbyter, as the generative faculty is in a child, for this is inchoate only, and imperfect, such as cannot produce that effect. The power of the Priest is complete. secondly, I say, these are no sacramental actions. thirdly, were they, yet as much may be said to prove an Archbishop a distinct order from a Bishop, as to prove a Presbyter and Bishop differing in order. For it is proper to him out of power to generate a Bishop, other Bishops laying on hands, no otherwise then Presbyters are said to do, where they join 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 consecrating the Lord Archbishop, & yet a presbyter may not ordain a presbyter. It doth not stand with their Episcopal majority, 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 human. Aaron differed from the Priests not in power sacramental, for they might all offer incense, and make intercession. But the solumne intercession in the holy of holies God did except and appropriate to the high Priest the type of Christ. Priest's would have reached to this power of intercession in the holy place, or any act of like kind: but that God did not permit that this should come under them, or they intermeddle in it. Thus by human 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 Virgins, have been referred to the Bishop for the honour of Priesthood, rather than any necessity of law, as Jerome speaketh. Finally, in dignity, those may differ many ways, who in degree are equal, which is granted by our adversaries in this cause. Yea, they say, in amplitude of jurisdiction, as in which it is apparent an Archbishop exceedeth another. But were it manifest that God did give Bishops Pastoral power through their Diocese, 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 Evangelists differred from ordinary Pastors. But that jurisdiction is in one more than another, is not established, nor hath apparency in any Scripture.  
To the proofs 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 sacrilege to reduce one, from the greater to the lesser, if he have not deserved it. As for that of jerom it is most plain, he did mean no further order, but only in respect of some dignities wherewith they invested their Bishop, or first Presbyter, as that they did mount him up in a higher seat, the rest sitting lower about him, and gave him this pre-eminence, 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 authority. For by a Canon of the Council of Laodicea, we find that the Bishop had this privilege to sit first, though Presbyters did together with him enter, and sit as judges of equal commission. For though Deacons stood, Presbyters did always sit in circuitu Episcopi.    

10 Argument.  
If Bishops be that which Aaron, and the Apostles were, and Presbyters, be that which the Priests, and the 72 Disciples were, than the one are above the other in pre-eminence and power. But they are so. See jerom to Nepotian. Ergo.  

Answer.  
If Bishops etc. and Presbyters, be that which the sons of Aaron and the 72 were, than there are different orders etc. To these 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 sons, they were not orders different essentially in their power, but only in degree of dignity, wherein the high Priest was above others. For every Priest's power would have reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest only. Besides, when the high Priest was deceased or removed, the other Priests did consecrate the successor, as Sadock. Finally, the one had for substance the same consecration that the other, neither had the high Priest any maiorite of directive or corrective power over others. So the Apostles, and 72, will not be found different in order; and therefore those who resemble these cannot be concluded to be of diverse orders. For the Apostles and 72, differ no more then ordinary messengers who are employed in a set course, and extraordinary sent by occasion only: They were both messengers, the Apostles habitu and abidingly, the other in act only, and after a transitory manner.  
Again, had Aaron and his sons been diverse 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 sons, and the 72 were, they differ in degree essentially, not those who were this analogically by reason of some imperfect resemblance. For things may be said to be those things wherewith they have but imperfect similitude. In this sense only the proposition is true.  
Now to come to the assumption. First, touching Aaron, we 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 inferior: so it hath pleased the Church to imitate this policy, 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 Church's ordination, which she framed, looking to this pattern of government which God himself had set out in the old Testament. The fathers call them Aaron and his sons only for some common analogy, which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the Bishop and Presbyters, and them; and conceive them to be so by human accommodation, not by divine institution. But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of ministery typified by them by Gods own appointment, this the fathers never thought. Christ's priesthood, no man's, was properly typified in Aaron.  
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 inferior order, so Bishops and Presbyters, were by the Church's ordinance. This is the father's phrase, to call them Apostles, who in any manner resemble the Apostles, to call them, as Ambrose. Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Doctors, who resemble these, and come in some common analogy nearest 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 divers degrees of dignity amongst them, though for power of order by God's institution they were all one. But some strain it further, and take it, that Christ instituting those two orders, did in so doing, institute Bishops and Presbyters, the one whereof succeeded the Apostles, the other the 72, and that thus the Fathers take it. To which I answer, First, in general, this analogy of Apostles and 72, is not generally affected by them all. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses dicit Apostolis Presbyteros successisse, Diaconos 72, discipulis. Clem. lib. 2. Const. cap. 30. saith, That Bishops answer to God the Father, Presbyters to Christ, Deacons to the Apostles. jerom doth manifestly make Presbyters (whom he also calleth by name of Bishops in that Epistle, where he maintaineth the Presbyters dignity) successors 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 be all one with the former: when he maketh the Presbyter as well as the Bishop to be ordained in the Apostles. Finally, these Fathers who take the 72 to have been Apostles, as well as the other, could not imagine this proportion of divers orders set up in them. Secondly, if Christ in these instituted those other, it must be one of these ways. First, he did make these not only Apostles, but Bishops, and so the 72, not only his messengers for the time, but Presbyters also. Or, secondly, else he did ordain these as he did rain Manna, noting and prefiguring as by a type, a further thing which he would work: 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 have showed that the Apostles could not be Bishops ordinarily; nor yet the calling of these seventy two (which was to go through all City's Evangelizing) stand with Presbyters, Presbyters being given to Church's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and there fixed. Neither can the latter be true: for then Christ should have given a Sacrament, when he ordained his Apostles, and sent forth his 72. Secondly, the type or the shadow is less than the thing typified, the substance of it. But the giving Apostles was a greater thing than giving ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Thirdly, I say, that Christ did never ordain 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 inherit after him, not a brother, but a cousin to him. Thus the Apostles have no successors succeeding them in gradum, but such only as follow them, being of other degrees, and in another line, as it were, in which sort every Pastor doth succeed them. But then they are said to succeed them, because they follow them, and after a sort resemble them, not because they hold the places which the Apostles did properly. Apostolo in quantum est Apostolus non succeditur, Legato quatenus est Legatus non succeditur. Fourthly, that the Presbyters do as persons of a divers order succeed the Apostles no less fully than any other. First, they must needs succeed them who are spoken to in them, whose duties are laid down in that which the Apostles received in commandment. But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keys, in the Supper, in the commandment 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 farewells they resigned the Churches, these were their successors. But this they did to Presbyters, Paul now never to see Ephesus more Act. 20, Peter near death, 1. Pet. 5.2. Ergo. Fourthly, if one Pastor or Minister do more properly resemble an Apostle than another, it is because he hath some power Apostolic 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 ministering the Sacraments doth as fully and properly belong to the Presbyter as to any, unless we count Preaching not necessarily connexed to a Presbyters office, but a Bishops; or at least that a more rudimental 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 give the power of government to one then to another. Obj. This is denied, for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination, and the coercive power in their own hands, & to have committed these in the end only to Apostolic 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 have provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care. Secondly, if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men above others, in which regard they should be their successors, than the Apostles did not only enjoy as Legates power over the Churches, but as ordinary 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 themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed. And it is to be noted, that this opinion of Episcopal succession from the Apostles is grounded on this, that the Apostles were not only Apostles, but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches. For the Papists themselves urged with this, that the Apostles have none succeeding them, they do consider a double respect in the Apostles, the one of Legates, so Peter, nor any other could have a successor. The other of Bishops Ecumenical in Peter, of Bishops National or Diocesan, as in some other. Thus only considered, they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them: For the Apostolic power precisely considered, was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum. Now we have proved that this ground is false, and therefore that succeeding the Apostles, more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it, is false also.  
Lastly, the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the 72. For first, in all that is spoken to the 72, the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid down. Secondly, it doth not appear that they had any ordinary power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament. For they are sent to Evangelize, to preach the Gospel: but whether from power of ordinary office, or from commission and delegation only for this present occasion it is doubtful. Thirdly, it is not read that tney ever baptised, or had the power of administering the Supper given to them: Yea, that they had neither ministery of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario, seemeth hence plain; That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care, which was so cumbersome that themselves could not tend the ministry of the Word with it, much less than could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had. Fourthly, if they were set Ministers, than were they Evangelists in destination. For the act enjoined them, is from City to City, without limitation to evangelize; and after we read of some, as Philip, that he was an Evangelist; the same is in Ecclesiastical story testified of some others. Thus we Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolic men whom the Apostles constituted Bishops, and by consequence be the true successors of the Apostles. These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant, we succeed these. Finally, Armachanus doth take these 72 to have been ordinary disciples, in his 7 Book Armenicarum quaest. cap. 7.    

11 Argument.  
Those who receive a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration and a new order. But Bishops do so. Ergo.  

Answer.  
The proposition is denied: for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastoral function in a new Church where before they had nothing to do. 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 ministerial power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God, is not true. Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop? yet is he not of any order essentially differing. The truth is, ordination, if it be looked into, is but a canonical solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopal to the now chosen, but only more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it.    

12 Argument.  
Those Ministers whereof there may be but one only during life in a Church, they are in sigularity of pre-eminence above others. But there may be but one Bishop, though there may be many other Presbyters, one Timothy, one Titus, one Archippus, one Epaphroditus. Ergo. For proof of the assumption. See Cornelius, as Eusebius relateth his sentence, lib. 6. cap. 43. Conc. Nice. cap. 8. Conc. Calced. cap. 4. Possidonius in vita Augustine. jerom. Phil. 1. ver. 1. Chrysost. Amb. Theod. Oecumen. And such was Bishop's pre-eminence, that Presbyters, Deacons, and other Clerks, are said to be the Bishop's Clerks.  

