The Diocesans Trial, Part 2 · Argument 1 – Argument 3
Argument. 1.
Those whom the Apostles placed as …hiefe, in their first constituting of Churches, and left as their successours in their last farewels which they gave to the Churches, they had none s…periour to them in the Ch…rches. But they first placed Pres…y…e…s, fee…ing with the Word and governing: and to those in their last departings they commended the Churches. Ergo. The assumption is denied: they did not place them, as the chiefe ordinary Pastors in those churches, but placed them to teach and governe, in fore interno; with a reference of subordination to a more eminent Pastor, which when now they were growen to a just multitude should be given to them. The Apostles had all power of order and jurisdiction: they give to Presbyters power of order, power to teach, minister sacraments, and so gather together a great number of those who were yet to be converted; but kept the coercive power in their owne hands, meaning, when now by the Presbyters labour, the churches were growne to a greater multitude, meaning (I say) then to set over them some more eminent Pastors, Apostolicall men, to whom they would commit the power of government, that so they might rule over both the Presbyters and their Churches; and to these with their successours, not to the Presbyters, were the churches recommended. All which is an audacious fiction, without any warrant of Scripture, or shew of good reason. For it is confessed that Presbyters were placed at the first constitution, as the Pastors and teachers of the Churches. Now if the Apostles had done this with reference to a further and more eminent Pastor and Governour, they would have intimated somewhere this their intention: but this they doe not; yea, the contrary purpose is by them declared. For Peter so biddeth his Presbyters feed their flocks, as that he doth insinuate them subject to no other but Christ, the Arch shepheard of them all. Againe, the Apostles could not make the Presbyters Pastors without power of government. There may be governours without pastorall power; but not a Pastor without power of governing. For the power of the Pedum, or shepheards staffe, doth intrinsecally follow the Pastorall office. What likelihood is there, that those who were set as parents to beget children, should not be trusted with power of the rod wherewith ch…ldren now begotten are to be nurt…red and kep… i… awe beseeming them? If it be said, every one sit for the office of a Teacher, was not sit for a Governour: I answer, he that is fit to be a Pastor …eaching and gov…rning in foro interno, is much more fit to be a Governour externally: he who is fit for the greater, is fit for the lesser. It was a greater and more Apostolicall worke to labour conversion, and bring the churches a handfull in t…e planti…g (as some thinke) to become numbersome in people, then it is to governe them being converted. And it is absurd to thinke that those who were fit to gather a church, and bring it to fulnesse from small beginnings, should not be fit to governe it, but stand in need to have som… one sent, who …ight rule them and the churches they had collected. Secondly, these Presbyters were (as themselves confesse) qualified with the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, and chosen by speciall designation: so that to impute insufficiency unto them, is harsh, and injurious to God, as well as to man. Finally, by the twenty of the Acts, and the first Epistle of Peter, cha. 5. it is plaine, they doe in their last farewels, commit the Churches unto the Presbyters, not suggesting any thing of a further Pastor to be sent, who would supply their roomes; which yet they would not have forgotten, being a thing of so great consolation, had it been intended by them.
Argument 2.
Those who have the name and office of Bishopscommon to them, they have no superiour Pastors over them: but the Presbyters Pastorall have that name and office attributed to them. For first they are said to governe in generall. Secondly, there is nothing found belonging to the power of the keyes in foro externo, but the Scripture doth ascribe it to them, power of suffrage in councell. Acts 15. power of excommunication, which is manifest to have beene in the churches of Corinth when it had no bishop; power of ordination, 1 Tim. 4. If any say, that this their power was but by commission in them, and that they were subordinate to the Apostles in exercise of it, being to reteine it onelyonly untill such time as more eminent Pastors should be given: I answer; all this is spoken gratis, without any foundation, and therefore no more easily vouched then rejected. The Presbyters so had this power, that they did commit it to the bishops, as we shall shew after: and therefore it must have beene in them, not by extraordinary commission, but by ordinary office. Secondly, they were subject in exercise to none but Christ and the holy Ghost, who onelyonly had out of authority trusted them with it. If the Apostles and they did concurre in doing one and the same thing, they did it as inferiour to the Apostles, and servants of a lower order, not with any subjection to them, as heads of derivation, serving Christ their onelyonly Lord, no lesse immediately then the Apostles themselves.
Argument 3.
That which is found in all other orders of Ministers instituted by Christ, may be presumed likewise in the order of Pastors and Doctors: but in all other orders, there were none that had singularity of preheminence and majority of power above other: No Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist had this rule one over another: If the proposition be denied, upon supposall of a different reason, because that though parity in a few extraordinary Ministers might be admitted without disorder, yet in a multitude of ordinary Ministers, it could not but breed schisme and confusion, and therefore as the order of Priesthood was divided into a high Priest, and other secondary ones, so is it fit that the Presbyters of the new Testament should be devided, some being in the first, and some in the second ranke. To this I answer, the parity is the more dangerous, by how much the places are supereminent. Secondly, though Pastors should be equall, y…t this would not bring parity into the Ministers of the Church, some whereof should bee in degree inferiour to other, the governing Elders to the Pastors, and the Deacons to them. Thirdly, if every Church being an Ecclesiasticall body, should have governours every way equall, there were no feare of confusion, seeing Aristocracy, especially where God ordaineth it, is a forme of gouernment sufficient to preserve order. But every Church might then doe what ever it would within it selfe. Not so neither; for it is subject to the censure of other Churches synodically assembled, and to the civill Magistrate, who in case of delinquency, hath directive and corrective power over it. Parity doth not so much indanger the Church by schisme, as imparity doth by tyranny subject it. As for the distinction of Priests, wee grant it; but as man could not have made that distiction, had not God ordained it in time of the old Testament, no more can we under the new. Howbeit, that distinction of Priests did bring in no such difference in order and majority of rule, as our Bishops now challenge.