much as may be we may bring in the ancient discipline Where indeed we see mention of Seniors and of ancient discipline but that they meant nothing lesse then to bring in Lay-elders or to establish the pretended parish-discipline or to acknowledge that it was the ancient discipline of the Church I will out of the booke it selfe make manifest Wherein the whole gouernement and discipline of our Church by Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons rurall Deanes c. is established And cōcerning BB. this is there decreed that the B. is at fit seasons to giue holy orders to institute fit Ministers to Ecclesiasticall benefices to remoue vnfit to heare the testimonies of the Church and complaints of their Pastors to compound controuersies arising betwixt the Ministers and the Churches to correct by Ecclesiasticall censures vices and corrupt manners to prescribe orders for amendment of life to excommunicate those which wilfully and obstinatly resist to receiue into grace those which be penitent to visit the whole Diocesse as well in places exēpted as not euery third yeare And finally let BB. take care of all things which ex Dei prescrpto by the ordinance of God belong to them and which our Ecclesiasticall lawes haue committed to their knowledge and iudgements And that by Seniors they did not meane any Ecclesiasticall officers it is apparant for where they reckon vp all Ecclesiasticall officers prescribing their duties beginning at clearks or sextons so proceeding to Church-wardens to Deacons to Presbyters or Ministers to archpresbyters or rural deanes to archdeacōs so to Cathedral Churches to Deanes to Prebendaries to BB. prescribing the obedience which must be yeelded to them they doe not once mention Seniors or their office If therfore it be asked whō they vnderstand by Seniors in the place alleadged I answer that they vnderstand some of the principall housholders in euery parish whom in some places they call Vestry-men in some maisters of the parish in some ancients of the parish With what conscience therefore that booke was alleadged as approuing Lay-elders or acknowledging the new-found parish-discipline for the ancient discipline let the reader iudge The second he setteth downe in these words A doctrine I say cleane contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthy writers who in their answeres to the Papists that plead for their Hierarchie with the same reasons that M. D. doth for his doe determine that the gouernement our BB. exercise ouer other ministers is Iure humano by the positiue law of men onely the which if M. D. saith true is false so the Papists are left vnanswered Whereunto I answere first that the popish opinion is farre different from that which I hold For they hold the order and superioritie of BB. to be Iure diuino implying thereby a perpetuall necessitie thereof Insomuch that where BB are not to ordaine they thinke there can be no ministers or priests consequently no Church I hold otherewise as the refuter himselfe else-where acknowledgeth in whose words I will relate my opinion as he hath set it downe that I make the calling of BB. no further of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof For which he quoteth pag. 92. of my Sermon If therefore the Papists doe bring the like arguments to proue their opinion which is so vnlike to mine nothing hindereth but my arguments may be good though theirs be nought For those arguments which demonstratiuely proue the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution doe not straightwaies proue it to be Diuini iuris Wherefore my opinion being so different from the popish conceit who seeth not that the iudgemēt of our Diuines which is opposed to the doctrine of the Papists is not opposite to mine for though they doe not holde the Episcopall function to be inioyned diuino iure as perpetually necessarie yet what man of sound learning doth or can deny but that the first BB. were ordained by the Apostles The third he deliuereth in these tearmes Yea a doctrine contrariant to the lawes of our land which make it one part of the Kings iurisdiction to grant to our BB. that Ecclesiasticall power they now exercise ouer vs and also to take it from them at his pleasure the which his Highnes taketh to himselfe and giueth to all Kings where he professeth that God hath left it to the libertie and freewill of Princes to alter the Church gouernement at their pleasure The iurisdiction which BB exercise is either spirituall respecting the soule as to binde or loose the soules of men or corporall respecting the outward man as to binde and loose the bodies The former is deriued to them from the Apostles the latter is committed vnto them by the King to whose crowne all commanding and compulsiue power is annexed Againe wee are to distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise of it For although the power it selfe which is an habituall or potentiall right to exercise that which belongeth to the said power be deriued to them from the Apostles as a diuine ordinance notwithstanding where is a Christian Prince assisting and directing them by his lawes they may not actually exercise their power but according to his lawes Ecclesiasticall I call them his because by whomsoeuer at the first they were decreed yet so many as are in force with vs they are the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe As for the authoritie whereof the reuerend Iudge speaketh in the place quoted in the margent it is the authoritie of the high Commission which the BB exercise not as they are BB for others who be not BB haue the same but as they are the Kings Commissioners in causes Ecclesiasticall As touching the other allegation it seemeth the refuter whiles he talketh of libertie to alter at their pleasure thinks it left to his libertie to alter the Kings words at his pleasure The King indeed doth say that it is granted to euery Christian King Prince and Common-wealth to prescribe to their subiects that outward forme of Ecclesiastical regiment which may seeme best to agree with the forme of their ciuill gouernement but so as they swarue not at all frō the grounds of faith and true religion But that it may appeare how little the iudgement of our most Orthodoxall and iudicious King doth differ from that which I deliuered in my Sermon I will craue leaue to recite his words That BB. ought to be in the Church I euer maintained as an Apostolike institution and so the ordinance of God contrarie to the Puritanes and likewise to Bellarmine who denieth that BB. haue their iurisdiction from God Now then to come to the point this argument maketh wholy against the pretended discipline and not against the gouernement of Bishops as I maintaine it The gouernement of Bishops is by our lawes allowed so is not the pretended discipline And though I holde the gouernement
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