Answer.  
I answer to the Assumption. That there may be said to be 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, only by Law Ecclesiastical. For the Scripture is said to have placed Presbyters who did Superintendere, Act. 20. and that there were Bishops at Philippi. True it is, the Scripture doth not distinguish how many of the one sort, nor how many of the other, because no doubt for the number of the Congregations, a single Presbyter labouring in the Word, or two, the one coadjutor to the other might be placed. Secondly, it is testified by Epiphanius, that ordinarily all Cities but Alexandria had two. Thirdly, jerom on 1. Tim. 3. doth say, that now indeed there may be but one Bishop, meaning canonically, making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolic. fourthly, Austin, did not know it was unlawful: Yea he did only 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 story of Narcissus, and Alexander, and Liberius, and Foelix doth more than manifest. For though the people of Rome cried out one God, one Christ, one Bishop, yet they yielded at their emperors suit, whereas had it been a thing they had all thought to have been against Christ's institution, they would not have done. Vide Soz. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly, jeroms peerless power, is nothing but Consul-like presidence above others; for this he pleaded for, writing against jovinian lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselves, that schism might be avoided. Wherefore we yield the conclusion in this sense, that the Bishop jure humano, hath a singularity of pre-eminence before others, as by Ecclesiastical law there might be but one only Archbishop.    

13 Argument.  
Those who had peerless power above others in ordination and jurisdiction, they were such as had pre-eminence and majority of rule over others. But the former is due to Bishops. Unless this singularity of power were yielded, there would be as many schisms as Priests. Ergo. The assumption proved. Those who have a peculiar power of ordination above others, they are in pre-eminence and power before others. But Bishops have, Ergo, they are in etc. The assumption proved. That which was not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Crete before Timothy and Titus were sent, but in the Apostles, and after in Timothy and Titus and their successors, that is a peculiar of Bishops. But ordination was not in the Presbyters, etc. Ergo. The assumption proved. That which these were sent to do, Presbyters had not power to do. It was therefore in them, and such as succeeded them, the Bishops of Ephesus and Crete. Again, the Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, speak of the ordeyner as one. Ergo, it was the peculiar right of the Bishop, and the Bishop only. He only by Canon was punishable for irregularity in ordination. And Epiphanius maketh this the proper power of a Bishop to beget fathers by ordination, as though Presbyters doth sons by Baptism. And jerom doth except ordination as the Bishop's peculiar, wherein he is most unequal to them.  

Answer.  
I answer the Proposition of the first syllogism by distinction. Those who have peerless power in regard of the simple right to ordain; viz. in regard of exercising the act, and sole performing the rite of it, those who have a right to these things originally from Christ and his Apostles which no others have, they are above others in degree. Again, peerless power in a Bishop over Presbyters may be said in comparison to them distributively or collectively considered. He that hath peerless power given him which no one of the other hath, is not presently of a greater degree, nor hath not majority of rule amongst others, as a Consul in the Senate: But if he have a peerless power, such as they all collectively considered, cannot control, than the Proposition is true; but the Assumption will then be found to halt.  
To the proof of the assumption. The Proposition is true of power in order to the thing itself, not to ministering the rite, and executing the act, which may be reserved for honour sake to one, by those who otherwise have equal power with him. That Bishops have this power in order, the thing itself agreeing to them, Viproprii officii, not by commission from others, we deny. The assumption is wholly denied. As for the proof of it. First, we that deny that Evangelists had not power to ordain, as well as Apostles. Secondly, that Presbyters had not this power in a Church planted as well as they. Every one as fellow servants might conspire in the same ordination. The Evangelists 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 Evangelists, whose office it was to labour in erecting the frame of churches. Secondly, the assumption is false; in denying that it was in the power of Presbyters to lay on hands, contrary to that in Timothy: The grace given thee by laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Thirdly, it is false, in presupposing others then Presbyters to have been Timothy and Titus their successors. To the proof of this assumption. The proposition is not true: For it might be convenient that the same thing should be done by Evangelists, and by ordinary Pastors, each concurring in their several orders to the same service of Christ the Lord. Secondly, I answer to the assumption. That Presbyters were to be placed in Churches framed where there were Presbyters, or where there were as yet none. In the first Churches, they are bid ordain 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. We hold Apostles might do it, Evangelists might, and the Presbyteries also. Yea Presbyters in Alexandria when now their first Presbyter was deceased, did ordain the following: For the Canon of three Bishops, and Metropolitans, added by the Nicene Council, was not known yet. Nevertheless it grew timely to be restrained to Bishops, the performing I mean of the outward rite and sign; but only by Canon, as Consignation was also, for which there is as ancient testimonies as this, that it was appropriate to the Bish. We grant therefore that antiquity doth sometime speak of the ordainer as one. In the Churches of Africa one did not lay on hands, yet in some other churches the rite was by one administered. And it is to be noted by the way, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some Canons is not opposed to the Coordaining of Presbyters, but to the number of Three, or many Bishops required in the ordination of a Bishop. They might therefore by their canons be punishable, because regularly and canonically the executing of it was committed to them. This is all that Epiphanius or jeroms 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 virtue of this power, the Bishop doth ordain, and not by Ecclesiastical right or commission from the Church. Certainly, the act of promoting a minister of the Church, is rather an act of jurisdiction than order. As it belongeth to policy and government, to call new Magistrates, where they are wanting. Object. But a new spiritual officer may be instituted by a sacrament. Answ. If God would so have collated the grace of spiritual callings; but he hath appointed no such thing. The Apostles and 72. were not instituted by a sacrament or imposition of Christ's hands. Now the greater the grace was which was given, the more need of a sacrament whereby it should be given. Object. They were extraordinary, Answ. They might have had some ambulatory sacrament for the time. Again, imposition of hands was used in giving extraordinary graces, Act. 8. Secondly, were it a sacrament, it should confer 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 already before this, immediately chosen by God to the grace of their office. It could be nothing then but a a gesture accompanied with prayer, seeking grace in their behalf. For the sacramental collating of grace sanctifying all callings, we have in these two sacraments of Christ's institution. Thirdly, there are many kinds of imposition of hands in the old and new testament, yet cannot it be proved, that it is any where a proper sacrament. It is then a rite, a gesture, a ceremony, signifying a thing or person separate, presented to God, prayed for to God. Thus Antiquity did think of it, as a gesture of one, by prayer to God, seeking a blessing on every one chosen to this or that place of ministry. So Ecclesiasticallie it was used in baptizing, 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.. showeth this, saying, Manus imponitur per benedictionem advocans & invitans spiritum sanctum. jerom 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. etc. The Greek Churches have ever given Orders by a form of prayer conceived with imposition of hands. Hence it is, that they imposed hands even on Deaconesses, where it could not be otherwise considered then a deprecative gesture. Neither is it like the African Fathers ever thought it a sacrament, which no other had virtue and power to minister, but the Bishop. For than they would never have admitted Presbyters to use the same rite with them. For so they had suffered them to profane a sacrament, wherein they had no power to intermeddle. Object. If one say they did lay on hands with them, but the Bishop's imposition was properly Consecrative and sacramental, theirs Deprecative only. Answer. Besides that this is spoken without foundation, how absurd is it, that the very self-same sacramental rite should be a sacrament in one ministers hand, and no sacrament performed by another: Yea, when the Bishop doth it to a Presbyter, or Deacon, than a sacrament; when to a Subdeacon, and other inferior officers, than none, let any judge. Austin did account no other of imposition of hands, than a prayer over a man, accompanied with that gesture. secondly, they do not think that the Bishop ordaineth by divine right, it being excepted to him as a minister of higher sacramental power: but that he only doth ordain quoad signum & ritum extrinsecum, by the Church's commission, though the right of ordaining be in all the Presbytery also. As in a College the society have right to choose a fellow, and to ordain him also, though the master doth alone lay on hands, and give admission. Thus jerom speaketh of confirmation, that it was reserved to the Bishop for honour sake, rather than any necessity of God's law. Whence by analogy and proportion, it followeth they think not ordination, or those other Episcopal royalties to have been reserved to him by divine right. Beside there are more ancient proofs for Canonical appropriating confirmation, then for this imposition of hands. Cornelius speaketh thus of Novatus, he wanted those things which he should have had after Baptism, according to the Canon, the sealing of our Lord from a Bishop, Euseb. Lib. 6. cap. 25. So Cyprian to jul. Nevertheless jerom judgeth this also to have been yielded them for honour sake. And we know that in the Bishop's absence, Presbyters through the East did Consignare, through Grecia, through Armenia. Neither would Gregory the great have allowed Presbyters in the Greek Churches to have confirmed, had he judged it otherwise then canonically to belong to the Bishops. That therefore which is not properly a sacramental action, and that which is not appropriate to a Bishop further than Presbyters have committed it to him, that cannot make him in higher degree of ministery than Presbyters are.  
Thirdly, in reconciling penitents, the Presbyters did it in case of the Bishop's absence: as is to be gathered from the third Council of Carthage, 32. And who thinks blessing so appropriate to a Bishop, that Presbyters may not solemnly bless in the name of the Lord, though antiquity reserved this to him. These therefore were kept to him, not as acts exceeding the Presbyters power of order, but for the supposed honour of him & the Church. For as Ambrose saith,  omnes eadem possent irrationale, & vulgaris res, vilisque videretur. It pleaseth antiquity therefore to set up one who should quoad exercitium do many 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.  
fourthly, Amalarius in a certain book sacred orders, doth confute the doctrine of an uncertain author, who taught that one Bishop only was to lay hands on a Deacon: because he was consecrated not to Priesthood, but to ministery 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. Optimun est bonos duces sequi, qui certaverunt usque ad plenam victoriam. Whence it is plain, he did know no further thing in imposition then prayer, which the more impose, is the more forcible.    

