Episcopall to be of Apostolicall and diuine Institution yet not as generally perpetually and immutably necessarie But the pretended discipline is held by the fauourers of it so to be enioyned by diuine right that it ought generally in all places and perpetually in all ages and also immutably to be obserued as being not chaÌ„geable by man And so farre doe they differ from the Kings iudgement that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the CoÌ„mon-wealth they say the gouernement of the Common-wealth must be fashioned to the Church But to fashion the Church to the Common-wealth is as much to say as if a man should fashion his house according to his hangings And thus much hath he gained by his third vntruth The fourth remaineth Lastly it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England professed euen by the BB. themselues till of late daâ—es c. therefore vtterly false To this Antecedent I giue no credit though for proofe therof hee citeth B. Iewell and Archbishop Whitgift at randon For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church First therefore the booke of consecrating BB. Priests and Deacons which is approued Article 36. saith It is euident vnto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there haue beene these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Of which orders it is afterwards said that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church And againe the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authoritie as he hath by Gods word such as be vnquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocesse Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof written by Bishop Iewel We belieue that there be diuerse degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Priests some Bishops c. And it is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith which is not coÌ„tained in Gods word or grounded thereon Againe if it were true that the Bishops hauing better informed themselues concerning their functions had reformed their iugdemeÌ„ts according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquitie would it follow that their latter thoughts which commonly are the wiser according to the old saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were false and worthie to be confuted And lastly if this be a true proposition which in the refuters Enthymeme is vnderstood that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is euidently false though it agree with the present doctrine thereof how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be reiected which is contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine of this Church both former and latter especially the discipline of the newest stampe I meane the new-found parish discipline published by the challengers of disputation Anno 1606 maintained by this refuter which neither agreeth with our Church nor as I suppose with any other reformed Church in the world His second reason whereby hee would proue that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needfull to be confuted is because he saw it to be daÌ„gerous And that he proueth by 2. reasons The former because howsoeuer he had said in the former reason that it is euidently false and so not dangerous now he saith the doctrine is by mee so handsomely and likely handled that it is so farre from being euidently false that euery word I speake hath such an appearance and promise of truth that in imitation of Bishop Iewel against Harding hee thinkes he may fitly vse Socrates his words against his accusers or as I thinke more fitly the words of Agrippa to Paul who had vttered no vntruth that I had almost perswaded him to be of my minde But more fitly may I alledge the very next words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Among many things which my aduersarie hath obiected against me falsely I maruell much at this one that hee willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceiued by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as my aduersaries words may expound it one that can tell his tale so handsomely and carrie the matter so smoothly likely and confidently that although he vtter neuer a word of truth yet euery word hee speaketh hath an appearance and promise of truth For both my Sermons and writings shewe that I affect not the perswasorie words of humane wisedome and eloquence but the plaine stile of simple truth And therefore am no more then Socrates himselfe in that regard to be suspected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse my aduersaries call him an eloquent man and powerfull in speech who speaketh the truth Secondly he proueth my doctrine to be dangerous by an induction or particular enumeration of the hurts which as he imagineth were like to come to the Church of God thereby if it were not confuted The Papists saith hee would be much aduantaged seeing that Antichristian doctrine euen after the renewing and reuiuing of their ceremonies among vs so freely preached and published tending to the vpholding of their Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as ours his reasons being indeed the very same with theirs as in the answere to them it shall appeare The aduantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached and the ceremonies still retained among vs may through Gods blessing be this That when they see vs not so new-fangled as our Opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they haue departed from the primitiue Church but are content to obserue the ancient gouernement and lawfull Ceremonies vsed in the primitiue Church though retained by them they may be induced to ioyne with vs in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitiue Church And whereas he calleth our doctrine defending the calling of BB Antichristian and the ceremonies vsed among vs Popish it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our Opposites who call their owne doctrine and pretended discipline though lately deuised Gods owne cause the Discipline of Christ their pleading for it a giuing testimonie to this part of the word of his grace but ours though truely Catholicke and Apostolicall they tearme Antichristian and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church Dagon the tower of Babell the triple headed Cerberus the restoring of BB the building vp again the walles of Iericho my self other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the gouernement established they compare to Achabs 400. prophets and such as plead for Baal Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the vpholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as of ours God forbid In the Popish Clergy aboue BB. and Archbishops
that there were no other but parish Bishops In the meane time let the Reader hold this for a certaine and vndeniable truth that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers but onely in cities and Cathedrall Churches but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the second booke As touching the second conclusion it followeth thus the parish pastor had either a Presbyterie to assist him or he was subiect to superiors as namely the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops to ouerrule him or else he ruled like a Pope for a fourth thing cannot be named before there were Christian Magistrates But it is absurd to imagine that in the primitiue Church they had an absolute popeling who neither had assistants nor superiors for that were to ascribe not onely supreme but also sole power to them and it is as false that in seuerall parishes there was a Presbyterie to assist him therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subiect to the authoritie of the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops To the proposition he answereth two wâ—ies first by retortion that what I say of the parish Bishop his ruling as a Pope may with more probabilitie be spoken of a Diocesan Bishop which I haue answered before For this is the second place where he laboureth out of my wordâ— to proue our Diocesan Bishops to be popes vsing this insultation in the margent Sic tu beas amiâ—os But though their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme Ecclesiasticall officers would be absolute popelings if presbyteries were not adioyned to them because they should haue not onely Supreame but also sole authoritie yet it followeth not that our Bishops to whom neither supreme nor sole authoritie belongeth should he esteemed such Secondly he denieth the disfunction alleaging that a fourth thing might be added concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people Which if it be added in the proposition is with the rest to be denied in the assumption For this brownisticall or rather Anabaptisticall conceit for some of the Brownists disclaime it that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were subiected to the people as if the state of the Church had beene Democraticall or popular is a dotage that was neuer dreamed of till of late and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition CHAP. IX Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleaged to proue Lay-Elders BVt now had I need to call for armour of defence For hitherto saith the refuter we haue warded the blowes that M. D. gaue to beat downe the Lay-presbyterie now let vs shew that we also can strike if need be The Reader that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogismes of me euen when I performe the part of an answerer cannot but expect most formall and accurate Syllogismes at his hands But he shall finde that to be true which I foretold him not long since that this great Champion not daring to vrge his testimonies or to reduce his proofes into Syllogismes according to the poore pollicie of them all holdeth out certaine testimonies as it were Pallas shield thinking with the bare quotation of them though he cite them not to put vs to silence And to this purpose like a notorious Mountebanke setting himselfe to delude the simple he commendeth his witnesses euen Christ himselfe his Apostles and Euangelists with swelling titles when their testimonies themselues are not so much as cited as though he thought it more needfull to winne credit to his witnesses then to proue â—hat they testifie that for which he would seeme to alleage them But you shall heare Pyrgopolinices himselfe For the scriptures we haue among others these mightie ones to wage battell for vs. First the great Emperour of the Christian armie our Sauiour Christ himselfe Mat. 18.17 Next a great worthy Luke the Euangelist Act. 14.23 Adde to these Iames the Apostle one of the Pillars of the Church Iam. 5.14 and that famous Generall of the gentiles the Apostle Paul Rom. 12 8.1 Cor. 12.28 These are most worthy witnesses indeed and without exception If any one of these giue testimonie to your Lay-Elders we will most willingly yeeld But I pray you let vs heare their words It shall not need if you will not belieue vs that they giue testi-monie to Lay-Elders yet belieue other diuines who say they doe Are they witnesses what they said only or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing If the latter why be not their owne testimonies produced but other witnesses must be deposed that they said so when it appeareth vpon most authenticall record whether they said so or not Let vs therefore heare the words themselues The first is Matt. 18.17 Where our Sauiour Christ saith dic Ecclesiae tell the Church or assembly What then therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in euery congregation See you not by this time what a striker this is first there may be question whether Ecclesia signifie the whole congregation of the people or an assembly of iudges or gouernours if the former sense be followed there is no shew for Lay-Elders If the latter which is the more likely question againe may be made whether Christ speake of the Synedrion of the Iewes as Caluin and some others suppose or of Christian gouernours if of the Synedrion which was a ciuill senate and indeed the high counsell of estate in the policie of the Iewes what doth that make for Ecclesiasticall Elders in the Church of Christ and that in euery parish If of christian gouernours as the Fathers expound it what sense is there to vnderstand the words of Lay-Elders vnlesse it can otherwise be proued either that Christ had alreadie ordained them or that afterwards they were in vse in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd and for the latter they haue not so much as a faire shew being disarmed of the two places which I haue vindicated out of their hands viz 1. Tim. 5.17 and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1 Nay further I adde that if it could be proued as it neuer will that euer there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely tell the gouernours ergo Lay-Elders wherefore this is a very seely argument Yea but other diuines say that Christ spake of Lay-Elders What others say it is not greatly materiall in this kind so long as we plainely see there is no necessitie nor probabilitie so to vnderstand him But who are they that say so Chrysostome Theophylact Erasmus Caluin Beza Piscator vpon the place it selfe c. For the three first because they are no parties I can be content to examine their testimonies All that Chrysostome saith of those words is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church that is Prelates and gouernours and on those words whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth c nec dicit saith he Ecclesiae presuli neither did he
