The Diocesans Trial, Part 2 · Argument 10 – Argument 12
10. Argument.
If bishops be that whi…h Aaron, and the Apostles were, and Presbyters, be that which the Priests, and the 72. Disciples were, then the one are above the other in preheminence and power. But they are so. See Ierom to Nepotian. Ergo.
Answer.
If bishops, &c. and P…esbyters, be that which the sonnes of Aaron and the 72. were, then there are different orders, &c. To these may be added a third. That which Moses and the 70. Seniors were, that are the bishops and Presbyters. First, for the proposition it is not true, for first of Aaron and his sonnes, they were not orders different essenally in their power, but onelyonly in degree of dignity, wherein the high Priest was above others. For every Priests power would have reached to that act which was reserved to the high Priest one…y. Besides, when the high Priest was deceased or removed, the other Priests did consecrate the successour, as Sadock. Finally, the one had for substance the same consecration that the other, neither had the high Priest any majority of directive or corrective power over others. So the Apostles, and 72. will not be found different in order; and therefore those who resemble these cannot be concluded to be of divers orders. For the Apostles and 72. differ no more then ordinary messengers who are impolyed in a set course, and extraordinary sent by occasion onelyonly: They were both messengers, the Apostles babitu and abidingly, the other in act onelyonly, and after a transitory manner.
Againe, had Aaron and his sonnes beene divers orders, differing essentially in the inward power of them, ye… is not the proposition true, but with addition in this wife. Those who are indentically and formally that which Aaron and the Apostles were, and that which his sonnes, and the 72. were, they differ in degree essentially, not those who were this analogically by reason of some imperfect resemblance. For things may be said to be those things wherewith they have but imperfect similitude. In this sense onelyonly the proposition is true.
Now to come to the assumption. First, touching Aaron, wee deny any bishop is as Aaron by divine institution, or by perfect similitude answering to him. But because Aaron was the first and high Priest, others inferiour: so it hath pleased the Church to imitate this pollicy, and make the bishop, as it were Primum Presbyterum or Antistuem in primo ordine, Presbyters in secundo. Whence B…shops may be said to be that which Aaron was through the Churches ordination, which she framed, looking to this patterne of government which God himselfe had set out in the old Testament. The fathers call them Aaron and his sonnes onelyonly for some conmon analogy, which through the ordinance of the Church arose betwixt the bishops and Presbyters, and them; and conceive them to be so by humane accommodation, not by divine institution. But that they were so properly succeeding them as orders of Ministery typified by them by Gods owne appointment, this the fathers never tho…ght. Christs priesthood, no mans, was properly typified in Aaron.
So touching the other part of the assumption, That Bishops and Presbyters are what Apostles, and the 72 were. The fathers many of them insist in this proportion, that as the Apostles and 72 were teachers, the one in a higher, the other in an inferiour order, so bishops and Presbyters, were by the Churches ordinance. This is the fathers phrase, to call them Apostles, who in any manner resemble the Apostles to call them, as Ambrose. Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Doctors, who resemble these, and come in some common analogie neerest them, Moses and the 70 Seniors, who in any sort resembled them. Now the assumption granted in this sense maketh not against us. For th…y might be said these, if there were but diverse degrees of dignity amongst them, though for power of order by Gods institution they were all one. But some straine it further, and take it, that Christ instituting those two orders, did in so doing, institute B…shops and Presbyters, the one whereof succeeded the Apostles, the other the 72. and that thus the Fathers take it. To which I answer, First, in generall, this analogy of Apostles and 72: is not generally affected by them all. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses dicit Apostolis Presbyteros successisse, Diaconos 72. discipulis. Clem. lib. 2. Const. cap. 30. saith, That Bishops answer to God the Father, Presbyters to Christ, Deacons to the Apostles. Ierom doth manifestly make Presbyters (whom hee also calleth by name of Bishops in that Epistle, where hee maintaineth the Presbyters dignity) successours to the Apostles. The like hath Cyprian, Apostolus id est Episcopos & preposiros, that is, ordinis ratione prepositos minorum Ecclesiarum, as Austin speaketh, else it should bee all one with the former; when hee maketh the Presby…er as well as the Bishop to bee ordained in the Apostles. Finally, these Fathers who take the 72. to have beene Apostles, as well as the other, could not imagine this porportion of diverse orders let up in them. Secondly, if Christ in these instituted those other, it must bee one of these waies. First, hee did make these not onelyonly Apostles, but Bishops, and so the 72. not onelyonly his