The fourteenth Argument.  
Those who had jurisdiction over Presbyters assisting them, and Presbyters affixed to Cures, they had a superiority of power over other ministers. But Bishops had so, Ergo, etc.  
The Assumption is manifest, Ignatius describeth the Bishop from this, that he should be the governor of the Presbytery and whole Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And jerom and Austin on the 44. Psal: call them the Princes of the Church, by whom she is governed. The assumption is proved particularly. Those who had directive power above others, and corrective, they had majority of rule. But Bishops had Ergo. The assumption proved. First, for directive power, the Presbyters were to do nothing without them. Igna. ad Mag. ad Smyr. They might not minister the sacrament of the supper but under the Bishop, Clem. Epist. 1. ad jacob. Tert. Lib. de bapt. Can. Apost. 38. Con. Carthag. 4.38. Con. Car. 2. Can. 9 Con. Gan. 16. Conc. Ant. Can. 5.  
Secondly, that they had corrective power, it is proved, Apoc. 2. & 3. The Angel of Ephesus did not suffer false Apostles, & is commended for it, the Angel of Thyatira is reproved for suffering the like. Therefore they had power over other ministers. Cyp. lib. 3. Ep. 9 telleth telleth Rogatian he had power to have censured his Deacon. jerom. adversus Vigilantium, marvelleth that the Bishop where Vigilantius was, did not break the unprofitable vessel. Epiphanius saith, Bishops governed the Presbyters themselves, they the people. The Presbyters affixed to places & churches, were subject to the Bishops, for when they were vacant, the Bishop did supply them. Again, the Presbyters had their power from him, and therefore were under him, and they were subject io the censure of the Bishop. Those of his Clergy were under him; for he might promote them, they might not go from one Diocese to another without him, not travel to the City, but by his leave. The Bishop was their judge, and might excommunicate them, Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Concil. Carth. 4. ca 50. Conc. Chal. ca 9 Conc. Nice, ca 4. Conc. Ant. ca 4. ibid. ca 6. ca 12. Cart. 2. cap. 7. Conc. Afric. ca 29. Conc. Ephes. ca 5. Con. Chal. ca 23. The examples of Alexander and Chrysostome prove this. All Presbyters were counted acephali, headless, that lived not in subjection to a Bishop. The Pastors of parishes were either subject to Bishops, or they had associates in Parishes joined with them, or they ruled alone. But they had not associates, neither did they rule alone. Ergo, they were subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop.  

Answer.  
The proposition of the first Syllogism it must be thus framed. Those who had power of jurisdiction in themselves, without the concurrence of other Presbyters, as fellow judges, they were greater in majority of rule. Thus Bishops had not jurisdiction. True it is, they were called governors and Prince's of their Churches, because they were more eminent ministers, though they had not Monarchical power in Churches, but Consull-like authority: and therefore when they affected this Monarchy, what said jerom, 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 proof of the Assumption. We deny that they had this directive power over all Presbyters. Secondly, that they had it over any by human 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 he did over those who were numbered amongst his clerics, who were helps to him in the Liturgy, in chapels and parishes which did depend on him as their proper teacher, though they could not so ordinarily go 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 Ancient: But the Presbyters, which were part of their Clergy, they had this directive power over them, the Canons Ecclesiastical allowing the same. But I take these latter to have been but a corruption of governing presbyters, who came to be made a human ministry, 1. by having singular acts permitted. 2. by being consecrate to this, & so doing ex officio, what they were employed in by the Bishop. But sure these are but helps to liturgy, according to the Canons. Preaching did not agree to them further than 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 prayer, the Creed and 10 commandments: as it is plain to him that is any thing conversant in the ancient. secondly, 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 only by canon swerving from the first ordinance of Christ: for it maketh a minister of the word become as a cipher, without power of his consecration, as jerom speaketh, being so interpreted by Bilson himself. These decrees were as justifiable, as that which forbiddeth any to baptize, who hath not gotten chrism from the Bishop Con. Carth. 4. ca 36. unless the phrases do note only a precedence of order in the Bishop above presbyters, requiring presence and assent, as of a fellow and chief member, not otherwise.  
To the proof of the second part of the former assumption, 1. we deny this majority of corrective power to have been in the Apostles themselves: they had only a ministry executive inflicting that which Christ's corrective power imposed. Secondly, we deny that this ministerial power of censuring was singularly exercised by any Apostle or Evanglist, where Churches were constituted. Neither is the writing to one above others, an argument that he had the power to do all alone without concurrence of others. To that of Cyprian against Rogatian, we deny that Cyprian meaneth he would have done it alone, or that he and his Presbytery could have done it without the consent of Bishop's 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 judgement, that he himself might do nothing without the consent of his Presbyters, unless he should violate his duty, by running a course which stood not with the honour of his brethren. It was not modesty in him; but due observancy, such as he did owe unto his brethren. Neither did Cyprian ever ordinarily any thing alone. He received some, the people and the brethren contradicting, lib. 1. ep. 3. but not till he had persuaded them, and brought them to be willing. Thou seest (saith he) what pains I have to persuade the brethren to patience. So again, I hardly persuade the people, yea even wring it from them, that such should be received. Neither did he take upon him to ordain Presbyters alone: but propounded, made request for them, confessing, that further than God did extraordinarily prevent both him and them, they had the right of suffrage, no less than himself, as by these epistles may appear, l. 1. ep. 20. l. 2. ep. 5. l. 4. ep. 10. jerom (though grandiloquent sometimes) did never think a Bishop could lawfully without his Presbyteries concurrence, excommunicate. If he were as Moses, yet he would have these as the seventy. Again, jerom doth write expressly of all in general, 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 therefore they did it alone without concurrence of their com-Presbyters. As for the fixed Presbyters, the proofs are more unsufficient. The Bishop supplied them, therefore they were under him. For colleges supply Churches, yet have they no jurisdiction over them. Secondly, the canons did provide ne plebi invitae Presbyter obtruderetur. Thirdly, we distinguish majority of rule from some jurisdiction. We grant the Bishop had such a jurisdiction as concerned the Church, so far as it was in society with others, such as an Archbishop 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 ministerial interposition, yet this doth not prove them dependent on him. For Bishops have their power from others ordaining them, to whom notwithstanding they are not subject in their Churches. In case of delinquency they were subject to the Bishop with the Presbytery, yet so that they could not be proceeded against till consent of many other Bishops did ratify the sentence. Thus in Cyprians judgement, Bishops themselves delinquent, turning wolves, as Samosatenus, Liberius, etc. are subject 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 he could not without consent of his Presbyters and fellow Bishops, do any thing. The Bishop indeed is only named many times: but it is a common Synecdoche, familiar to the fathers, who put the primary member of the Church for the representative Church, as Augustine saith, Petrum propter Apostolatus simplicitatem figuram Ecclesiae gessisse. See council. 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 Alexander's, it is strange that any will bring it, when he did it not without a Synod of many Bishops, yea without his Clergy, as sitting in judgement with him. Chrysostoms' fact fact is not to be justified: for it was altogether irregular, savouring of the impetuous nature to which is he was inclined, though in regard of his end, and unworthiness of his Presbyters, it may be excused, yet it is not to be imitated. As for those headless Clerks, it maketh nothing for the Bishop's majority of rule over all Churches and Presbyters in them. For first, it seemeth to be spoken of those that lived under the conduct of the Bishop, a collegiat life together, Eodem refectorio & dormitorio utebantur, & Canonicè viventes ab Episcopo instruebantur. Now when all such Clerks did live then as members of a College under a master, it is no wonder if they be called headless, who did belong to no Bishop. Secondly, say it were alike of all Presbyters, which will never be proved (for all Presbyters in the Diocese were not belonging to the Bishop's Clerks) say it were, ye will it not follow, that those who were under some, were subject to his authority of rule. For there is a head in regard of presidency of order, as well as of power. Bishops were to find out by Canon the chief Bishop of their province, and to associate themselves with him. So Bishops do now live ranged under their Archbishops as heads. Priests therefore as well as Clerks, did live under some jurisdiction of the Bishops: but such as did permit them coercive power in their own Churches, such as made the Bishop a head in regard of dignity, and not of any power, whereby he might sway all at his pleasure. thirdly, if the Bishop's degenerate to challenge Monarchy or tyranny, it is better be without such heads then to have them: as we are more happy in being withdrawn from the headship of the Bishop of Rome, then if he still were head over us. To the last insinuation, proving that Bishops had the government of those Churches which presbyters had, because neither presbyters alone had it, nor with assistants. 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 only, how did this Bishop excommunicate? When the fathers of Africa did give a Bishop unto those now multiplied, who had enjoyed but a Presbyter, what assistants did they give him? what assistants had the Chorepiscopis, who yet had government of their churches?    

The fifteenth Argument.  
That which the orthodox churches ever condemned as heresy, the contrary of that is truth. But in Aerius they have condemned the denial of superiority in one minister above others. Ergo, the contrary is truth.  

Answer.  
To the proposition, we deny that it must needs be presently true, the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresy. As the representative catholic church may propound an error, so she may condemn a particular truth, and yet remain a catholic church. To the assumption we deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denial of superiority, but that only which Aerius run into. Now his opinion I take to have been this. 1. He did with jerom deny superiority of any kind as due by Christ's ordinance: for this opinion was never counted heresy, it was jeroms plainly. 2. He did not deny the fact, that Bishops were superior in their actual admistration; he could not be so mad. If he had all that a Bishop had actually, how could he have affected to be a Bishop, as a further honour? Denial of superiority, such as consisteth in a further power of order then a Presbyter hath, and in a kingly monarchical majority of rule, this denial is not here condemned: for all the fathers may be broughs as witnesses against this superiority in the Church. What then was condemned in him? A denial of all superiority in one minister before another, though it were but of honour and dignity: and secondly the denying of this in schismatical manner, so as to forsake communion with the Church wherein 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 & dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiastical institution. What is this to us? Denial of superiority jam regard of honour & dignity, joined with schism, was condemned: Ergo, denial of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule, keeping the bond of love was condemned.  
The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last denial, then can it not conclude against us. Ergo, it is a truth that some Ministers may be above othersome, in order, honour, and dignity. But they understand not by order such an order only as is distinct, because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it, which is not to other. Though this argument therefore touch us not, yet to speak 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 do in some sort excuse him. For Bishops were grown such that many good persons were offended at them, as the Audianis. Yea, it was so ordinary, that Jerome distinguisheth schism from heresy, because the one contained 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 story 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 descent from them in this point of their freehold, any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion. Are not we traduced as Donatists, Anabaptists, Puritans? As for his opinion, they thought it rather schismatical, then heretical: & therefore happily called it heresy, because it included error in their understanding, which with schismatical pertinacy was made heresy. Neither is it likely that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresy, nor Austin following him. For though Austin was aged, yet he was so humble, that he saith, Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri. Neither was it prejudice to his worth for to follow men more ancient than himself, who in likelihood should know this matter also better. As for his calling it heresy, it is certain he would not have this in rigour strained. 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 heresy. Though therefore he doubted not of this, that Aerius was in error, such as all Catholics should decline: yet it doth not argue that he thought this error in rigour and formal propriety, to have been heresy. Thus much for this last Argument.  
On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be seriously considered.    