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
are all to one purpose that at the first in the Apostles times BB. and Elders were all one that is the same men who were called Presbiters were also called BB. but by the way where were the Lay-presbiters then were they also called BB. and that till factions did arise the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbiters To these allegations I haue already made answere which I doe breifely repeate that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordayned the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbiters as vnder the Apostles and vntill the BB. were elected from among the Presbiters in the seueral Churches the names of Presbiters Episcopus were confounded but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters as they were not at the first for the first BB. were Apostles as Iames and Apostolicall men as Marke Timothie and Titus Linus Evodiu◠c. and were not called Episcopi but Apostoli then for distinction sake he which was chosen from among the Presbiters and placed in a higher degree began to be called Episcopus euen in the Apostles times the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called But what will the refuter conclude from hence There was a time whiles the Apostles liued when thesame men were called Presbiters and BB. that is the names were confounded Therefore in the three hundred yeeres after the Apostles the Churches were not gouerned by Diocesan BB. But as the allegations were impertinent so the other aduers Lucifer is not onely impertinent but also misalledged The Bishops preferment saith Ierome according to the refuters allegation was not by necessitie of law but granted to him to honour him withall In that Dialogue there is a controuersie betweene the true Christian and the Luciferian the true Christian would haue those which were baptised by Arians to be baptised againe before they should be receiued againe vnto the communion because by their baptisme who belieued the Father alone to be God the Sonne a creature and the holy Ghost the seruant of both the holy Ghost was not communicated the Luciferian held they might be receiued without baptisme by imposition of hands whereby the holy Ghost should be giuen them which before they had not receiued and to that purpose alledgeth the practise of the Apostles who by imposition of hands gaue the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptised and the custome generally receiued of the Church that BB. by imposition of hands doe communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptised The true Christian replyeth that BB. vse to impose hands onely on those who were baptised into the true faith and that by the baptisme giuen by a Presbiter of Deacon the holy Ghost also is conferred But saith he if here you demaund why hee that is baptized in the Church receiueth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be giuen in true baptisme vnderstand that this obseruation is deriued from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended vpon the Apostles and the same thing we finde done in many places ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem more for the honour of the Episcopall function then for the necessitie of a law For otherwise if onely at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend then lamentable is their case who in Villages and Townes and in other remote places being baptized of Presbiters and Deacons doe depart out of this life before the B. visite them the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the B. c. as hath beene oft alledged That which Ierome speaketh of this one prerogatiue of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment or preheminence and saith he hath it not by any necessitie of law but is granted to him to honour him The preheminence of the B. in generall Ierome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it but for this particular of giuing the holy Ghost he saith there was no such necessitie because in the Baptisme by a Presbiter or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands the holy Ghost is bestowed But as I said this testimonie is also impertinent not concluding that for which it is brought For it is a strange inference their preheminence was giuen not of necessitie but to honor them therfore the Church was not gouerned by them in the three hundred years after Christ his Apostles Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose but also it concludeth for me for if BB. had their preheminence in the primitiue Church as here it is presupposed then their gouernment is proued to haue beene in vse but whether it were by an honour voluntarily giuen them or by necessitie of law that in this present point is not materiall After Ierome he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Ierome granting that the office of a B. was greater then another Minister through a custome of the Church that had gotten the vpper hand and not otherwise If by the custome of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Ierome and Augustines time then BB. had this preheminence in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles so farre is this testimonie from disprouing the gouernment of BB. in those times But neither is it truely alledged for he speaketh not so much of the office as the names and that not otherwise is added by the Refuter and the granting he talketh of was not a yeelding vpon necessitie but a modest cession from his right Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Ierome that hee would boldly correct him wherein hee should thinke it needfull Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est licèt etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio For though according to the names of honour Bishopship is greater then Priesthood that is is a name of greater honour or is honoured with greater titles notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferiour to Ierome howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdayned from euery one that is inferiour In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honour then Priesthood it is to be ascribed to the vse and custome of the Church for at the first they were confounded Againe might not some one of our BB. in King Edwards time haue vsed the same words writing to Caluin as well as Augustine vsed them towards Ierome would therefore the Refuter inferre that in the times fore-going there had not beene Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superiour to other Ministers Surely howsoeuer Augustine in modesty or any other being a B. was loath to preferre himselfe before Ierome or any other man of renowne being but a Presbiter
no such matter contayned The third he proueth by Husses fact because in the kingdome of Boheme many by him and his fauourers and abetters haue beene thrust into Parish Churches which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolicke and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage Whether Hus did this or no it is questionable but if there had beene Orthodoxall Bishops by whose authority faithfull Ministers might haue beene instituted without question he would neuer haue attempted any such enterprise But hee held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian and therefore did as he did Otherwise for the function it selfe of Bishops he saith plainely more then once that the rest of the Apostles had equall honour and power with Peter and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeede in their place And that all Bishops of Christs Church following Christ in manners are the true Vicars of the Apostles And out of Ierome that all Bishops are the Apostles successours And approueth that saying of Bede as no man doubteth but the twelue Apostles did premonstrate the forme of Bishops So the seauenty two did beare the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests And thus much of Iohn Hus to whom the refuter ioyneth Ierome of Prage who iustifieth the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus against the pompe and state of the Clergie Which if he had done he had spoken neuer a word in disallowance of the Episcopall function But that word state is foisted in by the refuter who alledgeth almost nothing truely His words were these whatsoeuer things M. Iohn Hus and Wickliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pompe of the Clergy he would affirme euen vnto the death And againe that all such articles as Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Hus had written and put forth against the enormities pomp and disorder of the Prelates he would firmely hold and defend And persisting still in the praise of Iohn Hus hee added moreouer that hee neuer maintayned any doctrine against the state of the Church but onely spake against the abuses of the Clergy against the pride pompe and excesse of the Prelates For it was a greife to that good man saith he to see the Patrimonies of Churches mispent and cast away vpon harlots great feastings and keeping of horses and dogges vpon gorgeous apparrell and such other things vnbeseeming Christian religion And againe I take God to my witnesse that I doe beleiue and hold all the articles of the faith as the holy Catholicke Church doth hold and beleiue the same but for this cause shall I now be condemned for that I will not consent with you vnto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid vvhom you haue most wickedly condemned for certaine articles detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life Whereby it is apparant that both hee and they did not speake against the function or calling of Bishops but against the personall abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops which none but a viperous broode would apply to the persons of our Bishops and much lesse against their sacred function After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter whose sayings hee quoteth in his booke against Popish Bishops of priuate Masse and against the Papacie c. But for the first of these Luther himselfe hath giuen vs this caueat Let no man thinke that what is spoken against these tyrants is spoken against the Ecclesiasticall state and true Bishops or good Pastors Let no man thinke that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slowe bellies is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church And howsoeuer in the heate of his zeale against these Antichristian Bishops hee vttered some things vvhich seeme preiudiciall to the calling yet you haue heard it testified before by sufficient vvitnesses that in his iudgement hee allowed the gouernment of Bishoppes Whereunto adde the testimony of Camerarius that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero not onely by the consent but aduise of Luther perswaded that if Bishops would grant free vse of the true doctrine the ordinary power and administration ouer their seuerall Dioceses should be restored vnto them The like may be said of Zuinglius For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the booke before cited that Iames was B. of Ierusalem Philippe of Caesarea Timothie of Ephesus cannot lightly speake against the Episcopall function it selfe If he speake against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselues what is that to the purpose or if he affirme that euery seuerall congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures is a Church who denieth it or if hee inueigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops whom doth this touch but the Pope Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was gouerned by onely gouerning-Elders and perswade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the gouernment of Bishops Caluin Zanchius and other learned men haue said and done as much who notwithstanding approued the Episcopall function And as Melancthon was of Ieromes iudgement that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one so with Ierome he doth allowe the superiority of Bishops and where the Episcopall gouernment was ouerthrowne he sought to restore it as you haue heard before and did restore it as may appeare by these testimonies You will not beleeue saith he writing to Luther how greatly they of Noricum and some others doe hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem for restoring the iurisdiction to Bishops Againe some are wonderfully angry with me because I seeme to restore the dominion of Bishops Camerarius also reporteth how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops c. Where hee alleadgeth Master Tindall affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one c he doth but play with names which no man denyeth to haue been confounded so he saith all that were called Elders or Priests if they so wel were called BB. also though they haue diuided the names now Yea but in his booke of the obedience of a Christian man he saith that a B. is the ouerseer but of a parish and is to preach the word of God vnto a parish and for the same to chalenge an honest liuing of the parish This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched For Tindals words be these by the authoritie of the Gospell they that preach the word of God in euery parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to chalenge an honest liuing For Tindall speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter and saith that hee which preached the word in euery Parish should haue an honest liuing the refuter citeth him as saying that a B.