4. i Conc. Chalc. act 10. k Bals. in Conc. Eph. c. 5. l Burchard decret l. 2. c. 126. ex Conc. Parisiens §. 21. The superioritie of BB. in iurisdiction prooued by reason §. 22 Ad pag. 104. a Page 6. Ad. pag. 105. Whether BB. may be called Lords Acts 9.5 Ad page 106. Psal. 91.11 Dan. 10.11 §. 2. a Theodor. l. 1. c. 4. b Th. l. 1. c. 5. c Ibid. c. 6. d Atha Apol. 2. e Sozom. l. 3. c. 22. f Soz. l. 3. c. 23. g Greg. Naz. epist ad Greg. Nyss. h Theo. l. 4. c. 9. i Soz. l. 4. c. 13. k Constantine p. 1. apud Theodor l. 5. c. 9. l Ambros. Epist 81. m Conc. Arelat 3. n Turonens 1. Epaunens Valent. Aurelian 3. Toleta 3. c. o Socr. hist. l. 6. in prooem p Chrys. in Ps. 13. apud Caes. Baron an 58.2 q Epist. Caluin ad Cranmer r Epist. Dedic l. de 3. Elohius s Suru 131. Septemb. 15. 1589. t Luc. 22.26 u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedibim * In Pagnia thesaur x In Luc. 22.26 y Matt. 20.20 25. z Hier. in Tit. 1. § 27. § 28. Ad pag. 107. § 1. That this treatise of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling is not superfluous though from the former points the same thing may be concluded Ad pag. 108. § 2. The question is of such BB. as were described in the former part of the Sermon and in the 2. and 3. bookes of this defence Ad pag. 109. § 3. Ad pag. 110. That the function of such BB. is of Apostolicall institution a De grad c. 23. The 1. argument because it was generally vsed in the primitiue Church b De Baptisme cont Donat. l. 4. c. 24 Epi. 118. c De praescript aduers. haeres con Marc. l. 4. d Lib. 2. pag. 2. Ad pag. 111. § 4. 4. Arguments prouing the assumption 1. Because all the Angels or gouernours of the primitiue Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles were diocesan BB. Ad pag. 112. f Con. Nic. c. 6. g Conc. Ephe. post aduentum Episcoporum Cypri h Cyp. lib. 4. epi. 2 § 5. That diocesan BB. had not their first beginning after the Apostles times i Eus. hist. l. 4. c. 1. 2. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l c. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m lib. 4. c. 19.20.21.22 n An. 8. Antoni Christi 169. o Eus. l. 4. c. 22. § 6. The second argument from the two testimonies of Ierome p Hier. in Tit. The 1. q Ad. Euagr. r 1 Cor. 1. s Conc. Ancyr c. 16.20.21.22.23.24.25 Et Neocaes c. 2. 3. § 7. The second testimonie of Ierome in Psal. 45. t Ad. Euagr. Ad pag. 113. § 8. The third argument consisting of two parts the first affirmatiue that all Councils Histories and Fathers giue testimony to BB. u Note his reason the testimonies of the Fathers to no purpose because the antientest Councils were in the fourth age vv They be the first words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. § 9. The second part of the third argument negatiue that no instance can be giuen to the contrary All the refuters instances either false or impertinent Hier. ad Euagr. § 10. The refuters instances out of the old writers Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian a Cyp. l. 3. Epi. 19 b l. 4. Epist. 9. c l. 3. Epist. 9. d li. 3. Epist. 2. 13. l. 4. Epist. 2. e li. 1. Epist. 3. l. 3. epi. 9. 14. 15. f li. 4. Epist. 9. g li. 3. Epist. 9. 16. li. 1. Epist. 3. § 11. Cyprians testimonie examined h li. 3. Epist. 14. i Epi. 15. 16. k li. 3. Epist. 15. l li. 4. Epist. 16. m Epi. 17. 18 n L. 3. Epist. 19. o L. 3. Epist. 20. p L. 3. Epist. 18. q In Tit. 1. r lib. 3. Epist. 10 s lib. Epist. 5. lâ—b 3. Epist. 22. lib. 4. Epist. 5. t Con. Carth. 4. cap. 22. 23. § 12. The testimony of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. The testimonies of Ierome answered u Ad Ocean in Tit. 1. Ad Euagr. (w) Hier. ad Euagr. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3. § 13. A fourth testi +mony of Ierome misalledged aduers. Lucifer § 14. Ad pag. 114. The testimony of Augustine Epist. 19. a Aug. â— 2. Epist. 17. 18. b Ad Craâ—â—er c Erasmus in 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret. Beda Sedulius c. d Sacerdotes § 15. Allegations out of the new Writers § 16. His allegations out of new Writers answered § 17. Ad pag. 125. Allegation of Examples * I omit here how shamefully he belyeth the Doctrine of the Churches of England Wirtemberge and Sweueland as opposite to the gouernment of BB. quoting Harmon Confess Sect. 11. The Church of Sweueland is so farre from opposing it selfe to the spirituall authority of Bishops that it doth not contradict the secular power and soueraigntie of such Bishops as be Princes a Euseb. Chron. anno 174. b Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 21. 22. c Apol. 2. d Lib. 1.14 e Lib. 2.621 f Bez. in 1 Tim. 5. in Phil. 1. g Lib. 1. cap. 11. § 3. h Apologeâ— c. 39. i Praescrip contr haere § 18. Ad pag. 126. The fourth argument from the succession of BB. k Euseb. hist. Chron. l Iren. li. 3. c. 3. m Tertul de praescript Augustine Epist. 24. Christiana societas persedes Apostolorum ac successiones EpiscoporuÌ„ certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur n li. 3 cap. 1. §. 10 12. The Episcopall function not first ordained by Councils o Conc. Nic. c. 6. p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The conclusion § 19. A syllogisme concluding against the pretended discipline vpon the same groundâ— His answere to the proposition § 2. Ad pag. 128. His answer to the assumption § 3. His answere to the former part of the assumption and the proofes therof a Eus. l. 4. ca. 15. b in Apoc. coâ— 9. c Eus. l. 5. ca. 24. lib. 4. cap. 26. Sozo lib. 4. c. 24. § 4. Ad pag. 129. d Inter Orthodoxographa e In Polycarpo f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Euseb. l. 3. c. 35. § 5. The second argument prouing the assumption h Iranaeus Eusebius Epiphanius Augustine c. His ioynt answere to the former reasons § 6. The latter part of the assumption that the Episcopall function was not disallowed by the Apostles k Phil. 2.25.29 l Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1.19 m Col. 4.17 Philem. 1. n Ap. 2.13 Ad pag. 130. o Chap. 3. § 12.13.14 § 7. That Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue bin in the Apostles time p In Tit. 1. q Ad Euagr. r Catalog script s In Clemente t Ad Euagr. u Proaem in Mat. w Catalog in Marco x Ad Euagr. y In Tit. 1. § 8. The refuters argument for the Presbyterian discipline a In Tit. 1. b Ad Trall His answere to the preposition c li.
not onely said but proued also both in the preface conclusion of the sermon that it is both profitable and necessarie The third It is necessarie indeed to be confuted As if he had said it is necessarie indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needfull to be answered Of these reasons the two first he proueth in the words following the third being as you see nothing else but an absurd begging of the question The first he proueth by diuerse arguments such as they be First then the doctrine of the SermoÌ„ is proued to be vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth to the word of truth to the scripture of truth But how after al these ridiculous amplifications is the doctrine of the sermon proued to be repugnant to the word of truth he had rather take it for granted then that you should put him to proue it But I shall make it cleare in this defence of my sermon that as there is not a sillable in the scripture to proue the pretended discipline so the Episcopall function hath good warrant in the word of God But when in the second place he proueth the doctrine of the sermoÌ„ to be vtterly false because it is coÌ„trary to the iudgement practise of the