Argument 1.  
Those whom the Apostles placed as chief, in their first constituting of Churches, and left as their successors in their last farewells which they gave to the Churches, they had none superior to them in the Churches. But they first placed Presbyters, feeding with the Word and governing: and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches. Ergo. The assumption is denied: they did not place them, as the chief ordinary Pastors in those Churches, but placed them to teach and govern, in fore interno; with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor, which when now they were grown to a just multitude should be given to them. The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction: they gave to Presbyters power of order, power to teach, minister sacraments, and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted; but kept the coercive power in their own hands, meaning, when now by the Presbyters labour, the Churches were grown to a greater multitude, meaning (I say) then to set over them some more eminent Pastors, Apostolical men, to whom they would commit the power of government, that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches; and to these with their successors, not to the Presbyters, were the Churches recommended. All which is an audacious fiction, without any warrant of Scripture, or show of good reason. For it is confessed, that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution, as the Pastors and Teachers of the Churches. Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governor they would have intimated somewhere this their intention: but this they do not; yea, the contrary purpose is by them declared. For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks, as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ, the Arch-shepheard of them all. Again, the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government. There may be governors without pastoral power; but not a Pastor without power of governing. For the power of the Pedum, or shepherds staff, doth intrinsically follow the Pastoral office. What likelihood is there, that those who were set as parents to beget children should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith children now begotten are to be nurtured and kept in awe beseeming them? If it be said, every one fit for the office of a Teacher, was not fit for a Governor. I answer, he that is fit to be a Pastor teaching and governing in foro interno, is much more fit to be a Governor externally: he who is fit for the greater is fit for the lesser. It was a greater and more Apostolical work to labour conversion, and bring the Churches a handful in the planting (as some think) to become numbersome in people, than it is to govern them being converted. And it is absurd to think that those who were fit to gather a Church, and bring it to fullness from small beginnings, should not be fit to govern it, but stand in need to have some one sent, who might rule them and the Churches they had collected. Secondly, these Presbyters were (as themthemselues confess) qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and chosen by special designation: so that to impute insufficiency unto them, is harsh, and injurious to God, as well as to man. Finally, by the twenty of the Acts, and the first Epistle of Peter, ch. 5. it is plain, they do in their last farewells commit the Churches unto the Presbyters, not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to be sent, who should supply their rooms: which yet they would not have forgotten, being a thing of so great consolation, had it been intended by them.   

Argument. 2.  
Those who have the name and office of Bishops common to them, they have no superior Pastors over them. But the Presbyters Pastoral have that name and office attributed to them. For first they are said to govern in general. Secondly, there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keys in foro externo, but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them, power of suffrage in council, Act. 15. power of excommunication, which is manifest to have been in the Church of Corinth when it had no Bishop, power of ordination, 1. Tim. 4. If any say, that this their power was but by commission in them, and that they were subordinate to the Apostles in exercise of it, being to retain it only until such time as more eminent Pastors should be given: I answer, all this is spoken gratis, without any foundation, and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected. The Presbyters so had this power, that they did commit it to the Bishops, as we shall show after: and therefore it must have been in them, not by extraordinary commission, but by ordinary office. Secondly, they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the Holy Ghost, who only had out of authority trusted them with it. If the Apostles and they did concur in doing one and the same thing, they did it as inferior to the Apostles, and servants of a lower order, not with any subjection to them, as heads of derivation, serving Christ their only Lord, no less immediately than the Apostles themselves.   

Argument. 3.  
That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ, may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors: but in all other orders, there were none that had singularity of pre-eminence and majority of power above other. No Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist had this rule one over another. If the proposition be denied, upon supposal of a different reason, because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder, yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers, it could not but breed schism and confusion, and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest, and other secondary ones, so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be divided, some being in the first, and some in the second rank. To this I answer, the parity is the more dangerous, by how much the places are supereminent. Secondly, though Pastors should be equal, yet this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church, some whereof should be in degree inferior to other, the governing Elders to the Pastors, and the Deacons to them. Thirdly, if every Church being an Ecclesiastical body, should have governors every way equal, there were no fear of confusion, seeing Aristocracy, especially where God ordaineth it, is a form of government sufficient to preserve order. But every Church might then do what ever it would within itself. Not so neither; for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled, and to the civil Magistrate, who in case of delinquency, hath directive and corrective power over it. Parity doth not so much endanger the Church by schism, as imparity doth by tyranny subject it. As for the distinction of Priests, we grant it; but as man could not have made that distinction, had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament, no more can we under the new. Howbeit, that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule, as our Bishops now challenge.   