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature And although he omitted their qualities in other places yet mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach especially in that sense that the Apostle meaneth as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit 1.9 yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office both from the Minister and Deacon that it is comprehended in neither For who cannot conceiue this reason None but Bishops Ministers and Deacons are described in that place Bishops and Ministers in the former description and Deacons in the latter But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers nor Deacons but an imagined office distinct from both Therefore they are not described in that place The refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged prescribing the office or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God Nor that neither as shall appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
the better gifts chiefly to follow after loue and to couet after spiritual gifts but amōg them to desire rather to prophecie that is to preach then to speak with tongues And whereas the holie Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God according to their worthines saying First second third if by helpes he should meane Deacons and by gouernments Elders then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders which will not be granted If anie man doubt whether helps and gouernments are to be accounted gifts Chrysostome may resolue him who as of the former he saith that is in especial maner the gift of God so also of the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be fitte to gouerne and to administer spirituall things and he addeth that our duties are called Gods gifts to teach vs that our abilitie in performance of our dutie is the gift of God So Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also he calleth a gift though it require our labour also and industrie Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit For the spirit saith he is one but the graces are not equall nor yet the receptacles of the spirit For to one by the spirite is giuen the word of Wisedome and contemplation to another the word of knowledge or reuelation to another firme vndoubted faith to another the inoperations of powers high wonders to another the gifts of healing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpes that is Presidencies or Patronages Gouernements that is Poedagogies of the flesh kindes of tongues interpretations of tongues I am not ignorant that some before our time haue vnderstood diuerse of these members to haue bene Ecclesiasticall functions But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the gouernment of our Church not with the pretended discipline For by Apostles they vnderstand not only the 12. Apostles but their successors also in the gouernment of the Church that is to say the Byshops and by helps they vnderstand them who help the Bishops in the gouernment of the church as the Deanes and Archdeacons and by gouernements the gouernors or rectors of seuerall parishes These with 1. Tim 5.17 are the testimonies of Scripture which vsually be aleaged by the patrons of the presbyterie not one of them almost either omitting any of them or adding any other So that this Disputer might trulie cōclude that this is the strength and indeed all the strength they haue out of the Scriptures Which how strongly or strangely rather they haue concluded for the Lay-Elders it doth sufficiently appeare to them that haue not either a strong preiudice or a weake iudgement Assuredly if the Fathers be no stronger for them then the Scriptures then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weake and languishing CHAP. XI Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-Elders OF the Fathers he also braggeth as he did before of the Scriptures But in the vpshot all the force of his argumēts either out of Scriptures or Fathers relyeth vpon the authority of certaine new writers who are the most almost all of them parties in the cause Which is a kinde of arguing deuised to retaine the vnlearned in their former opinion that because so many late Diuines vnderstand the Scriptures and Fathers according to their receiued opinions they may be confirmed therein But is not this a strange kind of reasoning Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose which are all the Fathers hee nameth but nameth as though with their names hee hoped to ouercome vs giue testimonie to Lay-Elders therefore Lay-Elders were in vse in the primitiue church when we quietly grant this consequence only desire them to proue the antecedent Is it not strange I say that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselues endeuour by necessary euidence to demonstrate that they are to be vnderstood as speaking of Lay-Elders but to bring in a sort of new writers the most wherof are parties to depose that these ancient Fathers say as they would haue them Did they heare them say so or did they read their writings If they read their testimonies are they the same which we haue in print or some speciall manuscripts which yet are not come to light if such why are they not produced If their testimonies be vpon publike record in print why should not we examine the records thēselues trust to our owne eyes and iudgmēts rather thē to the opinions of them who are partiall in the cause Or if these new writers had reasons to perswade vs that these Fathers doe speake for Lay-Elders why are not their reasons produced By your leaue I will produce their testimonies for you And because it pittyeth me the to see well-meaning people abused I had almost said guld with glorious shewes I will let them see that not any one testimonie which you doe vse to produce out of the Fathers doth conclude for Lay-Elders And first as touching Ignatius whom hee first nameth because his testimonies were belike too hot to be handled yet hee putteth him off fairely saying that hereafter he will shew how he is to be vnderstood when he commeth to answere my quotations out of him But I quote him not in the question of Elders but among my proofs for Bishops And if hee haue no stronger proofes out of Ignatius for elders then the selfe-same that I alledge for Bishops may you not think that he is very strōg for them The truth is he perceiued they were too weake to bee vrged by him as an opponent and therefore chose to speake to them as an answerer hoping to perswade the simple reader that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proued by Ignatius his testimonie if they be not disproued thereby as hereafter you shall heare T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison the demonstrator of discipline almost who not cite this sentence of Ignatius There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsell Vnto which H.I. addeth 2. more out of his epistles to them of Tarsus Smyrna In the 1. of these Epistles Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subiect to the Bishop as to the Lord a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ our hope Of the Deacons in the next words he sath that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ Iesus and not of meate and drinke A reason of the former speech he rendreth in these words the Byshop is the type of the Father of all the Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Consistory of God and a band or Colledge of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without these that is BB. Presbyters Deacons no elect Church is no holy congregation no assemblie of Saints This testimony proueth that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons so also Presbyters and a presbyterie But what manner of presbyters they were it appeareth 1. by
not that we are able to ouersway them without comparison no writer till our age giuing testimonie no Church since the Apostles times vntill this present age giuing approbation to Lay-Elders but all writers and Churches before our time giuing testimonie and approbation to the gouernement of Bishops To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferiour so in the multitude of Churches at this day which doe not admit the Lay-Elders we are farre superiour as hereafter shal be shewed And thus much I hope will suffice for the first point FINIS LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed 1611. THE SECOND BOOKE PROVING That the Primitiue Churches indued with Power of Ecclesiasticall Gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses And that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not Parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The First Chapter entreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocesse and that which is translated Parish IN this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident like the men of Ai though not vpon the like occasion as though my forces were not able to stand before him But forasmuch as in the former assault I haue taken the Acropolis chiefe hold of the Presbyterian Discipline I doubt not but that when he shall with the men of Ai looke backe and see the chiefe Tower of his defence I meane the Presbytery vanishing as it were a smoake his courage will bee abated For the Presbytery being downe what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishoppes For seeing the Primitiue Churches were gouerned eyther by Diocesan Bishoppes as we hold or by Pastors of Parishes assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine who seeth not that vpon the ouerthrow of the Presbyteries the gouernment by Bishops is necessarily inferred Hauing therefore proued the first point of the fiue with such euidence of truth as I am wel assured all the gainesayers thereof will neuer bee able soundly and substantially to confute I need not doubt of preuailing in the rest As for the 2. next points which I handle concerning Dioceses and Diocesans the refuter thinketh they be the weakest of all the fiue and the worst appointed and thereupon would take occasion to cauill at my order as if I were to learne Methode of him whereas indeed his imputation of weakenesse to these 2. parts if it were true would commend my disposition of them as Homericall seeing I haue marshalled them Nestorio more after the manner of Nestor in medio infirma placing the weakest in the middest The chiefest points in my estimation being the first and the two last The truth is I did more lightly passe ouer these two then the rest but not out of an opinion of weakenes in the points themselues but partly in a conceit of their euidence and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthie or so needfull to be insisted vpon as the rest For first I supposed them to be so euident that howsoeuer T. C. in whose steppes our new Disciplinarians tread vpon weaker grounds then a man of learning iudgement should haue stood vpon doth deny them yet scarsly any other man of learning iudgement besides him would gain-say them Secondly that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted and in which these 2. are presupposed were most worthy in that breuity whereto I was confined to be stood vpon And thirdly that J needed not to bee so carefull in prouing of them seeing the chiefest patrones of the pretended Discipline as Caluin and Beza c. doe herein ioin with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians as hath already beene proued Now whereas I brought forth these forces intending only a light skirmish velitationem quandam tanquam leuis armaturae my aduersary bringeth his maine battel into the field as if the euent of this whole warfare depended vpon this encounter I will therefore not onely bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came vpon the men of Ai as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel but also cause these Arguments which now like the troupes of Israel seem in his conceit to flie before him to returne vpon him a fresh And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches Parishes and Dioceses it shall not bee amisse to beginne with the names which are diuersly taken And first with the word Ecclesia which signifying generally any assembly company or congregation of men whatsoeuer ciuill or ecclesiasticall holy or prophane is in all the places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. appropriated to the Companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be diuided into two Companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darkenesse containing manie particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Sathan the other the Kingdome of God this latter is called Ecclesia signifying a Company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the Greeke word importeth Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto saluation by Christ that is to say more brieflie the Church doth signifie a companie of Christians And thus it is vsed in the Scriptures either more Generally to signifie eyther the Vniuersal company of them that are elected in Christ or called to be Saints as Ephes. 1.22 3.21 5.23 24.25.27.29 32. Act 2.47 Colos. 1.18.24 The two main parts of the vniuersall Church Triumphant in heauen as Heb. 12 23. Militant on earth as Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 3.10 1. Tim. 3.15 and that eyther dispersed in diuers nations and Countries throughout the world 1. Cor. 10.32 15 9. Act. 8.3 Gal 1.13 Phil. 3.6 Congregated in an vniuersall or Oâ—cumenicall Synode Particularly that either Definitely to signifie the Church of a Nation in the nuÌ„ber Singular Act. 7 38. Plural Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1.19 2. Co. 8.1 Ga. 1.2.22 And these either dispersed or coÌ„gregated into a Synode or consistory Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 Congregation whether set or vncertain as Act. 11.26 14.27 1. Cor. 11 18 22. 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3 Ioh. 6. City and Country adioyning Act. 5.11 8.1 11.12 12.1.5 13.1 14.23 20. 17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2 Co. 1.1 8.23 Col 4.16 2. Thes. 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4 11.20 2.1.7.8.12.18 3.1.7.14 Village or towne Rom. 16 1. Family Rom. 16.5 1. Cor. 16 9. Col. 4.5 Philem. 2. Indefinitely signifying any company of Christians not defining either the Place Society whether of a Nation City c. quantity whether an entire church or but a part as Act. 9. â—1 15 3.4.41 18.22 Rom. 16.16 23.1 Co. 4.17 6.4 11.16 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24 â—1 8.28 12.13 Phil. 4.15 1. Thes. 2.14 2. Thes. 1.4 â— Tim. 3.5.3 Iohn 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29 3.6.13.22 22.16 The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures
the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles Well Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres afterwards sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time hee maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Saint Peter likewise had preached and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia to whom among others hee directeth his first Epistle After the death of Peter and Paul because those Churches were as Paul had foretold much annoled with heretikes Saint Iohn by the direction of the holy Ghost went into those parts preached the Gospell for many yeeres ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was To the ministery of the Apostles adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them and disciples which they had instructed by whose ministerie not onely many particular Christians but some Churches were brought to the faith As that of Colossae which was in the confines of Phrygia bordering on this Asia in Pauls time planted by the ministerie of Epaphraâ— as their founder watered by the ministerie of Archippus as their Bishoppe Now I appeale to the conscience of euery indifferent Reader whether it bee not vnlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres And so much for the first of his assertions the other two I will ioyne together For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church both of the citie and country as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches and but one Presbytery if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie and not onely they but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie all which I haue by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already then did the seuerall congregations and parishes which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia cathedra episcopi or the cathedrall Church neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake as I haue also proued before I come to the assumption wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes were not onely the cities but the countries adioyning that is as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe But saith hee Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing and the Church another But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple c. As touching this foule imputation that I may beginne with it J thanke God I am free both from desire and intent of dazâ—ling the eyes of the simple But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence to vphold and maintaine the truth against the nouelty of your inuentions and the subtilties of your sophistications wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple So much of that by the way If hee discerned the speech which I vsed to bee improper had hee not so much neither Art I meane either Rhetoricke or Logicke nor grace I meane charity as either to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope or to explane my speech by such an enunciation as the nature of the arguments doth require When it is said in my text the seuen starres are the Angels will he say who euer heard that starres were Angels Or when Christ saith This cup is my bloud that is shâ—d or the new Testament in my bloud will he say who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament When I said the Churches are the cities and the country could he neither vnderstand me as speaking after that most vsuall metonymy of the Christian people in the citie and country nor yet explane my words as the nature of the argumeÌ„ts contained in the speech doth lead him If I should say a man is not onely body but soule also or the body is not one member alone but many you would vnderstand me thus Man consisteth of body and soule the body consisteth not of one member alone but of many Or thus Whole man containeth these two parts the bodie containeth not one member alone but many Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is that is containeth not only the City but the Country But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11 and hee shall finde that the seuen Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose These few testimonies may suffice Eusebius saith that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the great Citie Rome and Dionysius the B. of Alexandria The first Councell of Constantinople mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the great Citie of Alexandria Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba Alexander Bishop of Alexandria c. to the Councell of Sardica Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia and in like maner all the rest stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops or vnto Bishops Ignatius stileth himselfe thus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Antioch Leo in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome sometimes Vrbis Romae of the Citie of Rome Basil writeth to Eusebius
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