prime Churches next after Christ his Apostles I caÌ„not tel whether to woÌ„der at more the blindnesse or the impudencie of the man Seeing I haue made it manifest that the gouernement of the Church by BB. hath the full consent of antiquitie there being not one testimonie of the ancient writers for their Iudgement nor one example of the primitiue churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie How durst he mention the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church for the triall of the truth in this question when there is not one testimonie for the preteÌ„ded discipline nor one example of it in all antiquitie let them bring any one pregnant either testimonie or example and I will yeeld in the whole cause And where he addeth that it is contrarie to the iudgement and practise of all reformed Churches since the reestablishing of the Gospell by the worthies in these latter times is it not strange that a maÌ„ professing sinceritie should so ouerreach seeing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is gouerned by BB. and Superintendents then by the presbyterian discipline as I haue shewed in the latter ende of this booke But he addeth foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land saying that it is against the doctrine of our Martyrs contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthie writers contrariant to the lawes of our land and contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England The first he expresseth thus Against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whom were worthy Martyrs he quoteth in the Margent Latimer Cranmer c who in their submission to king Henry the 8. at the abolishing of the Popes authoritie out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparitie of Ministers Lordly primacy of B B. was but a politicke deuise of the Fathers not any ordinance of Christ Iesus and that the gouernement of the Church by the Minister certaine Seniors or Elders in euery parish was the ancient discipline Which allegations would make a faire shew if they might passe vnexamined The witnesses which he quoteth for both were Archbishop Cranmer other BB. who allowing the Episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost vncredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alleadged against the same And I doe greatly wonder at the large conscience of our reâ—uter in this behalfe who throughout the booke taketh wonderfull libertie in citing Authors alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them For the former he alleageth the booke of Martyrs whereunto that part of the BB. booke which he mentioneth is inserted which hauing pervsed I finde nothing at all concerning the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superioritie of BB. among themselues all whom with the ancient Fathers I do confesse in respect of the power of Order to be equall as were also the Apostles whose successours they are But we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselues that therefore they were not superiour to the 72. disciples or because BB. are equall among themselues that therefore they are not superiour to other ministers For the latter he quoteth the book called Reformatio legum EcclesiasticaruÌ„ Which was a proiect of Ecclesiasticall lawes which if King Edward the 6. had liued should haue been set forth by his authoritie drawne by Archbishop Cranmer B. May other Commissioners and penned as is supposed by D. Haddon In alleadging whereof whiles the refuter goeth about to make the reader belieue that they stood for Lay-Elders and the pretended parish-discipline he plaieth the part of an egregious falsifier And forasmuch as sometimes in his booke he citeth the 10. and 11. chapters I will transcribe the same the bare recitall beeing a sufficieÌ„t coÌ„futation of his forged allegatioÌ„s For amoÌ„g other orders to be obserued in parochijs vrbanis in parishes which be in cities which begin at the 6. chapter of that title de diuin off in the tenth this order is prescribed CoÌ„fectis precibus vespertinis c. euening prayers being ended whereunto after the Sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne Churches the principall Minister whoÌ„ they call Parochum the Parson or Pastor the Deacon if perhaps they be present or in their abseÌ„ce the Ministers Vicar Seniors are to coÌ„sult with the people how the money prouided for godly vses may best be bestowed and to the same time let the discipline be reserued For they who haue committed publike wickedness to the common offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sinne and publikely to be punished that the Church by their holesome correction may be kept in order Moreouer the Minister going a side with some of the Seniors or Ancients of the parish shall take counsell how others whose maners are said to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselues thankes is duely to be giuen to God But if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receiue such sharpe punishment as we see in the Gospell prouided against their contumacie Then followeth the 11. chapter how excommunication is to be exercised But when the sentence of excommunication is to be pronounced first the Bishop is to be gone vnto and his sentence to be knowne Who if he shall consent and put too his authoritie the sentence of excommunication is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
allow neither doe thinke themselues bound to allow any maintenance at all to their Lay-Elders and also to perswade all those reformed Churches which haue them not and which in manie parishes are either not able or not willing to yeeld sufficient maintenāce to one learned minister to erect in euery parish besides the Pastor and the Doctor a Senate of Lay-Elders with purpose to vndergoe an vnsupportable charge and to think themselues bound by the word of God to allow them all and euery of them sufficient maintenance But what one reason doth he or can he alledge to perswade this or where doth he go about to perswade it If he say according to the iudgement and practise of all Churches whatsoeuer which either haue them or haue them not that this honour of maintenance is not due vnto them why doth he not ingenuously confesse that which is ineuitably proued out of the words that Lay-Elders are neither mentioned nor meant in this place If hee say as indeed that is all he doth say that my proofes are not sufficient what better proofe would hee require in such breuitie then the confession of the parties yea but they doe not confesse it First therefore I will proue their confession And secondly I will demonstrate that the double honour of maintenance though they did not confesse so much is not by the word of God due to their imagined Lay-Elders for their workes sake Their confession I proue thus What the learned reformers prescribed to be done according to Gods word as they pretended that was their Doctrine That there should be onely gouerning Elders elected out of the people or Laitie without maintenance to be yeelded to them was prescribed by the learned reformers according to the word of God as they pretended Therefore that there sho'uld be Elders elected