Argument. 4.  
If some be inferior unto othersome in degree of power, it must be in regard of their power to teach, or their power to govern, or in the application of this power to their persons, or in regard of the people whom they teach and govern, or finally, in regard the exercise of their power is at the direction of another. But no Pastor or Teacher dependeth on any other but Christ for any of these. Ergo. The proposition standeth on a sufficient enumeration: the assumption may be proved in the several parts of it. The former branch is thus cleared. First, the power we have, is the same essentially with theirs; yea, every way the same. Secondly, we have it as immediately from Christ as they. I show them both thus: The power of order is the power which enableth us to preach and deliver the whole counsel of God, and to minister all Sacraments sealing God's covenant. Now unless we will with the Papists, say that preaching is no necessary annexum to the Presbyters office, or that his power is a rudimental limited power, as to open the creed, Lord's prayer, and commandments only, or that he hath not the full power sacramental, there being other sacraments of ordination and confirmation which we may not minister, all which are gross, we must yield their power of order to be the same. Yea, were these sacraments properly, they are both grounded in the power a Presbyter hath: Ordination in do this in remembrance of me: confirmation in power to baptise. The power being the same, it is happily in one immediately, and in the other by derivation from him. Nothing less. All grant that Christ doth immediately give it, even as the inward grace of every Sacrament cometh principally from him The Church, did she give this power, might make the sacrament and preaching which one doth in order, no sacrament, no preaching. The Pope doth not (if we follow the common tenant) calling so much as to give the power of order to any Bishop or Priest whatsoever. If you say, the Presbyter is ordained by the Bishop, that is nothing: so is the Bishop by other Bishops, from whom notwithstanding he receiveth not this power. We will take this as granted of all: though the truth is, all do not maintain it from right grounds. But it will be said, the Presbyter is inferior in jurisdiction, and can have none but what is derived to him from the Bishop, who hath the fullness of it within his Diocesan Church. But this is false, and grounded on many false presumptions. As first, that Ministers of the Word are not properly and fully Pastors; for to make a Pastor, and give him no help against the Wolf, is to furnish him forth imperfectly. Secondly, it presupposeth the power of jurisdiction to be given originally and fontally to one person of the Church, and so to others, whereas Christ hath committed it originaliter & exercitative to the representative Church, that they might Aristocratically administer it. Thirdly, this presupposeth the plenitude of regiment to be in the Bishop, and from him to be derived to other: which maketh him a head of virtual influence, that in his Church, which the Pope doth challenge in regard of all Bishops. For his headship and spiritual sovereignty standeth according to Bellarmine in this, that the government of all in fore externo, is committed to him. Not to mention, how Bishops, while they were Bishops gloried of their chair and teaching, as the slower of their garland, preferring it far before government, but when they were fallen from their spiritual felicity, and infected with secular smoke, than they recommended the labour of teaching to the Presbyters, than their jurisdiction and consistory did carry all the credit, every office in the Church being counted a dignity, as it had more or less jurisdiction annexed; as those are more or less honourable in the Commonwealth, which have civil authority in less or greater measure conjoined. The truth is, it cannot be showed that God ever made Pastor without this jurisdiction; for whether it do agree to men as they are Pastors, or as they are Prelates in the Church, it cannot be avoided but that the Pastor should have it, because though every Praesul or Praelatus, be not a Pastor, yet every Pastor is Praelatus, in order to that Church where he is the proper and ordinary Pastor. Yea, when censure is the most sharp spiritual medicine, it were ill with every Church, if he who is resident always among them as their spiritual Physician, should not have power in administering it. Thirdly, I say, no Minister hath majority of power in applying the power of order or jurisdiction to this or that person. In the application there is a ministery of the Church interposed: but so that Christ only is the cause with power, not only why Presbyters are in the Church, but why Thomas or john is chosen to and bestowed on this or that place. A Master only doth out of power take every servant into his house: so God in his. God did those Aaron's sons with the Levites, and Christ the 70, not mediately leaving it to the arbitrement of any to set out those that should stand before him. God doth ever only in regard of authority, apply all power Ecclesiastical to every particular person, his sole authority doth it, though sometime as in ordinary callings, the ministery of others doth concur. The Church is in setting out, or ordaining this or that man, as the College is in choosing, when she taketh the man whom the statute of her founder doth most manifestly describe, or where the King's mandate doth strictly enjoin, it would otherwise bring an imperial power into the Church. For though many Kings cannot hinder but that there shall be such and such officers, and places of government as are in their Kingdom, yet while they are free at their pleasure to depute this or that man to the places vacant, they have a Kingly jurisdiction in them. Briefly, God doth ever apply the power Ecclesiastical unto the person: sometime alone by himself, as in the Apostles, and then he doth it tam immediatione suppositi quam virtutis: sometime the ministery of man concurring extraordinarily, as when God extraordinarily directeth a person to go and call one to this or that place, as he did Samuel to anoint Saul. Or else ordinarily, when God doth by his Writ and Spirit, guide men to take any to this or that place in his Church, which he doth partly by his written statutes, and partly by his Spirit: and thus he doth make the application only immedatione virtutis, not suppositi.  
Ob. But yet Bishops have the Churches, & the care of them wholly committed to them; though therefore Ministers have equal power to them, yet they cannot without their leave have any place within their Churches, and therefore are inferior, in as much as the people with whom they exercise their power of order and jurisdiction, are assigned to them by the Bishop the proper Pastor of them. This is an error likewise: For God doth make no Minister to whom he doth not assign a flock which he may attend. God calleth Ministers, not to a faculty of honour, which doth qualify them with power to ministerial actions, if any give them persons among whom they may exercise their power received, as the Emperors did make Chartularios judices, who had a power to judge causes if any would subject himself to them. Or as the Count Palatine hath ordinary judges, who are habitu tantum judices, having none under them, amongst whom they may exercise jurisdiction. Or as the university giveth the degree of a Doctor in Physic, without any patients among whom he may practise. But God's ministery is the calling of a man to an actual administration, Go teach: and the power of order is nothing by the way, but a relative respect, founded in this, that I am called to such an actual administration. Now there cannot be an act commanded, without the subject about which it is occupied: otherwise, God should give them a faculty of feeding, and leave them depending on others for sheep to feed; God should make them but remote potential Ministers, and the Bishop actual. Thirdly, the Holy Ghost is said to have set the Presbyters over their flock. A man taking a steward, or other servant into his house, doth give him a power of doing something to his family; and never thinketh of taking servants, further than the necessity of his household doth require: so is it with God in his Church, which is his house: fore the exigency of his people so require, he doth not call any to the function of ministery. Again, this is enough to ground the authority which Antichrist assumeth: For some make his sovereignty to stand only in this, not that he giveth order or power of jurisdiction, but that he giveth to all Pastors & Bishops the moiety of sheep, on whom this their power is exercised, Christ having given him the care of all his sheep, feed my sheep. so Vasquez. Thus if a Bishop challenge all the sheep in a Diocesan flock to be his, & that he hath power to assign the several flocks under him, he doth usurp an Antichristian authority. Finally, if the Churches be the Bishops through the Diocese, Ministers than are under them in their Churches, but as a curate is, whom a Parson giveth leave to help within his Church. Yea, they should lose their right in their Churches, when the Bishop dieth, as a Curate doth when the Parson of this or that Church, whom he assisted, is once departed. To conclude, they are not dependent (one Minister I mean on another) in the exercise and use of their calling. A servant that hath any place, doth know from his Master what belongeth to it. The Priests and Levites had set down what belonged to their places, as well as the high Priest what belonged to his. Again, God hath described the Presbyters office, as amply as any other. A Legate dependeth on none for instructions, but on him that sendeth him; now every Minister is an Ambassador of Christ. By their reason a Minister should be accountant to man for what he did in his ministery, if his exercising of it did depend on man. Then also should ministers mediately only serve God, in as much as they have done this or that, to which the Bishop did direct them. Moreover, should the Bishop bid him not preach at all, preach rarely, teach only such and such things, or come and live from his charge, he should not sin in obeying him. But man cannot limit that power of ministery which he cannot give. It is not with God's servants in his Church, as with civil servants in the Commonwealth: for here some servants are above others whom they command as they will, such as are called servi ordinarii or praepositi, some are under others to do this or that commanded by them, commonly called servi vicarii: but in the Church all servants serve their Master Christ, neither having any that they can command, nor being under any but Christ so as to be commanded by them. But it may be objected, that God hath ordained some to be helps and assistants to othersome It is said that God hath ordained powers, helps, governors, 1. Cor. 12.8. and were not the Evangelists assistants to the Apostles, doing that to which they directed them? To this I answer, that the helps God hath put in his Church respect the calling of Deacons, and such as ministered to the infirm ones: As for Evangelists, they were companions and assistants to the Apostles, but it was in order to the work of God in their hands, which they were to serve, not in order to their persons, as if they had been subjected to them in any servile inferiority. Observe how Paul speaketh of them 2. Cor. 8.23. Titus was his companion and helper towards them, Phil. 2.25. Epaphroditus was his brother and helper in his work, and fellow soldier, 1. Thess. 3.2. Timothy was his coadjutor in the Gospel of Christ, 2. Tim. 4.11. Mark was helpful in the ministery. The truth is, this was servitus non personalis sed realis, the Evangelists did serve the work the Apostles had in hand, without being servants to their persons. When brickelayers work, some mix lime, and make mortar, some bear up tile and mortar, some sit on the house and there lay that which is brought them. These are all fellow servants, yet the one doth serve to set forward the work of the other. But were they not left to the direction of the Apostles; wholly in exercise of their calling? I answer, as Christ gave some to be Evangelists, so he made them know from himself what belonged to their office, and what was the administration to which he called them. He did not therefore wholly leave them to the direction of any. There is a double direction, one potestativa, which is made from majority of rule ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other socialis, such as one servant, having fit knowledge of his masters will, and ripe experience, may give to another. The latter kind of direction it was, not the former, by which the Evangelists were directed. Which though commonly Paul used, yet not so universally but that they went sometime of their own accords hither and thither, as may be gathered, 2. Cor. 8.16.17. and 2.7.14.15.   

The fift Argument.  
That which the Apostles had not over Prophets, Evangelists, Presbyters, nor Deacons themselves that power which the Church hath not over any member, the Bishop hath not over other ministers. But they had not over any inferior officers any majority of directive or corrective power: neither hath the Church itself any such power. Ergo. The assumption is proved: For majority of directive and corrective power is a Lordlike and Regal power: now there is no such power in the Church, or in the Apostles, or in any but only in that one Lord: all other power being but a declarative and executive ministery to signify and execute what Christ out of majority of power would have signified and put in execution.   

The sixth Argument.  
That which doth breed an Antichristian usurpation, never was of Christ's institution. But Bishop's majority of power in regard of order and jurisdiction, doth so: Ergo. That which maketh the Bishop a head as doth influere derive the power of external government to other his assistants, that doth breed an Antichristian usurpation. But to claim the whole power of jurisdiction through a Diocesan Church; doth so: for he must needs substitute helpers to him, because it is more than by himself he can perform. But this is it which maketh Antichrist, he doth take upon him to be head of the whole Church from whom is derived this power of external government: and the Bishop doth no less in his Diocesan Church, that which he usurpeth differing in degree only and extension, not in kind from that which the Pope arrogateth. If it be said that his power is Antichristian, because it is universal: it is not so. For were the power lawful, the universality could not make it Antichristian. The Apostles had an universality of authority, yet no Antichrists, because it did not make them heads, deriving to others from their fullness: it was not princelike majority of power, but steward like and ministerial only. If one do usurp a kingly power in Kent only, he were an Anti-king to our sovereign, no less for kind, then if he proclaimed himself King of England, Scotland and Ireland. There is but one Lord, and many ministrations. Neither doth this make the Pope's power papal, because it is not under a Synod: for the best of the Papists hold, and it is the most common tenant, that he is subject to an ecumenical Council. secondly, though he be subject, yet that doth not hinder but be may usurp a kingly government: for a King may have a kingly power, and yet confess himself accountable to all his people collectively considered. Neither doth this make the Bishop's lawful in one Church, because one may manage it, and the Pope's unlawful, because none is sufficient to sway such a power through the whole Church: for then all the power the Pope doth challenge, is not per se, but per accidens unlawful, by reason of man's unsufficiency, who cannot wield so great a matter.   