For first is not this a plaine lie and a notorious falsification of my words to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops c Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of Could those words so is it for the same cause to be retained no otherwise be expounded then as implying an absolute necessity That is to be retained which is meet or fit expedient or conuenient profitable or needfull to be reteyned Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d iure diuino implying a perpetuall necessity thereof and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage that I holde no such matter Thirdly let it be obserued how vnder this pretence of amazement he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian which sitteth so neare to him and his consorts But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian noting the source of all schismes to be this when the Bishop who is but one and gouerneth the Church by the proud presumptioÌ„ of some is contemned c. And in the same epistle you ought to know saith he to Pupianus that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who haue not peace with the Priests of God that is the Bishops c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth Neque enim aliâ—â—de haereses c. Neither haue heresies or schismes any other beginning then this that Gods Priest meaning the Bishop is not obeied Neither is one Bishop for the time nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged c. Againe haec sunt initia haereticorum these bee the beginnings of heretikes these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes that they please themselues and contemne their B. with swelling pride Sic de ecclesia receditur thus doe men depart from the Church c. And in another place Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes when they speake euill of Priests and enuy their Bishops c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe that they may see their sinne and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof Out of Ierome who is the onely man among the Fathers on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie I produce three most pregnant testimonies the first affirming that vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop there will be as many schismes as Priests The second that euer since Saint Marks time the Presbyters hauing elected one placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishoppe The third that when some beganne to say J am of Paul I of Apollo which was in the Apostles time it was decreed by the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Of these allegations the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure the other two testifying de facto beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times These testimonies are featly auoided with a promise to answere them afterwards when he will say neuer a word to the present not almost to any purpose The second part of this section wherein I prooue against Beza and the better sort of the Disciplinarians that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence neither for a short time nor by course but were elected for terme of life this Refuter reiecteth as not worth the mentioning hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie Refuted oft I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon All the refutation of this point which hitherto wee haue had was this that I charged them with vntruths that I threaten kindnesse on them that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles if I could perswade that any of them haue said this when as I haue brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose And although I forbeare to mention Beza tendering his credit yet what I heere confuted is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke concerning the degrees of Ministers chiefly in the 141.142.143 pages Now because this point is of great moment though the Refuter haue tripped ouer it so lightly like a dog ouer a hot hearth as if I were afraid to touch it I will therefore endeuour to giue the Reader some further satisfaction therein by adding some other proofes What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret. For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors who also had consented to him mooued with repentance and returning from schisme vnto the Church confessed their error saying Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. Neithâ—r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God one Christ the Lord whom we haue confessed one holy Ghost one Bishop in a Catholike Church Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome gaue consent that Liberius should returne but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor with one voice cried as Theodoret reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one God one Christ one Bishop After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice Liberius returned and Felix departed to another Citie and shortly died Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence saith Sozomen that the seat of Peter should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a note of dissension and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall 2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited doth testifie Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors who had ioined with Nouatian Granat me saith he it greiueth me c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order against the Euangelical law against the vnity of Catholicke institution haue thought that another Bishop was to be made that is to say which is vngodly and vnlawfull to be done that another Church should be instituted the members of Christrent asunder the minde and body of the Lords flocke which is but one to be torne with schismaticall emulation And in another place Where a Bishop is once
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie this was the greatest honour to haue a priority and precedence in that degree Yea but I denie him to haue beene B. when I say that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem that charge which before they had in cōmon they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular but their charge was of Apostles not of Bishops As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishopricke and as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes Neither was this a clipping of his wings as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutual consent euery mans Prouince as it were circuit and charge was assigned to him But I spake not without booke deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter euery where doth but what I said I receiued from their owne and almost onely Author Ierome which he receiued also from Hegesippus Hegesippus saith he who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames saith Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust receiued the Church of Ierusalem post Apostolos after the Apostles As touching the other point though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent notwithstanding it not onely confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time and not for terme of life but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares Yea but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end as to shew the preheminence which he had was not as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine for a short time or by course but for terme of life And yet it proueth the maine point also that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse superintendent of that Church For if he were not the Apostle of that Church that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles trauaile into other parts but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares vntill his death Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church for that might haue beene otherwise performed as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither Where hee saith the Church might otherwise haue beene gouerned it is nothing to the purpose vnlesse he can shew that it was otherwise gouerned There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard But what Pastor had it if Iames who continued there and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof There is no doubt to be made but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares and of his successours euery one vntill their death Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches wee are to obserue that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vnto them c. to pag. 72. li. 17. The difference in respect of the time which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches I doe in this section explane shewing that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them as presently after the ascension of Christ they appointed a Bishop ouer the Church of Ierusalem yeelding these reasons because as yet there was neither that choise nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted before it needed to be gouerned and shewing what course they did take before they appointed Bishops namely that first they ordayned Presbyters to labour the conuersion of the people to feed them being conuerted and to attend them in common gouerning them after a priuate manner and as it were in foro conscientiae And this is that which Ierome saith that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands as was manifest whiles eyther they continued neare them or meant not to be long from them All which while Bishops were not so needfull the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie of those Churches either by their presence or by their letters and messengers And this I noted to be the cause why in the writings of the Apostles Bishops are so seldome though not so seldome as some imagine mentioned and the name with Presbyter confounded But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether either by departure from them or by death that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition in steed of Fathers that is the Apostles there shall be children borne vnto thee whom thou shall make Princes ouer all the earth that is Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church At their departure they left substitutes and at their death appointed successours to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction as vvell ouer the Presbyters as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning And these I saide at the first vvere called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Rulers Heb. 13.17 vvhich text in the auncient canons called the Apostles and in the second Epistle of Ignatius as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB. sometimes the Apostles of the Churches c. To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches as he doth to the residue of the Sermon for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon that his dealing may the better appeare And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether Bishops were not so needfull as after their departure and death which is most manifest Belike saith he they were needfull before but
against Gods commandement We doe here protest and we would haue it so recorded that we would willingly preserue the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize ouer our Churches This our minde or desire shall excuse vs with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed vnto vs that the authority of Bishops is ouerthrowne by vs. I would to God it lay to me saith Melancthon to restore the gouernment of Bishops c. By what right or law may we dissolue the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant vs that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull yet surely it were not expedient Luther was euer of this opinion whom many for no other cause I see doe loue but for that they thinke they haue cast off their Bishops by meanes of him and haue obtayned a liberty which will not be profitable for our posterity Would to God saith George Prince Anhall that those which carry the names titles of Bishops would shew themselues to be Bishops indeed I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospell but rule their Churches thereby Oh how willingly and with what ioy of heart would we receiue them for our Bishops reuerence them obey them and yeeld vnto them their Iurisdiction and Ordination Which we alwaies and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed If they would bring vnto vs such an Hierarchy saith Caluin wherein the Bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselues to Christ that they so depend vpon him as their onely head c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselues to that Hierarchy reuerently and with the greatest obedience that may be I confesse there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy In the articles agreed vpon by Melancthon Bucer Caluin and other learned men it is said for the auoyding of Schismes there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospell and by retayning the discipline and who should gouerne the Priests themselues Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops aboue them of Patriarches c. These Ordinations if those that gouerne doe their duety as preach ouersee the doctrine and manners of their Churches correct errours and vice practise Ecclesiasticall censures c. are profitable to preserue the vnity of the Church And in their additions to the said articles As concerning ordination we especially approue the ancient custome of the Church c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church it is to be wished reformation being made that the Bishops would take vpon them And we heare that our learned men haue expresly so yeelded ordination to those Bishops if first there may be a reformation In a Treatise made by Bucer with the aduise of the said learned men and offered to the Emperour it is thus written we must endeuour that that forme and distribution of Ecclesiasticall gouernment which the Canons doe prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitanes be restored and kept The same Bucer speaking of Bishops and Metropolitanes and of their authority ouer the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses and Prouinces he saith this was agreeable to the law of Christ c. And in another place Now by the perpetuall obseruation of all Churches euen from the Apostles times we doe see it seemed good to the holy Ghost that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed there should be one that should haue the care charge of diuers Churches and the whole Ministery committed to him and by reason of that charge he was aboue the rest and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly vnto these cheife rulers of Churches And againe In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordayned to be the Captaine and Prelate ouer the rest who went before the rest and had the care of soules and the administration of the Episcopall office especially and in the highest degree And this he proueth by the example of Iames Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort The like ordination hath beene perpetually obserued in other Churches likewise as we may learne out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and the most ancient Fathers as Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius and others It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church saith Iacob Heerbrandus a very learned man if euery particular Prouince had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops These few testimonies among many doe sufficiently discouer with what minde the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest aâ—ide and to giue eare to his allegations as more worthy to be heard Let vs therefore heare them and let the Reader iudge with what conscience hee either reiected the former or alledged these And first though he saith hee will passe by an Epistle of one Oram written vnder the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates yet because he entreateth the Reader to turne to it in the booke of Martyrs as fitting belike our Bishops hee is worthy not to passe vnpunished when hee comes to light For that letter being a meere inuectiue against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates speaking nothing at all of their office but that they were the successours of the Apostles in referring the Reader vnto it what was his intent but that he should apply the things spoken of their greiuous enormities to our Bishops then which hee could not offer a greater villany to them I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops to iudge of our refuters spirit though he professeth in the last page how greatly he reuerenceth the Bishops persons In the next place to let you thinke hee hath great store euen whiles hee quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age of whom alone the question is hee saith he will passe by also that which is written by defensor pacis part 2. c. 15. and well might hee passe by him for though he hold that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops yea in the Pope himselfe and that they haue the same essentiall authority which is the power of order and likewise in imitation of Ierome holdeth that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one c. Notwithstanding he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops then either some other Papists who haue contended that for as much as order in that it is a Sacrament hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer and make his maker as well as the Pope himselfe that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order or then Ierome who though he saith Episcopus
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author Diuided into 4 Bookes The first prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning Elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity The second shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The third defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order but also in degree and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction The fourth maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed William Hall and Thomas Snodham 1611. TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne France and Ireland defender of the faith c. All true happinesse and prosperitie in this life and eternall felicitie in the life to come THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer most gracious and dread Soueraigne is in some sort verified of vs in this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides The Romanists on the one side blaming vs for departing too farre from the Church of Rome our innouatours accusing vs on the other side for comming too neare the same Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames are a good euidence for vs that wee hold the meane For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ to which in departing from them wee are returned neither haue wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them which with them wee haue not receiued eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church The which as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects God hauing vouchsafed vnto vs this especiall fauour for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vs that there is not a Church vnder the Sunne which both for the substance of Doctrine and forme of Discipline doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches as these vnder your gracious gouernment Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God not onely for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment where it was in vse before and likewise for renewing and restoring the same though to your great cost and charges where it was formerly abolished These vnestimable benefits if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to haue receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onely vnthankefull both to God who is the gracious Authour and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits but also vnworthy to enioy them If we doe according to our bounden duetie acknowledge so much it remayneth that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vs by walking worthy our calling and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vs by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes haue thought so much the better of themselues by how much they haue thought the worse of Bishops yet is it most certaine that the contempt of Bishops is the cause if not of all euill which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme yet of very much euill among vs. This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided as by the godly and religious care both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would and indeed should be accounted worthy so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision which is among vs proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian I was perswaded for my part that I could not performe a seruice eyther more acceptable vnto God or more profitable to his Church then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others which had perswaded mine owne soule not onely that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention and new deuise hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquitie but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth which I had defended from his sophisticall cauillations The which through Gods good blessing vpon my labours I haue so performed that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon if any at all oppugned by the aduersarie which I haue not defended by plaine euidence of truth These my labours I haue presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie as the principall Patrone vnder Christ of that truth which I defend not onely intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours but also commending my selfe and them to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection The King of Kings blesse prosper and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie the good of his Church and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME The Contents of this Booke The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text. Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17 Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1 doth not giue testimonie to Lay-elders and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Chap. 8.