out of the Laitie without maintenance to be yeelded to them was the Doctrine of the learned reformers The proposition needs no proofe The assumption I confirme thus That which is practised according to the lawes of Discipline in all those reformed churches where the Presbyteries be erected was prescribed by the learned reformers according to the word of God as they pretended The election of only-gouerning Elders out of the Laity without maintenance to be yelded to them is practised in all those reformed churches according to the laws of discipline Therefore the election of only gouerning-Elders out of the Laitie without maintenance to be yeelded to them was prescribed by the learned reformers according to the word of God as they pretended And consequently that Lay-Elders are not to haue maintenance is both the Doctrine of the learned reformers and the practise of all those Churches reformed by them The proposition is manifest because the lawes of Discipline in those Churches were either prescribed by the learned reformers or framed according to their prescript The assumption may also be euidētly proued by induction For the Lay-Elders neither in the Churches of Geneua France Low-countreys haue nor of Scotland had any maintenāce allowed thē that according to the lawes of their discipline neither can the refuter giue any one instance to the contrary It shal suffice me to make instāce in Geneua which was a patterne in this behalfe to the rest In Geneua is this order takē by their lawes whereof Caluin was the chiefe author that of the 12. only gouerning Elders ioyned to the 6. ministers 6. shuld be chosen out of the Councell of 200.4 out of the Coūcel of 60.2 out of the Councel of 25. all statesmen to this end both that they should be of great countenance and also that the Church should not be charged with allowing them any maintenāce Beza professeth that euery where in other Churches the like choyce according to the state of the place is made viz Not of the meaner or poorer sort but men of great both abilitie authoritie are chosen to be of the Presbyterie And else-where he saith that consideration must be had that Princes Noblemen and such as be of authority be chosen into the Seignorie And T.C. himselfe cōfesseth it to be the practise of the Churches in these dayes to make choice of such Elders as are able to liue without charging the church any whit Their cōfessiō I haue shewed Now let vs see what the refuter obiecteth 1. That I might haue read the contrary in Calui◠Bullinger Beza Cartwright D. Bilson and D. Sutcliffe but that it seemes I did not read on that side of the leafe And it seemes to mee that you would not haue me read on that side as yet or rather that there is no such thing to be read Else you would haue pointed if not to the leafe yet at least to the booke For my part I professe that I doe not remember that I haue read any such thing either in Caluin Beza or Bullinger but the contrary as I haue shewed in Caluin and Beza As for Bullinger you had lesse reason to alledge him seeing that you found him cited together with the other two expounding this word honour as signifying the maintenance due to ministers As touching D. Bils it is strange that you should both accuse mee for taking this reason from him and also charge him with teaching the contrary In his preface hee saith thus By no precept nor example will it euer be proued that Lay-presbyters had in the Apostles times or should haue by the word of God at any time double honour and maintenance from the Church of Christ. Wherefore they must either giue all Lay-Elders double maintenance as S. Paul willeth which they doe not or shutte them cleane from these words which yeeld double maintenance by Gods Law to Presbyters that rule well And to the like purpose hee speaketh in the place by you quoted The speech of that worthy learned man who is highly to be commended for his great learning good paines and zealous affection for the maintenance of the truth whom you vilely and vngraciously abuse as you doe all others that come in your way be they neuer so worthy champions of our Church against the Papists his reproofe I say of T. C. for requiring maintenance as due to the Lay-Elders I haue not seene to my remembrance But this I remember well that I haue read in his treatise of Ecclesiasticall discipline that the Elders whereof the Apostles speake receiued wages of the Church But saith he the new Aldermen in all Churches where they raigne liue vpon interest of their owne money or goods and receiue no salarie of the Churches Neither had he indeed any great reason in my iudgement to blame T. C. that I may also come to him as opposing his iudgement to the practise of the reformed Churches For although he seeme to say that by the Apostles rule such Elders as be poore ought to be relieued at the Churches charge yet it doth not seeme to be his iudgement that he
place which God did choose in other cities whereof the one was ciuill the other ecclesiasticall consisting of the priests Leuits scribes or teachers also the seniors of the people But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem which was the highest court chief councel of state hauing power of life death authority to deale in causes both ciuill ecclesiasticall coÌ„sisted of the high priest other priests and Leuites together with the Princes Seniors of the people being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number Of which that in Deut 17.8.9 is to bee vnderstood These were called Sanedrin and did sit in Gazith In which number those which were priests were called Seniores SacerdotuÌ„ and those which were Princes were called Seniores populi as Sigondus saith And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people Iosephus saith that to euery coÌ„sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites The reason heereof was because the lawes wherby that church coÌ„mon-wealth were gouerned were the lawes of God wherein the Priests Leuites Scribes were most skilfull and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law And therfore another sort which should consist of Priests Leuits and elders of the people which should respoÌ„dere de iure as Beza imagineth this shuld was altogether needles But his proofs are as weake as his imagination was strong His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat is Leuit 10.10 where they were ordained saith he to shew the difference betweene holy profane betweene cleane vncleane to teach the law of God But no such thing can with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text where the Lord speaking to Aaron coÌ„mandeth him his sonnes the priests by a perpetual law that they should not drink wine nor strong drink wheÌ„ they were to enter into the sanctuary whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly soberlie either in iudging betweene holie profane between cleane and vncleane or in teaching the people which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary by the priests as well seuerally as ioyntly no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted or if there were it should according to Bertrams conceit consist wholy of the Priests to whom alone