The seventh Argument.  
Those ministers who are made by one patent in the same words, have equal authority: but all ministers of the word are made by the same patent, in the same words, Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins ye forgive, etc. Ergo. The proposition is denied: because the sense of the words is to be understood according as the persons give leave to whom they are spoken. These words spoken to Apostles, they gave them larger power than to a Bishop: and so spoken to a Presbyter they give him less power than to a Bishop. Answer. If the Scripture had distinguished of Presbyters Pastoral feeding with the word, and made them diverse degrees, as it hath made Apostles and Evangelists, than we would grant the exception: but the Scripture doth not know this division of Pastors and Doctors into chief and assistant: but speaketh of them as of Apostles and Evangelists, who were among themselves equal in degree. Wherefore as no Apostle received by these words greater power than another: so no Pastor or Teacher, but must receive the same power, as who are among themselves of the same degree. secondly, were they different degrees, yet it should give the Presbyter for kind, though not of so ample extent as the Bishop hath, as it giveth the Bishop the same power for kind, which the Apostles had, though not so universal, but contracted to particular churches.  
Now to come unto some conclusions or assertions which may lend light unto the deciding of this question.  
Conclus. 1. Let this be the first. No minister of the word hath any power but ministerial in the Church. Power is natural or moral. Moral is Civil or Ecclesiastical. Civil is either Lordlike and ruling, or ministerial and servile. So Ecclesiastical, taken largely for all power subjectivelie in, or objectivelie about the Church, is either Lordlike and Regal, such as is in Christ, or it is ministerial and servile, such as is in the Church and the principal members of it. The power therefore of the Apostles themselves and Evangelists, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 20. 1. Tim. 4. yea such a service, as doth make the ministers having it, so servants, that they are no way Lords. Many ministers, one Lord: we preach Christ, ourselves your servants for jesus sake S. Paul maketh his power steward-like, not regal. Now as that is regal power which doth any thing from the authority one hath in himself, or from one's pleasure: so that is ministerial power which doth nothing but eyeing the will and power of him that is principal: a power which signifieth or executeth this or that ex mero alt●rius obsequio.  
Conclus. 2. This ministerial power is no supernatural virtue or quality inherent in the foul: but a relative respect founded on this, that I am called by God to this or that actual admimnistration in his Church. For it is not a power simply, whereby a man is made able to do some supernatural act, which he could not before in any manner perform: but it is respectively said a power, in as much as it doth enable him to do those acts in the Church of God lawfully, and ex officio, with which before he might not intermeddle. The power of a Deacon, Pastor, Evangelist, Apostle, belong to one predicament in regard of that which is the genus or common nature of them: the power of the Church cannot be other. Natural and civil power doth with virtue and efficacy reach those effects and ends to which they are designed: because they are proportioned to them, and exceed not their activity: but Ecclesiastical power cannot thus concur to the end and effects for which it is ordained: because they are such as the omnipotency of God only can produce, as the converting or creating grace in the heart of a sinner, to which no supernatural virtue in man can by any real, though instrumentarie, efficacy, conduce any thing.  
Conclus. 3. God hath not given ministerial power to any, which himself is not personally to discharge, nor in further plenitude then that by himself it may be performed. The reason is, because God cannot give one the charge of doing more than a man's proper industry can achieve, but he must withal put it in a man's power to take others, and to impart with them power of teaching and governing, so far as may supply that defect which is in his strength to perform it alone. He that will have the end, will have that without which the end cannot be attained. If God would have any one an universal pastor to all the Churches of the world, he must needs allow him power to substitute Pastors here and there, deriving unto them power both to teach and govern, so far as may supply his absence in the Pastoral care. If I will have one keep my flocks which go in 20 sheep-gates, if I commit them them to one, I must needs together give him leave to assume unto himself such as may be under-sheepheards to him. Thus if God give a Bishop the plenitude of Pastoral care and government over all the Parashionall Churches through a Diocese, he must needs together allow him this power, of being a head of internal influence; even a head virtually communicating with others part of pastoral power, whether teaching or government. Thus should none but Bishops be ex officio servants in Pastoral cure to God: all others should be immediately and formally servants to the Bishop, and do every thing in the name of the Bishop, being immediately only and in a remote sense the servants of God: as in the former comparison of one servant receiving from his master the care of all the flocks, he is the master's servant to whom the master committeth the trust, from whom he only looketh to see it performed: but those whom this shepherd taketh to himself for his aid, they come under his dominion, and are servants to him. If it be said, that God doth not thus make the Bishop Pastor, but that he will likewise that there be parish Pastors under him, and helps of government. To this I answer, if God will have them, then either after his own designment, or else leaving it to the Bishop's arbitrement: if he leave it to the Bishop's arbitrement, than the objection before is in force, God will look for the cure from him only, he shall take according to his judgement, such as may help him. If God will have them after his own designment, than he giveth the Bishop no more Pastoral power than he can discharge himself, others having their right in all the Bishop cannot execute, as well as the Bishop, and as immediately from Christ. Some writ, as if the Apostles had the plenitude of all Pastoral power, that from them it might be derived to the Church, it being seen through nature, that inferior things receive iufluence from the superior. But they misconceive the matter; they had only a power to serve the Church with the personal service of their Apostleship. The Pastoral power of Evangelists, or of ordinary Pastors and teachers, they never had. For as Christ gave the one order, so the two other also, for the gathering of the Saints, and exaedifying of the body of Christ: and no person in any rank had any power to do this or that in the Church further than himself might perform in person The steward in a house hath full power of a steward, but not the power of all other officers, as Clerk of the kitchen, Butler, Chamberlain, etc. So in these diverse orders of servants in God's house, his Church If the Apostles had had the fullness of Pastoral cure, they should then have ordained others Evangelists, and Pastors not only by ministerial mediation of their persons calling them, but also by mediation of virtue.  
Conclus. 4. One ministerial power may be in degree of dignity above another. For the power of one may be about more noble acts then the power of another, or in the same kind, the power of one may be more extended, and the power of another more contracted. Thus the Deacons had for the object of their power and care, not so excellent a thing as that of Pastors, Evangelists, and Apostles. Thus the power of ordinary Pastors was not so universal as the Apostles, even as in the orders of servants domestical, some are implied about lesser, some about greater and more honourable subjects.  
Concl. 5. No order of Ministers or servants can have majority of directive and corrective power over those who are in inferior order of ministery and service. The reason is, because this exceedeth the bounds of ministerial power, and is a participation of that despotical power which is appropriate to the master of the family.  
Concl. 6. Servants in one degree may have power to signify their master's direction, and to execute ministerially what their master out of his corrective power inflicteth on their fellow servants in other degrees. Thus Pastors signify Gods will to governing Presbyters and Deacons, what he would have them to do in their places. Thus the Apostles might inform all orders under them.  
Concl. 7. This power ministerial tending to execute the pleasure of Christ's corrective power, was committed to some in extraordinary degrees, personally and singularly, and might be so in some cases exercised by them. I mean singularity without concurrence of any others. This without doubt was in the Apostles and Evangelists: and it was needful it should be so: first, because it might be behoveful there to excommunicate where as yet Churches were not risen to their perfect frame: secondly, because there might be some persons not settled as fixed dwellers in any Church, whom yet to be cast forth was very behoveful. Again, some Evangelists might incur censure, as Demas, in such sort as no ordinary Church's power could reach to them.  
Concl. 8. That ordinarily this power is not given to any one singularly by himself to exercise the same, but with the company of others constituting a representative Church: which is the point next to be showed. Yea where Churches were constituted, the Apostles did not offer to exercise their power, without the ministerial concurrence of the Churches, as in the story of the Corinthians is manifest.    

THE THIRD QUESTION, Whether Christ did immediately commit ordinary power Ecclesiastical, and the exercise of it, to any one singular person, or to a united multitude of Presbyters.  
THough this question is so coincident with the former, that the grounds hath in a sort been discussed: yet for some new considerations which may be superadded, we will briefly handle it in the Method premised.  
First, it is argued for the affirmative.  
Argum. 1. That which is committed to the Church, is committed to the principal member of the Church But exercise of jurisdiction was committed to the Church, Mat. 18.17. Ergo. Either to the whole Church, or to a Church in the Church, or to some one eminent member in the Church. But it was not committed to be exercised by the whole Church, or to any Church in the Church. Ergo, to one who is in effect as the church, having all the authority of it. Secondly, if one person may be representatiuly a Church, when jurisdiction is promised; then one person may be representatiuly a church when jurisdiction and power of exercising is committed. But one singular person. Peter signified the Church, when the promise of jurisdiction is made. Ergo. Cyprian to jubaia saith, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church so in the Bishop, that they cannot be severed. Finally, as the kingdom of England may be put for the King in whom is all the power of the kingdom: So the Church for the chief governor in whom is the power of it.  

The second Argument.  
That which the Churches had not given them when they were constituted, that was not promised to them as their immediate right. But they had not coercive power given them when they were constituted. Ergo, Christ did not commit it to the Churches or Presbyters. For then the Apostles would not have withheld it from these. But they did. For the Apostles kept it with themselves. As in the incestuous Corinthian is manifest, whom Paul by his judgement was feign to excommunicate. And the Thessalonians are bid to note the inordinate, and signify them, as not having power within themselves to censure them. And so Paul alone excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander.   

The third Argument.  
That which Paul committed to some prime men in Churches, and their successors, that was not committed to Presbyteries, but singular persons. But in power of ordination and jurisdiction, he did so. For to Timothy in Ephesus, and to Titus in Crete, he commended the power and exercise of it. Ergo.   

The fourth Argument.  
That order which was most fit for exercising power of jurisdiction, that Christ did ordain. But the order of one chief governor is fit for execution, than the order of a united multitude. Ergo.   

The fift Argument.  
If all authority and power of exercise be in the Church originally, than the Pastors derive their power from the Church. But this is not true. Ergo, it was not committed to the Church. That authority which the Church never had, she cannot convey. But the Pastoral authority of word and Sacraments never was in the Church essentially taken. Ergo, it cannot be derived from her. Again, Pastors should discharge their office in the name of the Church, did they receive their power from the Church.   