The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocese and Paraecia which is translated parish Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation assembling in one place Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops and defendeth mine entrance thereinto Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power and first in the power of ordination Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches in the Apostles times without their dislike Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment FINIS An Ansvvere to the Preface THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes to prepare the Reader and if he be such a one as will be led with shewes to draw his affections to himselfe and to withdrawe them from me It containeth a Prologue to the Reader an Epilogue concluding with prayer and with praise to God The former consisteth of a declaration and of a direction to the Reader He declareth three things first the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this worthie worke secondly his valiant resolution in vndertaking it thirdly his manner of performance As touching the first that you may not thinke him after the manner of factious spirits blinded with erroneous conceits and transported with vnquiet passions vnaduisedly or headily to haue attempted this busines he telleth you that there were two motiues that moued him thereto the one his strong opinion pag. 3 the other his vnquiet desire pag. 7. His opinion was that my sermon defending the honourable function of Bishops was most needfull to be answered for so he saith I deemed it as needfull to be answered as any booke our Opposites haue at any time set forth And that no man should thinke this his opinion to be fantasticall or erroneous hee confirmeth it with diuers reasons but such as who shall compare them either with the truth or with his opinion for the proofe whereof they are brought or one with another he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine euery one fighting with another The first reason because he sawe the Sermon tended directly to proue that the calling of our L. BB. as they now exercise it in the Church of England is to be holden Iure diuino by diuine right not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure c. In which speech are diuerse vntruthes For first with what eye did hee see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon which directly and expressely I did disclaime pag. 92. where I did professe that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution to be an Apostolicall and so a diuine ordinance yet that I doe not maintaine it to be Diuini juris as intending thereby that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie as though there could not be a true Church without it which himselfe also acknowledgeth pag. 90. of his booke 2. where I spake of the substance of their calling with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it As if he would make the reader belieue that I went about to iustifie all the exercise of their function which in all euen the best gouernements whatsoeuer is subiect to personall abuses 3. Neither is it true that the ancient tenure of BB. was onely Iure humano vnlesse he restraine the ancieÌ„tnesse he speakes of to these latter times which are but as yesterday For in the primitiue Church as hereafter shal be plainely proued the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolicall and the first Bishops certainely knowne to haue bene ordained by the Apostles And as his first reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion and with it selfe For why was the sermon most needfull to be answered because saith he it is euident that the doctrine therein contained howsoeuer M. D. saith it is true profitable and necessarie is vtterly false very hurtfull and obnoxious necessarie indeed to be confused at no hand to be belieued In which words 3. reasons are propunded which now come to be examined It is euident saith he that the doctrine in the sermon is vtterly false therefore it is most needfull to be confuted But say I if it be euidently false it needs no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so iudged without disputation or discourse Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not euident This reason therefore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is euident saith he that it is vtterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted The second brâ—anch It is very hurtfull and obnoxious therfore c. Obnoxious what is this subiect or in danger to be hurt with euill tongues subiect to sophistical cauillations and malicious calumniations But hurtfull it is not for I
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
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
the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as gouernours of the vniuersall Church in whom the Popish Hierarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth For seeing it is proper to Christ alone to be the head and gouernour of the vniuersall Church he is said properly to be Antichrist who taketh vpon him to be head and gouernour of the whole Church And their gouernement is iustly called Antichristian who are his assistants in this vniuersall gouernement As for the gouernours of Prouinciall and Diocesan Churches that is to say Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome they are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their iurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance from him as being members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the head And therefore are no more Antichristian then their parish Priests And as well might the refuter call the Persons or Pastors of parishes among vs Antichristian because the Popish parish-Priests are Antichristian as our BB. Antichristian because the Popish BB. are such Neither is the function of Bishops more or yet so much to be ascribed to the institutiō of the B. of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shew were ordained by the Apostles and set ouer Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as diuerse Authors report Againe vnder the Deacons the Papists reckon fiue other orders which they esteeme so many Sacraments whereas we with the primitiue Church and in the same sense with it doe reckon onely 3. orders or degrees of Ministers or Clergy men Bishops Presbyters and Deacons It is strange therefore that the doctrine of my Sermon concerning Bishops alone should vphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest or as they vse to speake frō the Pope to the Apparitor as well as our owne This therefore was a shamelesse vntruth Besides howsoeuer the same three orders or degrees in name are still retained in the Church of Rome as well as in ours yet with great difference For their Priests be Sacerdotes sacrificing Priests ordained to offer a proper externall reall sacrifice Ours are not Sacerdotes that is Sacrificing Priests but as the Scriptures and ancient writers call them Presbyters that is Priests or Ministers ordained to preach the word and administer the Sacraments Their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and haue their iurisdiction as they teach from him as the Vicar of Christ succeeding Peter not as he was an Apostle as all other Bishops suceed other Apostles but as the head and chiefe gouernour of the whole Church from whom as the head and fountaine of all Ecclesiastical iurisdiction the iurisdiction of other Bishops is deriued and doth depend Our Bishops are not subordinate to the Pope neither haue any depēdāce or deriuatiō of their iurisdiction from him but from God partly as it is spirituall by the ordinance of the Apostles who ordained the first Bishops leauing them as their substitutes or successors in the gouernement of the seuerall Churches and partly as it is corporall or coactiue by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes furnishing them with plenary power to enquire after disorders in the estate Ecclesiasticall all manner errours Heresies schismes abuses offences and enormities and to punish them Which differences being cōsidered betweene vs and the Papists it were more then a wonder if the very same reasons which are brought to proue the Apostolicall gouernement of our Church should also serue to proue their Antichristian Hierarchy But as the young man that Crassus speakes of in Tully hauing found in the strand a smal piece of a Galley would straightway build a ship thereof so out of one small agreement with the Romane Church concerning the superioritie of Bishops ouer Prebyters wherein they retaine the doctrine of the primitiue Church he would build a total consent and conformitie to their Antichristian gouernement Thus we haue heard what aduantage the Papists haue by my Sermon Now let vs see what harme was like to redound to others thereby Others saith he would be much scandalized those that were in loue with their owne ease would easily crouch downe like Isachars asse c as for others it would remoras obijcere ardentiorib Cast blocks in their waies that ran well or retardare zelum make them slacke their pace at least Sāctorum spiritus inquietare disquiet the minds of all the Saints to see a Sermō of that consequence preached published by a man of that name note in the Church That is to say if I vnderstād him aright the Sermō if it might be let alone were not vnlike to haue these effects in those that are accounted the forwarder sort First they that were more moderate then others desired the peace of the Church hauing yet some scruples in their mindes and somewhat doubting of the lawfulnes of our Church gouernement were like enough to haue their doubts satisfied and their consciences setled Others that were more ardent whose zeale ouerranne their knowledge censuring and condemning they knewe not what would be brought to suspend their iudgement or at least to moderate their zeale others who are factious and of the diuided brotherhood whom he calleth all the Saints would be grieued at the heart to see such likelihood of peace and vnion which is so contrarie to their humour to be established in the Church But as hee had a strong opinion that my Sermon was needfull to be refuted so had he as strong a desire it might be answered after some fashion that the Schisme or rent which is in our Church being so beneficiall as it is to some might not be healed but that people might be retained in the former tearmes of a factious and Schismaticall alienation from the state of our Church and the gouernours thereof Which his desire was much inflamed when he vnderstood that this worke hauing beene vndertaken and committed to the presse the answere and presse were taken the Printer and concealer of the Author imprisoned For then good man his soule was cast downe within him to see a truth so profitable and necessarie as is the doctrine of their pretended discipline hauing no ground neither in the Scripture nor antiquitie obtruded as the ordinance of Christ the onely lawful forme of Church gouernement suppressed Being therefore thus possessed with so strong an opinion and transported with so earnest and vnquiet desires he grewe vnto his most valiant resolution Which in effect though he guild it ouer with glorious words was nothing else but this to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatorie libell and hauing so done after the manner of other malefactors to hide his head You haue heard the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this busines and his valiant resolution to vndertake it now