messengers for the time, but Presbyters also. Or, secondly, else hee did ordaine these as he did raine Nanna, noting and prefiguring as by a type, a further thing which hee would worke: viz. that he would institute B…shops and Presbyters for Teachers ordinary in his Church: but both these are gratis spoken without any foundation or reason. For the first, wee have shewed that the Apostles could not bee Bishops ordinarily; nor yet the calling of these seventy two (which was to goe through all Cities Evangelizing) stand with Presbyters, Presbyters being given to Churches foreign, 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 i… lesse then the thing …ypified, the substance of it. But the giving Apostles was a greater thing then giving ordinary Pastors. Ergo. Thir…ly, I say, that Christ did never ordaine that any should succeed the Apostles, or the 72 in regard of their order. There is a double succession, in g…adum, or in Capat, as the j…rists distinguish. In gradum tundem, as when one brother dying, another brother doth succeed him in the inheritance. In Caput, as when one not of the same degree and line doth come after another, as when a brother dying another doth inherit after him, not a brother, but a cosin to him. Thus the Apostles have no successors succeeding them in gradum, but such onelyonly as follow them, being of other degrees, and in another line, as it were, in which sort every Pastor doth succeed them. But then they are said to succeed them, because they follow them, and after a sort resemble them, not because they hold the places which the Apostles did properly. Apostolo in quantum est Apostolus non succeditur, Legato quitenus est Legatus non succeditur. Fourthly, that the Presbyters doe as persons of a diverse order succeed the Apostles n… less… fully then any other. First, they must needs succeed the… who are spoken to in them, whose duties are laid downe in that which the Apostles received in commandement, But the Presbyters were spoken to both in the Keyes, in the Supper, in the commandement of teaching and baptiz…ng. Ergo, Presbyte…s must needs succeed the Apostles. Secondly, those whom the Apostles did institute in the Chu…ches, which they had planted for the…r fu…ther building th…m up, they were their next successors. But the Apostles did commend the Churches to the care of Presbyters who might build them up, whom they had now converted. Ergo, t…se were th…ir successors most proper and immediate. Thirdly, t…ese to whom now t…king their farewells they resigned the Churches, these were th…ir succ…ssours. But this they did to Presbyters, Paul now never to s…e Ephesus more, Act. 20. Peter neere death, 1 Pet. 5.2. Er…o. Fourthly, if one Pastor or Minister doe more prop…rly resemble an Apostle then another, it is because hee hath same pow…r Apostolique more fully conveyed to him then to another. But this was not done. Ergo. The assumption is manifest: for first, their power of teach…g and ministring the Sacraments doth …s fully and prop…rly belong to the Presbyter as to any, unlesse we count P…eaching not nec…issarily c…nnex…d to a Presbyters office, but a bishop…; or at least that a more iudgmentall preaching belongs … Presbyter, the more full and exact teaching being appropriate to the B…shop, which are both too absurd. Secondly, for governement, the Apostles did no more give the power of governement to one then to another. Object. This is denyed, for the Apostles are said to have kept the power of ordination, and the coercive power in their owne hands, and to have committed these in the end onelyonly to Apostolike men, as Timothy, Titus, who were their successours, succeeding them in it. Answ. A notable fiction: for it is most plaine by Scripture; that ordination, power of deciding controversies, excommunication, were given to Presbyters, and not kept up from them; they should otherwise have provided ill for the Churches which they left to their care. Secondly, if the Apostles did commit some ordinary power of government to some men above others, in which regard they should be their successours, then the Apostles did not onelyonly enjoy as Legates power over the Churches, but as ordinary Ministers. For what power they enjoyed as Legates, this they could not aliis Legar…. Power as ordinary Pastors in any Nations or Churches they never reserved, and therefore did never substitute others to themselves in that which they never exercised nor enjoyed. And it is to be noted, that this opinion of Episcopall succession from the Apostles is grounded on this, that the Apostles were not onelyonly Apostles, but Bishops in Provinces and particular Churches. For the Papists themselves urged with this, that the Apostles have none succeeding them, they doe consider a double respect in the Apostles, the one of Legates, so Peter, nor any other could have a successour. The other of bishops, Oecumenicall in Peter, of Bishops Nationall or Diocesan, as in some other. Thus onelyonly considered, they grant them to have other Bishops succeeding them: For the Apostolick power precisely considered, was Privilegium personale simul cum persona extinctum. Now we have proved that this ground is false, and therefore that succeeding the Apostles, more appropriate to Bishops then other Ministers grounded upon it, is false also.