this speech is directed As for Elders of the people they were not to intermeddle with these things The high Priest indeed if it pleased him might consult with other Priests and vse their assistance as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God we doe not read and that it should consist in part of Lay-men there is not the least semblance of likelihood His proofes that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted are these First because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former I answere there is neither number set downe nor time of that which neuer was His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God ouer which the high Priest was chiefe the other ciuill for the causes of the King ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe But it is euident by the text that it was one and the same high counsell of state which afterwards was called Sanedrin or Synedrion Hierosolymitaâ—uÌ„ coÌ„sisting of the Leuites and Priests and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities were to iudge betweene blood and blood that is slaughter and slaughter betweene the law and the precept betweene statutes and iudgements hauing among them in the causes of God Amarias the high Priest and in the causes of the King Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda as chiefe and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law For whereas he would proue that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem by these reasons because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God the other of the King the one should determine de iure the other de facto the one had for the president the high Priest the other a Prince of Iuda none of these reasons doe proue that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that which before had beene appointed by God namely that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague should be brought to the Synedâ—ion or counsell of the place which God shoulâ— choose the which is there noted to consist of the Priests Leuites and â—udge that is iudges saith Caluin as appeareth by the holy historie where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the Pâ—iâ—sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel for the godly King would decline nâ—uer a whit from the rule of Gods law To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as weâ—l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall as well de facto as de iure were to be brought from other ciuill courts as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8 and also 2 Chron. 19.20 Besides it is ridiculous to imagine that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall the rather because that counsell which was appointed by God Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate it is absurd to imagine that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure As for the causes of God which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized verse 10. and Deut. 17.8 betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept c. we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill so farre as either they were to be decided bâ— the lawes of God or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law whereby that land was gouâ—rned in iudging whereof they also exercised Gods iudgement The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house or his eschequer And it is fond to imagine that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and morâ—ll lawes of God were not the causes
will you also heare what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Ierome Godly 〈◊〉 mâ—slikâ—d this order of giuing the name Bishoppe to one in a Church and by all likelihood broke it which Ieromes words do apparently import This custome was in the Church of Alexandria from Saint Marke vntill Heraclas and Dionysius for vnlesse there were some change then why should hee not rather haue said From Saint Marke to his time First to his assertion I say it is vntrue that godly men misliked the giuing of the name Bishoppe to one in Church neither was there any reason why they should mislike it For first as the name of Angels being common to all Ministers is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops in such sort as though euery Minister be an Angell yet onely one is the Angell of the Church so by the same reason Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to al Ministers is so appropriated to one in euery Church that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a generall sense one onely is the Bishop of that Church neither was it arrogancy but modesty rather in Bishops who assumed this name For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes the Apostles of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes episcopi they contented themselues with the title of least honour and left the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing the honour of the Ministery in generall to other Ministers Neither is there any more reason as D Raynolds also saith why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches should be misliked then of giuing the name Minister to Presbyters which is common to Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Besides it is most certaine that in the writings of Ignatius and others who liued in or neere the Apostles times the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church Ierome plainly testifieth that from S. Markâ— time who was the first Bishop whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times one who was set in a superior degree was called Bishop But that the custome of giuing this name to one in the Church which from S. Marks time had continued should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius is against reason vnlesse it may be thought that the estimation of Bishops then decreased which ill agreeth with H I. conceit What antient Writer mentioning Dionysius doth not cal him Bishop of Alexandria Eusebius so termeth him Athanasius who was one of his successors doth not only cal him Bishop ofteÌ„times but also acknowledgeth him to haue bin a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to fauor the heresie of Sabâ—llicus Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertaine sought to reform them You haue heard T. C. assertion His reason is this some change there was therefore in the name Bishop How weake a reason this is I shal not need to note seeing I haue shewed wherein the change was there being lesse likelihood of alceration in this kind then in any other For could any man at that time mislike that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop yea a Patriarch But to returne to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone who was not established in Ambrose Ierome and Augustines time tooke place soone after And how is this proued He saith hee doubts not of it though he be not able to shew neither where nor when nor by whom nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustines times What if in Augustines time the authority and preheminence of Bishops was abated and restrained namely in the fourth Councell of Carthage more