he wil acquaint you with his maner of performance which in general he confesseth to haue bene done in much weakenesse and many wants neither do I denie it But he might to his ouersight proceeding from ignorance weakenesse haue added his wilfull falsificatioÌ„s deprauatioÌ„s his forged calumniations his Sophisticall shifts and euasions to elude the light of truth conuicting his conscience But though he would seeme to acknowledge much weakenesse and many wants it was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an affected modestie for his conceit is which hee shameth not to vtter that hee hath brought euidence sufficient I warrant you to make it manifest hee doubteth not of it that the doctrine in my Sermon is nothing lesse then true profitable and necessarie that my Preface is full of wittie calumniations to make them and their cause odious and that my Sermon notwithstanding my great boasting hath in it no one sound syllable of argument to proue my cause and disproue theirs What euidence he bringeth I shall not need here to relate this defence of my Sermon will make it manifest That I vsed either calumniations to make them and their cause odious or any great boasting which he talketh of I vtterly denie Who it is that vseth either calumniations the examination of his booke will bewray or boasting the very forefront of his booke this present place and many others besides doe testifie But I much disdaine that he should say that there was not a syllable of any sound proofe in my SermoÌ„ as before he had said that in my sermoÌ„ I vttered scarse any one word of truth The proofes which I haue vsed are such I take God to witnesse as satisfie mine owne conscience And I trust I may without any great boasting assume vnto my selfe as good skill to iudge of an argument as this refuter or some others of his side Of his blasphemie against the truth which I deliuered I pray God giue him grace to repent And what was it that he hath thus censured A Sermon vttered in the presence of God in the roome of Christ before a most honourable auditorie by a Minister of the Gospell shall I say as sound and faithfull as himselfe no I disdaine the comparison for by his fruites in his booke whereby alone I can iudge of him he hath to my seeming plainely bewrayed an vnsound iudgement an euill conscience and an vnsanctified heart I trust I may say by a Minister of the Gospell as sound and orthodoxall as his betters as conscionable in all Sermons writings and as carefull to deliuer nothing but the truth of God Me thinkes he should rather haue trembled to thinke of confuting a Sermon of such a one as he iudging according to the iudgement of charitie cannot denie to be a faithfull Minister and Orthodoxall diuine then haue dared thus to censure it as hauing scarce one word of truth and not one syllable of a sound proofe Is this the reuerent estimation that you would worke in the peoples minds of the word preached or must they thinke that none make conscience of preaching the truth but your selues But if it shall appeare to any indifferent and iudicious Reader comparing this my defence with his refutation of my Sermon that hee hath not beene able to disproue any one of my proofes nor to coÌ„uince me of any one vntruth throughout the whole body of my Sermon as in my conscience I am perswaded he hath not then doe those two censures of his the one that thereis scarce a true word the other that there is not one syllable of a sound proofe in all the Sermon containe so many vntruthes as there are sentences or proofes in the whole Sermon More particularly he telleth you both what he did not and what he hath done He hath made no large discourses to teach ouer anew the discipline of Christ so hee doubteth not to call their owne deuises onely he hath said what the Author of the abortiue booke and himselfe with their Coadiutors were able to say either for it or against the gouernement by Bishops The thing which he hath done is that he hath fulfilled my desire in applying distinctly his answeres to my arguments But my desire was not that he should balke those which he could not answere or depraue and weak on those which he did by fitting them to his owne strength Neither desired I alone that their answeres might be applied to euery argument in order but also that their proofes might be produced But forasmuch as hee had none such as I told them theirs had need to be that is to say very pregnant and demonstratiue whereby they might hope to perswade both the abolishing of that forme of gouernement which euen from the Apostles times hath beene perpetually obserued in the Church and setting vp of another which was neuer heard of till now of late therfore in the chiefe points of controuersie he hath beene for prooe need very sparing to vse any other proofe besides the testimonies of newe Diuines who are incompetent witnesses in a question of story concerning things done or not done 14. or 1500. yeares before their time themselues also for the most part being parties in the cause Now follow his directions to the Reader And first that he should wâ—igh my arguments with his answeres and compare the one with the other belieuing neither further then euidence truely produced leadeth him the which direction I earnestly desire the Reader in the feare of God to follow not to regard his calumniation whereby he seeketh to worke in him a preiudicate opinion against me most falselie charging me that as another Pythagoras I seeke to be belieued vpon mine owne word without authoritie and good reason For whether of vs seeketh more to be belieued without proofes I dare appeale to his iudgement when he hath perused what is alledged on both sides Howbeit I must needs say he giueth the Reader a good proofe in this place of his dexteritie in alleadging testimonies when to proue that in disputation credit is not to be giuen to him that speaketh without good proofe hee citeth Ierome and Tertullian disswading men from giuing credit to fame an vncertaine rumors His second direction is vnreasonable and the reasons thereof such as both contradict what he said euen now and are contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards If thou findest saith he no sufficiencie in his reasons to inforce thee to acknowledge his doctrine for true iustly thinke with thy selfe it is not else where to be had This is an vnreasonable motion that the weight of the whole cause should lye vpon one short Sermon vttered by so meane a man as my selfe What reasons can he bring to perswade the Reader to accept this motion forsooth all men knowe me to be a Scholler Not vnlike for so haue I beene euer since I was fiue yeares old But what manner of Scholler our Refuter will tell
at the second hand but to examine the allegations and to cite them out of the Authors themselues So that although the liquor many times is the same yet I drewe it at the fountaine and not at the streame remembring who saith Tardi est ingenij riuulos consectari fontes non videre Which course better Schollers then my aduersarie would allowe especially to one that had no more time then I had both to prouide what to speake and to speake what I had prouided And forasmuch as in many places of his booke he maketh references to D. Bilsons booke to shew that what I deliuer was taken thence I intreat the Reader once for all to compare the places For thereby he shall see this cauiller to haue played the Ratte both in discouering his owne falshood and in betraying his cause For as touching the former I doe vnfainedly professe that I am not conscious to my selfe either in that Sermon or any other writing that I haue published to haue taken any one line from any without citing the Author His cause also shal be notably disadvaÌ„taged because those things which I did perhaps briefly and as it were in hast set downe the Reader shall sometimes in the booke whereunto hee is referred reade the same points fully accurately handled to his great satisfaction and good contentment And whereas he obiecteth that my house is built of old stuffe c. Let him knowe that in these kindes of buildings the oldnes of the stuffe is a great commendation For that which is the oldest is the truest And that which hath beene of greatest antiquitie for the time past will also be of the longest continuance for the time to come As for those buildings which our new Church wrights haue lately set vp specke and spanne new building Churchframes as it were of wood couered ouer with strawe which will not abide the fire I verily thinke they will not continue vntill they be old His third quarrell is against the choyse of the text as it were the plot of ground whereon to set my building The which because it is allegoricall is compared to a marish ground where though I digge deepe and doe what I can I shall hardly find fast ground whereon to lay my foundation The which quarrell doth please him so well that he repeateth it againe pag. 3. But without cause For seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtfull but is confessed on both sides that as by the 7. starres are meant the 7. Angels so by the Angels the Bishops of the Churches who seeth not that this assertion that the calling of Bishops is lawfull good is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn as it were vpon a Rocke For although some obiect that by the Angels are meant either all Ministers in generall as the newe sect of disciplinarians doth or the presidents of the Presbyteries as the Elder and more learned disciplinarians doe who doe not stand for the new-found parish-discipline yet I doe proue both by the text it selfe and by other euidence that the calling of Diocesan BB. is in this text commended vnto vs vnder this title of the Angels of the Churches But hereof more in my answere to the third pag. CHAP. II. Diuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface HAuing thus quarrelled with the Author the matter and subiect of he Sermon he setteth vpon the Sermon it selfe Which in the abortiue booke was dismembred into sixe parts and yet one maine part left out In this after-birth into 3 viz the Preface the body of the Sermon and the conclusion The Preface he saith is concerning the text and the fiue points I vndertake to handle and that againe he mangleth into 4. sections But if my aduersaries were as good in diuiding as they are in making diuision or so skilfull in analysing logically as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath bene logically composed they would either haue followed the ordinarie diuision of orations saying that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts which are 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proaeme to pag. 2. lin 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proposition or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the points to be handled are first diduced out of the text to pag. 6. l. 16. and secondly enumerated and distinctly marshalled pag. 6 7. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation prouing and defending those fiue points from pag. 8. to 94. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conclusion containing the application pag. 94. to the end Or if this diuision had not liked them they might out of the transition pag. 94. haue obserued a distribution of my Sermon into 2. parts viz. the explication continuing to that place and the application from thence to the end The explication containeth 2. assertions the first that the pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Churches here meant by the Angels were Diocesan Bishops such for the substance of their calling as ours be The second that the function of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good Of these two assertions the former is an explication of the text the latter a doctrine collected out of the text so explained These assertions are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed in that which he calleth the Preface and afterwards proued in that which he calleth the body of my booke The former as I said may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proposition the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation Now for the tryall of the first viz. whethâ—er by the Angels of the Churches we are to vnderstand Diocesan BB. or not these two points are propounded to be examined first what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Bishops whether parishes onely as our new disciplinarians say or dioceses as we and the elder disciplinarians hold and consequently whether themselues were parishionall or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of preheminence they had in their Churches in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches whether onely a prioritie in order aboue other Ministers and that but for a short time and by course or a superioritie in degree and maioritie of rule for terme of life And this is the summe of that which he calleth the Preface Now I come to his sections and his quarrells against the same Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 1. Our Lord and Sauiuor Christ hauing appeared to S. Iohn in a glorious forme c. to heauen at the mids of pag. 3. In these words two questions which be determined in the 2. assertions euen now mentioned are propounded The former what manner of persons are meant by the Angels of the Churches And why this question was to be discussed I alleadged as he saith 2. reasons The first because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels this interpretation it selfe is allegoricall and therefore