Lastly, the Presbyters cannot be said successors of the seventy two. For first, in all that is spoken to the seventy two, the full duty and office of a Presbyter is not laid downe. Secondly, it doth not appeare that they had any ordinary power of preaching or baptizing and ministering the other Sacrament. For they are sent to Evangelize, to preach the Gospell: but whether from power of ordinary office, or from commission and delegation onelyonly for this present occasion it is doubtfull. Thirdly, it is not read that they ever baptized, or had the power of administring the Supper given to them: Yea, that they had neither ministery of Word or Sacraments ex officio ordinario, seemeth hence plaine; That the Apostles did choose them to the Deacons care, which was so cumbersome that themselves could not tend the ministery of the Word with it, much lesse then could these not having such extraordinary gifts as the Apostles had. Fourthly, if they were set Ministers, then were they Evangelists in destination. For the act enjoyned them, is from City to City, without limitation to Evangel…ze; and after we read of some, as Philip, that he was an Evangelist; the same is in ecclesiasticall story testified of some others. Thus w… Presbyters should succeed Evangelists those Apostolique men, whom the Apostles constituted Bishops, and by consequence be the true successours of the Apostles. These Evangelists succeeded them by all grant, we succeed these. Finally, Armathanus doth take these 72. to have been ordinary disciples, in his 7. Book Armenic…r…m quaest. cap. 7.
11 Argument.
Those who receive a new ordination are in a higher degree in a new administration, and a new order. But Bishops doe so. Ergo.
Answer.
The proposition is denyed: for it is sufficient to a new ordination that they are called to exercise the Pastorall function in a new Church, where before they had nothing to doe. Secondly, I answer by distinction, a new order, by reason of new degrees of dignity, this may be granted: but that therefore it is a new order, that is, having further ministeriall power in regard of the Sacraments and jurisdiction given it of God, is not true. Hath not an Archbishop a distinct ordination or consecration from a Bishop? yet is he not of any order, essentially differing. The truth is, ordination, if it be looked into, is but a canonicall solemnity which doth not collate that power Episcopall to the now chosen, but onelyonly more solemnly and orderly promotes him to the exercise of it.
12 Argument.
Those Ministers where of there may be but one onelyonly during life in a Church, they are in singularity of preheminence above others. But there may be but one Bishop, though there may be many other Presbyters, one Timothy, one Titus, one Archippus, one E…aphroditus. Ergo. For proofe of the assumption. See Cornelius, as Eusebius relateth his sentence, lib. 6. cap. 43. Con…. Nice. cap 8. Conc. Calud. cap 4. P…ssidonius in vita Augustine. Ierem… Phil. 1. ver. 1. Chrysost. Amb. T…eo… Orc…umen. And such was Bishops preheminence, that Presbyters, Deacons, and other Clerkes, are said to be the Bishops Clerks.
Answer.
I answer to the Assumption. That there may be said to be but one Bishop in order to other Coadjutors and Associates within the same Church. It may be said, there must be but one Bishop in order to all the other Churches of the Cities. Secondly, this may be affirmed as standing by Canon, or as div…n… institution. Now the assumpt…on is true, onelyonly by Law Ecclesiasticall. 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 ordinar…ly all Cities but Alexandria had two. Thirdly, Ierom on 1 Tim. 3. doth say, that now indeed there may be but one Bishop, meaning Canonically, making a difference twixt the present time and time Apostolique. Fourthly, Austin did not know it was unlawfull▪ Yea, he did onelyonly in regard of the decree of Nice, account it so. Ep. 110. neither did Church or people ever except against the contra…y, but as a point against Canon, which m…ght in some cases be dispensed with, as the story of Narcissus, and Alexander, and Liberius, and Foelix did more then manifest. For though the people of Rome cried out, one God, one Christ, one Bishop, yet they yeelded at their Emperours suite, whereas had it beene a thing they had all thought to have been against Christs institution, they would not have done. Vide S…z. lib. 4. cap. 14. Fiftly, Ieroms peerelesse power, is nothing but Consul-like presidence above others; for this he pleaded for, writing against Iovinian, lib. 1. amongst the Apostles themselves, that schisme might be avoided. Wherefore we yeeld the conclusion in this sense, that the Bishop jure humano, hath a singularity of preheminence before others, as by Ecclesiasticall law there might be but one onelyonly Archbishop.