then euer before For whereas the antient Canons referre the power both of ordination and iurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery And whereas Bishoppes before such as were peaceable and well disposed did voluntarily vse the aduice and assistance of their clergy by that Councell the assistance of the clergy both in ordination and iurisdiction in the Churches of Africk became necessary Neither doe I know any reason why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustines time should bee thought to haue increased For as by the lawfull authority of Christian Kings Princes to whom they were subordinate in regard of the coÌ„mon good of the kingdom whereof they were meÌ„bers so much more by yâ— vsurped supremacy of the B. of Rome after the yeer 607. yâ— authority of bishops was lessened impaired We are to come to his fift step which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath cleane marred the staires that the refuter and his consorts vse to talke of whereby the Bishoppes of Rome from being as they say a parish Bishop did arise to the papacy partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be to haue been till after Augustines time and partly by out-skipping the Metropolitanes For it cannot be denied but that there were diocesan Bishoppes such as ours be before there were Metropolitanes or Primates actually and there were Metropolitanes before there were Patriarches Now it would be knowne when Patriarches begun In the Councel of Nice held about the yeere three hundred twentie foure it is acknowledged to haue been an antient custome which there was ratified that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue authority of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis and the like custome for the Bishop of Rome in the West and of Antioch in the East is mentioned and the antient priuiledges to each Church espcially to each Metropolis reserued To say nothing of Rome whereof the Papists say too much it is plaine by that testimony of the Nicene Councell of Epiphanius before alleaged of Athanasius euen now cited that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old long before their time patriarchall authority For that of Antioch the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Councell is sufficient calling himselfe the Bishop of Syria whereby we cannot conceiue him to haue been lesse then an Archbishop Now if I should aske H.I. or this Refuter when Metropolitanes first began they would not be able truly to assigne their originall after the Apostles times And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt whether Caesarea in the Councell of Nice be reckoned as one of the foure seats of the Patriarches For expresse mention is made of Aeliâ— which was the new name giuen by Adrian to Ierusalem to which according to antient custom the next place of honor after Antioch was granted the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis which indeed was Caesarea being reserued But if Metropolitanes had not their beginning after the Apostles times as no man is able to
the Fathers had thought the power of ordination to haue bin peculiar to BB. by any ordinance of God they would not haue allowed any such ordination as I speake of without a B it followes not For though they held the right of Baptizing to beloÌ„g to the Ministers of the Church by Gods ordinance though they held the right of imposing hands to be peculiar to the Apostles and their successors yet in a case of necessity they held baptisme without a Minister and confirmation without a B. to be lawfull In like maner though they held that the right of ordination was peculiar to Bishops by Apostolical institution therefore taught that none but Bishops could regularly and ordinarily ordaine notwithstanding in a case of necessity we may well thinke they would haue allowed of such an ordination as J spake of though as I said not as regular according to the rules of ordinary Church gouernment yet as effectuall and iustifiable in the want of a B. If he still say they wouâ—d not then must he confesse that the practise of the Disciplinarians is such as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church would in no case haue allowed and that is all the inconuenience that can come to our cause if my defence of them be not sufficient As for his cauill at my supposall of the right of ordination to belong to the power of order in BB. I haue answered before To such obiections one answer is enough two is too many And thus much of the Bishops right in ordaining CHAP. V. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in the power of iurisdiction Serm. sect 9. pag. 45. Now I am to shew that the B. is superiour also in the power of iurisdiction The Presbyters indeede c. to the end of the page HEre the Reader is to obserue what is by me propounded to be proued not that the BB. had or haue the sole power of iurisdiction the defence whereof the Refuter euery where would faine force vpon me but that they are and were superiour in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment I deny not the Presbyters which haue charge of soules to haue iurisdiction both seuerally in their parishes and iointly in prouinciall synods And I haue confessed before that Presbyters haue with and vnder the Bishops exercised some iurisdiction I grant that godly BB. before they had the countenance and assistance of Christian Magistrates and direction of Christian lawes vsed in all matters of moment to consult with their clergy imitating therein as Ierome speaketh the example of Moses Quâ— cùm haberet in potestate solus praesse populo who when it was in his power to gouerne the people alone hee chose seuenty with whom to iudge the people This was practised by Cyprian who resolued from the beginning of his Bishopricke to doe nothing of importance alone because he would preuent dissension and scandals Ambrose also teacheth that there was a time when nothing was done without the aduice of the Presbyters who therefore by Ignatius are called the counsellours and coassessours of the B. Which course if it were vsed still as it would ease the Bishops burden very much so would it nothing detract from their superiority in gouerning the sway of their authority being no lesse when they vsed the aduice of their Presbyters then when they vsed it not For the assistance of the Presbyters was to helpe and aduice but neuer to ouerrule the Bishop Neither will any man say that the authority of a Prince who vseth the aduice of his counsell is the lesse for it but the moâ—e aduised But what the authority of BB. was in the primitiue Church in respect of gouernment I will first shew absolutely and then by way of comparison with Presbyters What the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councell of Carthage calleth the authority of BB. was may first appeare by this that they were accounted the gouernours and rulers of the Churches meaning thereby dioceses For though there were many ministers who were Angels Pastors Bishops yâ—t there was but one in euery Church who was the Angel the Pastor the Bishop the gouernour of the Church bearing as Ignatius saith the sway of authority aboue and