The sixth Argument.  
If the power of jurisdiction and execution be committed from Christ to the Church, then hath the Church supreme power. Then may a particular Church depose her Bishop, the sheep censure the shepherd, children their fathers, which is absurd.  
On the other side it is argued,  
Argum. 1. That which Christ doth presuppose as being in many, and to be exercised by many, that never was committed by Christ to one, and the execution of any one. But Math. 18. Christ doth manifestly suppose the power of jurisdiction to be in many, and that exercitatiuè, so as by them being many, is it to be exercised. Ergo. Now this is plain in the place. Where first mark, that Christ doth presuppose the authority of every particular Church taken indistinctly. For it is such a Church as any brother offended may presently complain to. Therefore no universal, or provincial, or Diocesan Church gathered in a Council. Secondly, it is not any particular Church that he doth send all Christians to, for then all Christians in the world should come to one particular Church, were it possible. He doth therefore presuppose indistinctly the very particular Church where the brother offending and offended are members. And if they be not both of one church, the plaintiff must make his denunciation to the Church where the defendant is, quia forum sequitur reum. Thirdly, as Christ doth speak it of any ordinary particular Church indistinctly, so he doth by the name of Church not understand essentially all the congregation. For then Christ should give not some, but all the members of the Church to be governors of it. Fourthly, Christ speaketh it of such a Church to whom we may ordinarily and orderly complain: now this we cannot to the whole multitude. Fiftly, this Church he speaketh of, he doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all discipline and censure. But the multitude have not this execution ordinary, as all but Morelius, and such Democritall spirits do affirm. And the reason ratifying the sentence of the Church, doth show that often the number of it is but small: For where two or three are gathered together in my name Whereas the Church or congregations essentially taken for teachers and people, are incomparably great. Neither doth Christ mean by Church, the chief Pastor, who is virtually as the whole Church. For first, the word Church doth ever signify a company, and never is found to note out one person. secondly, the Bishop may be the person offending or offended, and the Church to which he must bring the matter, must be other than himself. thirdly, the gradation doth show it. First, by thyself, Then show a witness or two. Then to the Church, as the sin increaseth, the number of those by whom it is to be rebuked and censured, increaseth also. If one say, though the Church signify one governor, yet the gradation holdeth, for to tell it to the governor in open Court, is more than to tell it to twenty. We grant that this is true, and were the word Church taken here to note some eminent governor, it might be brought in as a further degree, though one only were enforced. But how can Peter be complainaint, if Peter the Praeful only be the judge to whom the thing must be denounced. fourthly, the church in the Corinthians which Paul stirreth up to censure the incestuous person, was not any one but many. Their rebuke upon which it is like he repent, was a rebuke of many, 2. Cor. 2.6. Fiftly, if the church had been one, he would not have subjoined: for what ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Sixtly, if the church did not note an assembly, how could he assure them from hence, that God would do what they ●…ed on, because he was with the least assemblies gathered in his name. Unless the Church meant were an assembly, this argument could not be so correspondent. Where two or two or three are assembled in God's name, God is in the midst of them to do that they agree on. But where the Church is binding or losing, there are some assembled in the name of Christ. Ergo. Lastly, the church in the old Testament never noteth the high Priest virtually, but an assembly of Priests sitting together, as judges in the causes of God. Wherefore as Christ doth indistinctlie presuppose every particular Church. So he doth here only presuppose the joint authority, & joint execution of a representative Church, a Presbytery of Elders who were Pastors and Governors.  
Argum. 4. We argue from the practice of the Churches. That power which is not in one, nor to be exercised by one, but in many, and to be exercised by many in the Church of the Corinthians, that power with the exercise of it, was committed by Christ to many, not to one. But the power of Ecclesiastical censure was in many, and to be performed by many assembled. Ergo. The proposition is plain. For Paul would not have called for, nor have liked any constitution or exercise of power Ecclesiastical, other than Christ had ordained. The assertion is denied by some: but it is a plain truth by many invincible arguments. For first, Paul doth rebuke them that they had not set themselves to cast him forth. Now (as Ambrose saith on the place. Si autem quis potestatem non habet, quem scit reum abjicere, aut probare non valet, immunis est. secondly, Paul doth wish them assembled together, with himself in the name and virtue of Christ, that they might deliver him up to Satan. For he doth not call on them to restrain him him as already excommunicated, but to purge him out as an infectious leaven yet amongst them. thirdly, Paul doth tell them that they had power to judge those within, those who were called brethren, and lived otherwise. Fourthly, Paul doth tell them that they did a rebuke or mulct of many, writing to them that they would not proceed, 2. Cor. 2.6. Lastly, Paul doth attribute power to them to forgive him, and to receive him to the peace of the church. Which would not have been in them, had they not had the power to excommunicate. Such as have no power to bind, have no power to lose. So it might be proved by the Church of the Thessalonians, 2. Thess. 3.14. If any man walk inorninatly, note him, that others may refrain him. Noting, being not a signification by letter, which doth wrest the word against all copies, and the current of all Greek interpreters: but judicially to note him, that all may avoid him; that is, excomunicate him. Finally, the churches of Asia, as it is plain, had power of government within themselves.  
Argum. 3. That power which the Apostles did not exercise in the Churches, nor Evangelists, but with concurrence of the Churches and Presbyteries, that power is much less to be exercised by any ordinary Pastor, but by many. But they did not ordain, nor lay on hands alone, they did not determine questions by the power of the keys alone, but with cocurrence of the Presbyters of the Church. Ergo, much less may any ordinary minister do it alone. Timothy received grace by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery. For that Persons must be understood here is apparent by the like place; when it is said, by the laying on of my hands, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a person, and so here a Presbytery. Secondly, to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify the order of Priesthood, is against all Lexicous, and the nature of the Greek termination. Thirdly, Timothy never received that order of a Presbyter, as before we have proved. Fourthly, it cannot signify as Greek Expositors take it, a company of Bishops. For neither was that Canon of 3 Bishops, and the Metropolitan, or all the Bishops in a Province, in the Apostles time, neither were these who are now called Bishops, then called Presbyters, as they say, but Apostles, men that had received Apostolic grace, Angels, etc. Finally, it is very absurd to think of companies of other Presbyters in Churches then Paul planted; but he placed Presbyteries of such Presbyters as are now distinguished from Bishops, which is the grant of our adversaries. Not to mention how Armachanus doth censure the other as an interpretation from ones private sense, besides testimony of Scripture.  
Thus the Apostles did not offer alone to determine the question Act. 15. but had the joint suffrages of the Presbytery with them. Not because they could not alone have infallibly answered, but because it was a thing to be determined by many; all who had received power of the keys, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duty of confession the truth. Yea the Bishops called primi Presbyteri, had no ordination at the first which the Presbytery did not give them. Whence have Bishops of other Church's power to minister the sacrament to the Bishop of this Church? But Timothy and Titus are said to have ordained ministers. As Consuls and Dictator's are said to have created Consuls, because they called Senates, propounded and together with others did it. No otherwise do jesuits themselves understand it. Salmeron on the first of Titus, etc. And it is manifest by Ecclesiastical writings of all sorts, that Presbyters had right of suffrage, not only in their own Presbyteries, but in Provincial Synods, and therefore in Ecumenical Synods, which doth arise from a combination of the other, to which their minds went in the instruction of Bishops received from their Churches. And Atbanasius yet a Deacon, is read to have been at the Council of Nice, and to have had right of suffrage in it. Finally, the Presbyteries did a long time execute jointly all actions of Church government, as is before declared. Other arguments we shall touch in answer of these which have been objected. Now to come to the conclusions, let this be first.  
Conclus. 1. Extraordinary power was committed to some singular persons, so that in some case they might singularly exercise it without concurrence of other. This I speak in regard of Apostles and Evangelists, whose power in many things could not have concurrence of particular Churches, which in the former question is sufficiently declared.  
Conclus. 2. That ordinary power, and the execution thereof was not committed to any singular governors; whereof there was to be one only in each Church. This is against the jesuits, who make account (the most of them) ●hat as all civil power of government is given to kings to be executed by them within their commonwealth, so Ecclesiastical power (say they) is given to the Pope and to Bishops in their particular Churches to be executed by them, and derived from them to the whole Church.  
Conclus. 3. Ordinary power with the execution thereof, was not given to the community of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithful, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle, receiving it from Christ, and virtually deriving it to others. This I set down against the Divines of Constance; our prime Divines, as Luther and Melancthon, and the Sorbonists, who do maintain it at this day. Yea this seemeth to have been Tertullians' error; for in his book: de pudicitia, he maketh Christ to have left all Christians with like power, but the Church for her honour, did dispose it as we see. The proportion of a politic body, and natural, deceived them, while they will apply all that is in these to Christ's mystical body, not remembering that analogon is not in omni simile, for than should should it be the same with the analogatum. True it is, all civil power is in the body politic, the collections of subjects, then in a King from them; And all the power of hearing, seeing, they are in the whole man, which doth produce them effectually, though formally and instrumentally they are in the care and eye. But the reason of this is, because these powers are natural, and what ever is natural, doth first agree to the community or totum, and afterward to a particular person and part, but all that is in this body, cannot hold in Christ's mystical body. In a politic body, power is first in the community, in the King from them, but all Ecclesiastical power is first in our King before any in the Church from him. But to whom should he first commit this power, but to his Queen. Answ. Considering this power is not any Lordly power, but a power of doing service to the Church for Christ his sake. Therefore it is fit it should be committed to some persons, and not to the whole community which are the Queen of Christ. For it is not fit a King should commit power to his Queen to serve herself properly: but to have persons who in regard of this relation should stand distinguished from her. Secondly, in natural bodies, the power of seeing is first immediately in the man, from the man in the eye and particular members: In the mystical body, the faith of a believer is not first immediately in all, then in the believer, but first of all and immediately in the personal believer, for whose good it serveth more properly then for the whole, every man being to live by his own faith. The power of Priesthood was not first in the Church of Israel, so derived to the Priest: but immediately from Christ seated in Aaron and his sons. Object. Yea they were given the Church intuitu eiusdem tanquam finis & totius. Answ. I but this is not enough, that power may be said to be immediately received by the Church as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others, as the power of seeing is not only given intuitu hominis as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from whom it cometh to the eye. But the power even of ordinary ministers is not in the Church. For as all are said not to have been Apostles, so not to have been Doctors. But if the power of ordinary teaching had been given to every believer, all should have been made Doctors, though not to continue so in exercising the power. Secondly, were the power in the Church, the Church should not only call them, but make them out of virtue and power received into herself: then should the Church have a true Lordlike power in regard of her ministers. Besides, there are many in the community of Christians uncapable of this power regularly, as women and children. This conclusion in my judgement Victoria, Soto & others deny, with greater strength of reason then the contrary is maintained.  
Conclus. 4. Fourthly, ordinary power of ministerial government is committed with the execution of it, to the Senate or Presbytery of the Church. If any fail in any office, the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a ministry of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the place vacant.  