needeth some exposition The second reason is propounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuenting a secret obiection against the former reason which might be this though the interpretation be allegoricall yet the exposition of the allegorie is agreed vpon to wit that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Churches and therefore further explication needeth not to this I answere in a discretiue sentence granting the antecedent but denying the consequence that although it be agreed vpon that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches yet in these times it is become a great controuersie and needfull to bee decided what manner of Bishops they were which in former ages was not wont to be called into question Against the former reason the resuter first obiecteth 2. things the one that it maketh against my selfe the other that it is 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 he telleth me how I might haue bestowed 〈…〉 maketh against me he proueth thus 〈…〉 faith he is allegoricall thâ—refore it was 〈…〉 c. Whereunto I haue answered that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides agreed vpon and that our aduersaries themselues confesse that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches and therefore by their owne confession the text was as fitly chosen as if it had beene said the 7. starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches Yea but saith he though it be granted that the Angels be the Bishops yet not such Bishops as you speake of Then the vnfitnes of the text be like is not because it is allegoricall but because in his conceit it is impertinent Which his conceit proueth the exposition of this text to be needfull as I shewed in the second reason Yea but hereby saith hee the first reason appeareth to be superfluous It followeth not Of the same thing there are many times giuen two expositions a shorter called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a larger called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of both there was need in this place The necessitie of the former ariseth from the allegory which I breefly expound according to the receiued interpretation viz. that the Angels signifie the Bishops of the Churches The necessitie of the latter ariseth from the controuersie which some haue raised in these times c. After hee hath shewed that my first reason might well haue beene spared he telleth me that I might haue spent my paines better in opening a doubt which either I did not or would not see And what is that I pray you For it is great pittie I had not your helpe If I would needs haue these Angels to be Diocesan Bishops I should haue giuen some reason why the number of theÌ„ is not limited as well as of the Churches to seuen no more And from hence reasoneth thus If the holy Ghost by Angels had meant Diocesan Bishops whereof there is but one in a Church then would heehaue limited them as well as the Churches to the number of seuen But he hath not limited them to seuen Therefore by Angels he meaneth not Diocesan BB. The assumption he proueth because if the holy Ghost had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels he would haue said the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches And hauing so doughtily proued that the number of the Angels is not limited from thence as if he had made all Cocke-sure he inferreth 2. things 1. that the holy Ghost in not limiting the number would haue vs to vnderstand there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches 2. that where euery Epistle is directed to the Angell of each Church as to one we are not literally to vnderstaÌ„d one but by a synecdoche more then one Which light as he calleth it standing at the entry dore if I had had his eyes to haue discerned I should no doubt haue seene an high point in a lowe house But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. Iohn writeth iust seuen helpe me I beseech you to remoue this veile which hideth the light you speake of from me The starres which Christ hâ—ld in his hand were iust seuen or limitted to the number of 7. Apoc. 1.16 20. 2.1 The Angels of the 7. Churches were the starres which Christ held in his hand Apoc. 1.20 Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were iust 7. or limited to the number of 7 Againe of 7. monades or vnities such as be 7. singular persons the number is iust 7. The Angells were 7. Monades or Vnities as beeing 7. singular persons therfore of the Angells the number is iust 7. That the Angels were 7. singular persons it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written vnto them viz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Angell of the Church at Ephesus to the Angell of the Church at Smyrna c where whosoeuer is able to count 20. may easily finde iust 7. I will recite them and let the refuter keepe the tale The Angell of the Church at Ephesus 1. the Angell of the Church of Smyrâ—a 2 the Angell of the Church at Pergamus 3 the Angell of the Church at Thyatira 4. the Angell of the Church at Sardes 5 the Angell of the Church at Phyladelphia 6. the Angell of the church of Laodicea 7 seuen Angels neither more nor lesse Moreouer to whom the 7. Epistles were written they were iust 7 for they were written singulae singulis the first to the first the second to the second c. To the Angels of the 7. Churches the 7. Epistles were written Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches were iust 7. The same is testified by Arethas vnto these 7. Churches blessed Iohn saith hee reckneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseâ—ing or superintendent Angels iust of the same number and by Ambrose wee must vnderstand the 7. Angels to bee the gouernours of the 7. Churches and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churcâ—â—s Yea but the holy Ghost if hee had limited their number to 7. would haue said that the 7. Starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches Whereto I answere that he hath more plainely limited the number then if hee had said so For if hee had said they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches such a captious Sophister as my aduersarie would haue expounded septem 7. by septeni seuen a peece and so haue multiplied them by 7. as if there had bene according to the number of the supposed Deacons at Ierusalem 7. in euery Church But when hee saith the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches he plainly signifieth that there were iust so many of them as of the Churches that is to say seuen Seeing therfore the number of the Angels is limited to seuen it is not materiall what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them And whereas he saith that by the Angel in each inscription we are to vnderstand more then one I would know of him first what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall
sense And where the holy Ghost speaketh but as of one how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one Secōdly whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one Thirdly whether himselfe did not teach pag. 2. that the Angels signifie such BB. or Ministers as were Pastors onely of particular cōgregations 4. whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations seeing in Ephesus as him self saith pag 3. there were more angels For one that had his facultie in syllogizing might appose him with these Syllogismes 1. The Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation is but one and hee as the new discipline teacheth the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Each Angell of the Churches saith the refuter did signifie a Pastor or Bishop of a particular congregation Therefore each Angel did signifie but one 2. Where were many Angels were many Pastors of particular congregations and where were many Pastors of particular congregations there were more particular congregations then one But at Ephesus saith my aduersary were many Angels and so many Pastors Therefore at Ephesus there were more particular congregations then one Which two conclusions are directly contradictory to his other assertions both here else where in his booke Sect. 4. Hauing thus manifestly proued that the Angels of the seuen Churches were iust seuen and consequently that there was one and but one in euery Church whom the holy Ghost calleth the Angel of that Church it wil be easie both to free my Text from the cauil which more then once my aduersary obiecteth against it as also out of the text to cleare the maine controuersie which is in hand For whereas he obiecteth that all Ministers are Angels Pag. 2. 4 and 6. as I my selfe teach in the Sermon of the dutie and dignitie of Ministers And therefore that nothing can bee gathered from this Text which is not common to all Ministers for that the Angels are Bishops saith hee who denyeth but withall who knoweth not that so are all Ministers I answere that all Minsters who haue charge of soules are in a generall sense called Angels Pastors Bishops because they are messengers sent from God to feede to ouersee his flocke But yet where there are many ministers who are in general called Angels Pastors Bishops if there bee one and but one who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Angell the Pastor the Bishop of that Church he is plainely noted to haue a singular preheminence aboue the rest Wherof see more in my answere to pag 6. And this is so plaine a case that euen Beza himselfe though a chiefe patron of the pretended discipline and one that sheweth himselfe as loath as may be that the Episcopall degree should be hence proued confesseth that by the Angell of the Church at Ephesus so of the rest we are to vnderstād 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that was the Prelate or President of the Presbyterie for so els-where he confesseth that Iustin Martyre calleth him whom others call the Bishop And although he would haue vs thinke that this office of Presidentship was not perpetuall but for a short time and that by course yet he would haue vs also note out of 1. Tim 5.19 where Timothy is willed not to receiue an accusation against a Presbyter but vnder 2. or 3. witnesses that Timothie was at that time the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iustine calleth him that is Antistes the Prelate or President in the Presbitery at Ephesus Now it is absurd to imagine that Timothy was sent thither to be President among them as his course only or turne shuld come as though the other Presbyters there were equall to him Moreouer we are able to shewe by the testimonie of the most ancient Authors in the Church who were these singular persons whome the holie Ghost doth call the Angell of the Church at Ephesus and likewise at Smyrna For as before this time Timothy had bene the Angell or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Beza confesseth so at this time Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus as Ignatius testifieth Polycarpus the Byshop of Smyrna If therefore Onesimus was but one man and likewise Polycarpus then wee may be bold to conclude that the Angell of the Church of Ephesus was but one singular person and likewise the Angell of Smyrna and so of the rest So much of the first reason The second indeed saith hee necessarily occasioneth vs to enquire what manner of BB. these Angels were because as I said some of our times haue made a question of that which in former ages was not wont to be called into controuersie so saith hee because B. Bilson and B. Barlow haue fancied to themselues another sort of Bishops then either the scriptures of the new Testament do mention or any sound Diuines doe teach thereout This then is the controuersie which remaineth to be decided whether sort of BB. such as those learned Fathers and my selfe do defend or such as my aduersary and his adherents do stand for is that kinde of Bishop which hath bene but of late deuised and neuer till of late obtruded on the Church And on which side the iudicious Reader shall see better euidence more pregnāt proofes I adiure him in the name of God without partialitie to assent thereto The second question is concerning the qualitie of the function which is determined in the second Assertion viz that the calling of B.B. who are here meant by the starres and Angels is lawfull and good And this is a doctrine so necessarily arising out of the Text that if it be proued that Bishops are here meant by starres and Angels which was the thing I vndertook before to proue now doubt not by Gods help to make euident it cannot be denied but that their calling is both aproued as good and commended as excellent Neither would the refuter haue wrangled with this passage hauing nothing to say but that which with an idle Coccysme he oft repeateth and in this place is altogether impertinent that Diocesan BB. are not here meant were it not that he was resolued before hand to cauill with whatsoeuer hee should find in my booke Especially if you consider that elsewhere hee would make me beleeue the proofe of this doctrine to be superfluous the former point being once proued Serm. Sect. 2. Pag. 3. For the deciding of the former question two things are in the wordes offered to our consideration For whereas they are said to be the Angels of the Churches we are first to consider what maner of Churches they were whereof they were the Angels and secondly what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches in regard wherof they are called the Angels of the Churches As touching the first wee are to trie whether these Churches whereof they were Angels or BB. were Parishes or Dioceses and consequently whether they were Parishionall or Diocesan BB.