ouer them all But I delight to heare Ierome the onely pretended patron of the Disiplinarians who confesseth as wee haue heard that of necessity a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all is to bee attributed to Bishoppes and that the safety of the Church dependeth thereon Hee therefore in his Commentary vpon Esay chap. 60. verse 17. reading according to the Septuag I will giue thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousnesse saith Herein the Maiestie of the holy Scriptures is to bee admired which calleth principes futuros ecclesiae episcopos the Princes or Rulers which should bee of the Church Bishoppes whose visitation is all in peace and the name of their dignitie meaning their superintendencie in righteousnesse And on those words of the 45. Psalme In stead of fathers children shall be borne vnto thee O Church saith he the Apostles were thy fathers for they begate thee Now forasmuch as they are gone out of the world thou hast BB. who were borne of thee For these also are thy fathers because thou art gouerned of them And on the words following whom thou shalt make Princes in all the earth for saith he in the name of God the gospell is spread in all ends of the world in which Principes ecclesiae i. episcopi the princes of the Church that is to say the Bishops are placed On which words Augustine also doth comment to the like purpose In stead of the Apostles sonnes are borne to thee BB. are ordained thinke not thy selfe forsaken because thou seest not Peter and Paul who beg at thee of thine owne issue is sprung a fatherhood Agnoscant qui prâ—cisi sunt veniant ad vnitatem c. Let them which are precise or cut off by schisme acknowledge it and come vnto vnity The Church hath borne sonnes and in steed of her fathers hath made them princes ouer all the earth Optatus likewise calleth the BB apices principes omnium The Councell of Carthage decreed that when the Donatists returned to the Church they should be receiued each one in their degrees according to the will and pleasure of the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gouerneth the Church in the same place if he shall thinke it expedient for the peace of the Church Cyprian though he had approued Cornelius his courage in that Felicissimus a wicked schismaticke attended with a troope of desperate fellowes was by him vigore pleno quo episcopum agere oportet pulsus de ecclesia with full vigour of auâ—hority and courage wherewith it behoueth a B to deale driuen out of the Church yet perceiuing him to be somwhat daunted with the threatnings of those lewd companions if this be so saith he that the
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
the behalfe of those which had fallen promising when God should grant peace vnto them that he might returne to them the behauiour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence and hauing signified his great dislike of the Presbiters act who not reseruing vnto him the honour of his Priesthood and chaire had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen In the end he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently heare his counsell expect his returne that when through Gods mercy we shall come vnto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together may according to the discipline of the Lord in the presence of the confessors examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs he writeth in like manner to the Clergy that is to the Presbiters and Deacons willing them for as much as still his returne was delayed that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence but for such as should be in danger of death to lay their hands vpon them and reconcile them especially such as had beene commended by the Martyrs as for the rest he would haue them stay till hee being restored to the Church and they all being assembled together might determine what was to be done But being importuned againe by letters from the Confessors who had desired him and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace as themselues did to them which had fallen he writeth againe to the Presbiters and Deacons that letter which by the refuter is cited saying concerning those which had fallen and by the Confessours haue desired to be reconciled vntill it be certainely knowne what course they haue taken since their fault committed seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Councill and iudgement of vs all I dare not preiudicate and challenge to my selfe a thing which is common and therefore appointeth that course to be taken which I mentioned out of the last Epistle and to the same purpose writeth to diuers BB. and by name to Calidonius shewing him what order he had taken in this matter and willing him to signifie the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them If these letters all concerning the same businesses be conferred together you may obserue first that Cyprian was a Metropolitane B. hauing authoritie to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appeare also by the Synodes held and Synodicall Epistles written by him Secondly that he speaketh not of Church businesse in generall but of this particular which was of so great importance that he saith it was the cause not of one Church or of one Prouince but of the whole world Thirdly that he would not deale alone in this busines but he would call a Synode of his fellow BB. besides his Clergie and in the presence of the people haue the cause of them which had fallen examined Fourthly that although he would not deale alone in this busines being a cause of so great moment but would haue it referred to the examination censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people and his owne Clergy in this iudgement notwithstanding the chiefe stroak in this busines was in him as appeareth both by their petitions and his directions And therefore the whole cariage of this businesse doth prooue the Episcopall authoritie of the B. and Cyprians superioritie not onely ouer his owne Presbiters but also ouer his fellow Bishops so farre is it from impleading the same and further I say that Cyprian because his comming to the Bishopricke was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices and the time wherein he liued troublesome and dangerous therefore though he might as Ierome speaketh of all Bishops rule alone as Moses yet as Moses he voluntarily vsed the assistance of others hauing as himselfe saith from the beginning of his Bishoprick determined to doe nothing by his own priuate sentence without the counsell of the Clergy and consent of the people whereby it appeareth that his vsing of the Clergies counsell and consent of the people was not of necessity but voluntary and therefore when he saw cause and did finde himselfe not to need either the counsell of the Clergy or consent of the people he would sometimes doe matters of importance as namely the ordination of Clerks alone as himselfe signifieth in an Epistle to the Presbiters Deacons and the whole people In ordaining of Clerkes I doe vse before hand to consult with you and by common counsell to weigh the manners and deserts of all but humane testimonies are not to be expected when