Conclus. 5. Lastly, though the community have not power given her, yet such estate by Christ her husband is put on her, that all power is to be executed in such manner, as standeth with respect to her excellency. Hence it is, that the governors are in many things of greater moment to take the consent of the people with them. Not that they have joint power of the keys with them, but because they sustain the person of the spouse of Christ, and therefore cannot be otherwise dealt with, without open dishonour in such things, which belong in common to the whole congregation.  
Now to answer the arguments first propounded.  
The Proposition of the first Syllogism is denied. That what was committed to the Church was committed to some principal member. And we deny the second part of the next Syllogism, proving this part denied. For the power and execution was committed to a Church in a Church. Which is so far from absurdity, that he is absurd who doth not see it in Civil and Sacred. Do we not see in Parliament a representative Commonwealth within our Commonwealth, having the greatest authority? Not to mention that a Church within a Church should not be strange to them who imagine many Parishional Churches within one Diocesan Church. To the proofs which prevent as it were an objection, showing that the Church, Math. 18.17. may be put for one chief Governor.  
The proposition is denied. If that Peter one Governor, may be in type and figure the Church to whom the jurisdiction is promised, than the Church receiving and executing it may be one. A most false Proposition whose contrary is true. The reason is, because the Church typified by Peter is properly and really a Church, not figuratively and improperly: for then Peter should have been a figure or type, of a type or figurative Church. The figure therefore and type being of the Church which is properly taken, and the Church properly and really taken, being a company assembled, hence it is that (Math. 18.17.) the Church cannot signify one; for one is but figuratively and improperly a Church. There is not the same reason of the figure and the thing that is figured. Nay hence an Argument may be retorted, proving that by that Church whereof Peter was a figure, is not meant one chief Governor. Peter as one man or Governor was properly and really a virtual Church and chief Governor. But Peter as one man and Governor was in figure only the Church. Math. 18. Ergo, that Church Math. 18. is not a virtual Church, noting forth one chief Governor only. As for Cyprians speech, it doth nothing but show the conjunction of Pastor and people by mutual love, which is so straight that the one cannot be schismatically left out, but the other is forsaken also. Otherwise I think it cannot be showed to the time of Innocentius 3. that the Bishop was counted the Church; or this dream of a virtual Church once imagined. The Clerks of the Church of Placentia did in their oath of canonical obedience swear thus: That they would obey the Church of Placentia, and the Lord their Bishop. Where the Chapter doth carry the name of the Church from the Bishop. Yea, even in those times preposed, or set before him, when the Pope was lifted up above general Counsels, than it is like was the first nativity of these virtual Churches. As for a Kingdom I doubt not, but it may be put for a King figuratively: but the Church typified by Peter, must needs be a Church properly. And it will never be proved that any one Governor was set up in a Church proportionable to a King in a Commonwealth, in whom is all civil power whereby the whole Kingdom is administered.  
To the second Argument from the Apostles fact in the Church of Corinth, who judicially (absent) sentenced his excommunication, I have decreed or judged, leaving nothing to the Church, but out of their obedience to decline him, as in the 2. Epist. 2. he saith, For this cause I have written to you, that I may prove whether you will in all things be obedient. What Arguments are these? He that judgeth one to be excommunicated, he leaveth no place for the Presbyters and Church of Corinth judicially to excommunicate. Thus I might reason, Act. 15.17. from james, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He who doth judicially sentence a thing he leaveth no place to other Apostles and Presbyters to give sentence. The truth is, the Apostle might have judged him to be excommunicate; and an Evangelist, if present, might have judged him also to be excommunicate, and yet place left for the Church's judgement also. These are subordinate one to the other. Here it may be objected, that if place be left for the Church's judgement after the Apostles sentence; then the Church is free not to excommunicate where the Apostles have, and the same man should be excommunicate and not excommunicate. Ans. Suppose the Apostles could excommunicate Clavae errant without cause, it is true. But the Apostles sentence being just, she is not free, in as much as she cannot lawfully but do that which lieth on her; when now it is especially showed her, and by example she is provoked. Yea, where she should see just cause of excommunicating she is not (though none call on her) free not to excommunicate. Nevertheless, though she is not free, so as she can lawfully not excommunicate, yet she is free speaking, of freedom absolutely and simply, and if she should not excommunicate him, he should remain not excommunicable but excommunicate, by chief judgement, yet it should not be executed, by the sinister favour of a particular Church, As, say saul's sentence had been just, and the people's favour had been unjust, jonathan had been under condemnation, but execution had been prevented by the people's headstrong affection towards him. Ob. So they who obeyed Paul they did not judicially excommunicate. Ans. As though one may not exercise power or government by manner of obedience to the exhortation of a superior. Touching the place in the Thessalonians, those that read. Note him by an Epistle, do go against the consent of all Greek Interpreters. And the context doth show, that it is a judiciary noting one, such as caused him to be avoided by others, and tended to breed shame in him. As for Paul's excommunicating Hymenaeus and Alexander, It will not follow. That which he did alone an ordinary Pastor may do alone. Secondly, it is not like he did it alone: but as he cast out the Corinthian, though the whole proceeding be not noted. Though Paul saith, I delivered them. So he saith, grace was given Timothy by imposition of his hands, 2. Tim. 1.6 when yet the Presbytery joined, 1. Tim. 4.14. Thirdly, it may be they were no fixed members in any constituted Church.  
The third argument of Timothy and Titus hath been sufficiently discussed.  
To the fourth, That one is fit for execution then many. To which we may add, that though the Bishops be but as Consuls in a Senate, or Vice-chancellors in a university, having when they sit with others, no more power than the rest. Yet these have execution of many things committed to them. The assertion, viz. That many are less fit for execution, we deny. That order is fittest which God instituted. But he doth commit the keys to the Church, to many, that they might exercise the authority of them; when that mean is most fit, which God will most bless, and his blessing doth follow his own order; this is the fitttest. Secondly, in the Apostles times, and in the times after, almost four hundred years expired, Presbyters did continue with Bishops in governing and executing what ever was decreed. Thirdly, this depravation from the first order, one to execute for a Diocesan, one for a Provincial, the decrees of a Diocesan and Provincial, drew on a necessity of one to execute the decrees of the Ecumenical Church or Pope. Fourthly, Let them show where God divided the power of making laws for government of any Church from the power to execute them. Regularly they who have the greater committed, have the lesser also. Fiftly, we see even in civil governments many parts by joint Council and action are as happily governed as others are by a singular governor. Truly, that the African Fathers writ to Celestine is true: It is unlikely that God will be present with one, insspiring him with his spirit, and not be present with many who are in his name, and with his warrant assembled. As for those comparisons they hold not in all: they hold in that which the Consul doth in calling the assembly, propounding things, etc. Yet the Consuls never took the power to censure their fellows without the concurrence of their fellow Senators, nor to withdraw themselves from being subject to the censure of the rest of the Senate.  
To the fift argument, to the proposition by distinction: if they have all power both of ministerial application, and instituting others out of virtue and authority, than Pastors derive. But this is denied. She hath no power but of ministery, and no plenitude but so far as they in their own persons can discharge. It presupposeth therefore we affirm in our question what we do not. But to let the proposition pass, because of some derivation, it is true. If she have but all power of Ministerial application, than Bishops derive from her. But they do not. We say they do. And whereas it is objected, that which the Church never had she cannot convey it. I answer, that which the Church never had she cannot virvirtually convey it: but she may as ministering to him who hath the power and virtue of deriving it. Nothing can give that which it hath not, either formally or virtually, unless it give it as an instrument to one who hath it. A man not having a penny of his own, may give an hundred pounds if the king make him his Almoner. A Steward may give all offices in his master's house, as ministerially executing his master's pleasure. Thus the Church deriveth, as taking the person whom Christ describeth, and out of power will have placed in this or that office in his Church. This answereth to the last suggestion. For if the Church did virtually, and out of power make an officer, it is true, as we see with those whom the King maketh in the commonwealth. But if she do it in Steward-like manner, ministering to the sole Lord and master of his house, then is not he so taken in to do in his name, but in his master's name. As a Butler taken in by a servant, doth execute his office not in master Steward's name, but in his masters, who only out of power did confer it on him.  
The last objection I answer. That the particular Church may depose their Bishop. What member soever in the Church is the offending person, may be complained of to the Church. The Church of Philippi, if it had power to see that Archippus do his duty, than it had power to reprove and censure him not doing it. If the Church have power by election to choose one their Bishop, and so power of instituting him, then of destituting also. Instituere & destituere ejusdem est potestatis. But he is given the only judge in Christ's room, and though they elect him, yet as you have said, and truly, they have not the power of that authority in them to which he is elected. No more than the Electors of the Emperor have in them power of the imperial dignity. Answer. We say therefore, that as the Church hath only ministerial power of application, that is, as they cannot out of power call a Pastor, but only call one whom Christ pointeth out, and to whom Christ out of power giveth the place of Pastor. So she cannot censure or depose, but only ministerially executing the censure of Christ, who will have such a one turned out, or otherwise censured. But the Bishop never was sole judge, though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may be said so. Christ instituted a Presbytery, in which all had equal power of judgement. Cyprian Ep. 68 in the case of Basilides & Martialis, doth show that the Church had power as of choosing worthy, so of refusing unworthy. He speaketh of an ordinary power, as by choosing is manifest, not extraordinary and in case of necessity. And Mr. Field maintaineth, that Liberius was lawfully deposed by the Church of Rome. Surely I marvel men of learning will deny it, when no reason evinceth the Pope though a general Pastor subject to the censure of a Church Ecumenical, but the same proveth a Diocesan Bishop subject to the censure of the particular Church. Unless they will say with some Schoolmen, Soto viz. That the Pope is but the vicar of Christ in the general Church: but the Bishop is both the vicar of Christ, and also representeth the general Church in his Diocese, whence he cannot be proceeded against by the Church that is a particular. As if to be a vicar of Christ were a lesser matter than to represent the Church. secondly, I marvel how he cometh to represent the general Church, with whom in his calling the Church Ecumenical hath nothing to do.  
To that which is objected touching Fathers, Pastors; the similitudes hold not in all things. Natural parents are no ways children, nor in state of subjection to their children: but spiritual fathers are so fathers, that in some respect they are children to the whole Church. So shepherds are no ways sheep, but ministers are in regard of the whole Church. Secondly, Parents and Shepherds are absolutely parents and shepherds, be they good or evil: but spiritual Parents and Pastors are no longer so than they do accordingly behave themselves. Besides, are not civil King's Parents and Pastors of their people? yet if they be not absolute monarchs, it was never esteemed as absurd, to say that their people had power in some cases to depose them. If their own Churches have no power over them, it will be hard to show wherein others have such power of jurisdiction over persons who belong not to their own churches. But Lord Bishops must take state on them, and not subject themselves unto any trial, but by their Peeresonely, which is by a Council of Bishops.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 1. lin. 15. read constitute for continued. pag. 3. lin. 1. five of these were Metropol. l. 2. two Diocesan at least, Philadelphia and Thyatira, l. 25. city for city Church. pag. 5. l. 30. read Bishop for Pastor. pag. 7. l. 2. Cypr. lib. 4. epist. l. 34. In the national. pag. 11. l. 2. Synagogues in villages as well as in cities. l. 16. were at the first constitute. pag. 17. l. 31. nay any constant government at all. Pag. 18. l. 16. Philadelphia and Thyatira. pag. 22. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 24. l. 28. not to the Presbyters of Ephesus. pag. 28. l. 10. john the baptist. pag. 35. l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 37. l. 33. and in like sense others a primate. pag. 51. great is.  
The rest of the literal faults and wants may be easily supplied by the understanding Reader.