we haue diuine suffrages and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks But suppose that of necessitie Cyprian was to vse the aduise or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy in dispaching matters of importance would this be an instance against the Episcopall gouernment in those times did the fourth Councill of Cathage set foorth these two Canons the one that a B. without the Councill of his Clergie should not ordaine Clerkes requiring also that the assent or conniuence and testimony of the people should be had the other that a B. should heare no mans cause but in the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergie and yet no man doubteth but that when that Councell was held which was about foure hundred yeeres after Christ the sway of Ecclesiasticall authoritie both for ordination and iurisdiction was in the Bishop But I haue vouchafed too long an answere to so weake an allegation In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony which was as he saith debated at large in the first point It was debated indeed but nothing to this present purpose Ambrose saith that the B. was wont to vse the aduise of his Presbiters though in his time it was growne out of vse and the matter debated betweene vs was whether those Seniors were Ministers as I proued or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended but whether they were the one or the other the authoritie and gouernment of the B. was no more impayred by vsing their counsell then the authority of a Prince by vsing the aduise of his Counsellours vntill such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonicall law their consent was required as necessarie These two allegations if they had beene reduced into sillogismes would haue made very loose inferences and so would the testimonies of Ierom who euery where almost saith the refuter speaketh for vs. This is vauntingly spoken and yet the truth is that as no where 's indeed he speaketh for them so none of the Fathers is more plentifull of pregnant testimonies then he is for BB. as partly hath beene shewed already and more shall be declared hereafter Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth three
doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 2.16 Tit. 1.10.11 and 3.9 and iudges of their persons and conuersation 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21 Tit. 3.10 to which proofes he answereth nothing Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene of Chrysostome of Oecumenius and Gregory testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in efâ—ect with his assumption I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnder the name of that supposition and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition is this that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things which Bishops arrogate to themselues yet they were to doe them by an higher power and therefore not as Bishops Whereto I answere that they were to be done by a power vvhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal And secondly that the power Episcopal whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vnto the end The assumption it selfe hee denyeth saying these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopall function c. The reason of his deniall is this What though Bishops haue now gotten that power into their hands yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus as Bishops the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists and in generall to the Presbyters to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth To the Euangelists to administer in all the Churches of those Regions whither the Apostles sent or where they left them to the Presbyters to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty as the BB. haue Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them and generally to Presbyters c. both parts are false For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and are such as are to be obserued to the end Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them And that these things belong to the BB. I haue sufficiently proued before To make the matter plaine he bringeth in an example which is worth the hearing Suppose saith he a Democraty where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour still obseruing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be saide that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall or Monarchicall gouernement whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme in the one the Nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the seuerall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse in processe of time it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onely the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things grew worse and worse the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie together Which comparison I desire may be well considered especially by the vnlearneder sort for hereby they shall discerne what manner of guides they haue desired to follow For not to contend with him about his politicke proposition not well agreeing with the rules of policy wherein we are taught that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis doth alwayes belong to them who haue the soueraigntie in the whole comparison but especially in the reddition we may behold the trim Idea of discipline which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged For he conceiueth as if he were a Brownist or an Anabaptist that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction was in the whole congregation of euery Parish which by their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of the laity had the menaging of all Church-businesse that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were first prouided for this popular state of the Church Howbeit by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely menaging the Church affaires Lastly in processe of time this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands Now the lawes concerning Ordination and iurisdiction are still in force yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers but for the popular and golden state of euery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation Haue not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you to doate vpon such leaders as these who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages for which they haue not so much as the shew of any sound proofe Our refuter hath often times obiected against me though most vniustly that Pythagoras-like I looke to be creditted vpon my bare word but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties First it is here presupposed that euery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment was a Parish all Church officers Parishionall Which dotage I haue before refuted Secondly that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall or popular the cheife authority being in the people Which hath authority to be exercised partly by themselues partly by their Presbytery to elect ordayne depriue depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the