hee thought good to cite but 8 now if all these 8. be not cleare on his side what shal we thinke of the rest Surely Luther though he tell him that hee rose vp as a bright morning starre euen another Elias of these times will not be gotten to speake a word for him For in the place by him cited hee doth not so much as speake of this Text and much lesse expound it But hee speaketh onely of the 19. verse Receiue not an accusation against an Elder where vnderstanding Elder according to the vse of the word in the first verse of that chapter as a word of age as well as of office as Chrysostome also doth though he vnderstand vers 17 of Ministers onely he saith that how soeuer the popish Bishops against whome hee writeth did expound this place of Priests that is themselues that they might be the more free from accusation or reproofe yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri that is Elder and graue men for such then bare rule in the Church meaning thereby most plainely auncient Ministers as appeareth by the words following which the refuter hath Sophistically and shamefully peruerted For the Apostle doth not speake De ijs Episcopis saith Luther Sacerdotibus qui iam nostra aetate plerumque sunt aetate florenti penè adolescentes sed de senibus grandâ—â— bus in Scriptura peritis loquitur Of those Bishops and Priests which now in our time are for the most part of a flourishing age and in a manner young youthes and lusty gallants which hee meant in the words going a little before when he calleth them Penelopes sponsos but hee speaketh of such as be aged and ancient men skilfull in the Scriptures Obserue now our Sophysters dealing First hee saith Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-Elders when as Luther doth not so much as speake of this text 2. that he should say their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then when hee plainely speaketh of ancient and aged Ministers 3. that Luther denieth simplie that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests For so hee citeth his words Neque enim loquitur de Episcopis Sacerdotibus wheÌ„ he saith that he speaketh not of such Bishops as were in his time young lusty men but of such as were aged skilfull in the scriptures Bullinger in neither place alledged doth say that there were elders in the chuch which were not ministers but rather the coÌ„trary For on 1. Tim. 5.17 he vnderstaÌ„deth that text as requiring the stipend of the ministery seemeth to confound the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halues Cum emin varià sint in ecclesia munia non vnius quoque generis ministri aut Presbyteri sunt For where Bullinger saith Ministers or Presbyters be not all of one kind by Presbyters meaning no other but Ministers he citeth him thus the Elders are not of one kind leauing out the word Ministers And vpon the words following in the nineteenth verse he saith as to a diligent good Minister of Christ sustenaÌ„ce is due so also defence the reason of which law is this a Presbyter is the Minister of truth and truth procureth hatred c. In his Decades he saith the Elders in the Church of Christ are either BB. or otherwise prudent and learned men added to the BB. who albeit they did not teach alwaies as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught c. Where he doth not speake of lay and vnlearned Elders but of wise and learned men of the Clergie The rest in the places cited doe acknowledge a second sort of Elders besides those which chiefely laboured in the word and doctrine but whe they were of the laitie or Clergie they doe not mention As for D. Fulk in his answere to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17 he giuing two interpretations of that place preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are vnderstood of Ministers or Priests onely that as euery one of them laboureth more in preaching and teaching he is so much the more to be honoured But of his assumption this is more then enough seeing this is not the question betweene vs whether any of the new writers doe stand for the new Elders for that is confessed His third reason for the deniall of my proposition that if that consequence is good my interpretation of this place is naught seeing it hath not so much as the naked shade of any father to couer it Naked to couer But what figge leaues can he find to couer this naked and shamelesse vntruth For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points the first and principall that by Presbyters I vnderstand Ministers as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well c the secoÌ„d that by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly are translated gouerning well I vnderstand the coÌ„mendable performance of their duetie in generall for the latter I alledged the authoritie of Ierome and of the Syricke Paraphrast to whom others might be added for the former I haue the generall consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age who haue expounded this place and not one of them can be produced to the contrarie and yet he is not ashamed to say that my interpretation hath not the patronage of any one Father And thus much of the proposition in confuting whereof when he hath spent fiue whole pages with very ill successe as you see he concludeth with as vaine and causelesse a bragge as his successe was badde The assumption that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did euer expound this text of any but Ministers though he dares not plainely denie it yet that it may appeare how he setteth himselfe to wrangle with euery thing he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes out of which he may easily be driuen if the Reader wil but remember these two things First that I speake of such as haue before our age meaning hoc seculum this ceÌ„turie or huÌ„dred of yeares expounded this place either in their commentaries or in their other writings which be extant For it were foolish presumption to rely vpon their iudgements who either did not write of it or whose writings are not extant whereby their iudgement might be knowne Secondly that I am in this point the respondent answering their allegation out of this place and that the refuter is the opponent who if he will say any thing to the purpose must proue by good instance the affirmatiue that some one of the Fathers or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders and not absurdly vrge me being the respondent to proue the negatiue which as it cannot be otherwise proued but by alledging that no instance can be giuen to the contrarie so might it be easily disproued by any one instance if any such could be giuen If these two things be remembred
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
would haue Lay-Elders maintained at the Churches charge But this is one of his colours whereby he would perswade that the Eldership should rather now be admitted then in the Apostles times Because if the Apostle would charge the Churches being in persecution and therefore poore with maintaining Elders which being poore were not sometimes able to liue without some reliefe from the Church c how much more ought there now to be Seniors when the Churches be in peace and therefore not so poore and when there may be chosen such for the most part throughout the realme as are able to liue without charging the Church any whit as the practise of these daies doth manifestly declare For if it had beene his iudgement that Lay-Elders are to be maintained otherwise then for need he would haue argued thus If by the Apostles rule the Elders were to be maintained for their workes sake by the Churches being poore and in pâ—rsecution then much more are they to be maintained when the Churches be in peace and profpâ—ritie and so would haue assumed the antecedent to conclude the consequent But seeing he doth tollere consequens contradict the consequent saying that when the Churches are in peace and prosperitie such a course may and ought to be taken for that may seeme to be his meaning according to the example of all the reformed Churches that the Church shall not be charged at all with the maintenance of the Seniors that is to say by choosing men of abilitie who need no reliefe it is easie to conclude tollendo antecedens that his iudgement was that this rule of the Apostle notwithstanding Lay-Elders were not to haue maintenance for their workes sake but reliefe onely if they did need Of the same iudgement is the demonstratour of discipline for it being obiected that the parishes would be ouerburdened in prouiding for so many he answereth it is not necessarie that they should prouide for any more of them sauing those that are exercised in the ministerie of the word vnlesse any of the rest may need the liberalitie of the Church But suppose that this were T. C. iudgement or the opinion of any other among vs who hath conceiued a platonicall Idea of discipline which he neuer saw practised were this sufficient to disproue my assertion who haue the confession of the learned reformers in respect of their doctrine and of the reformed Churches in respect of their practise Or if this were a sufficient exception against the consent of those which stand for discipline that some one doth hold a singular opinion by himselfe then can their consent be scarcely alledged for any one affirmatiue point of discipline euery man almost pleasing himselfe in the noueltie of his inuention and in the singularitie of his opinion For plentifull proofe whereof I referre you to the suruey of the pretended discipline § 5. His second obiection is that although in practise reformed Churches doe not giue their Lay-Elders any maintenance yet this doth not hinder but that in their iudgement they may according to the Apostles rule esteeme them worthy of it Can we doubt saith he but our Clergie maisters thinke M. D. worthy of a Bishoppricke for his paines in pleading their cause yet we see they bestowe not so much as a suffraganeship on him Shall we therefore say they doe not thinke him to deserue it What a profane mockerie is this to expound the Apostles words as though hee would haue the people thinke they had discharged their dutie in esteeming onely their Ministers worthy of double honour when in fact they doe not yeeld them sufficient maintenance If he were in the ministerie as I know not whether he be or not and the people should answere him thus Syr though we allow you no maintenance as you desire yet let this content you that according to the Apostles rule we count you worthy of double honour would he not thinke S. Paul abused himselfe deluded yea and Christ his Lord and maister in him to be mocked Be not deceiued saith the Apostle speaking in this cause God is not mocked That which I say of Ministers is in like manner to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders if they be included in this text The words of the Apostle are generall the Presbyters that rule well let them be counted worthy of double honour Wherefore let them either acknowledge that the Lay-Elders are not meant in this place or else teach the people before they admit Lay-Elders to thinke themselues bound by the Apostles rule to yeeld them double honour that is saith T. C. a plentifull reward such as may be fully sufficieÌ„t for them and their housholds and to yeeld it willingly gratefully For that is the Apostles meaning when he requireth the Presbyters to be accounted worthy of double honour not onely that this honour of maintenance should be giuen them as appeareth by the reasons which he hath annexed but that the people should giue it not grudgingly and as it were by constraint of law as thinking the Ministers not worthy of maintenance but willingly and gratefully as esteeming them most worthy of double honour and thinking it a small matter to giue temporall things to them of whom they receive spirituall Neither is it to any purpose which he obiecteth concerning either Pauls refusing of maintenance from the Corinthians and Thessalonains or of wealthy Ministers refusing to burden the Churches by taking maintenance from them vnlesse he can proue that order being taken in those Churches for the maintenance of their Elders which they may readily receiue if they will themselues doe voluntarily and freely refuse it For if those Elders be comprised vnder Presbyters in this text there must the like order be taken for maintenance of all by the Apostles rule though the painefull Preachers are chiefely to be respected But the contrarie course is taken Neither is there not hauing of maintenance to be ascribed to their owne refusing as in the example of Paul and the wealthy Ministers but to the Churches not allowing them maintenance To the like purpose is that which he saith that I need not insult ouer those reformed Churches which with consent of the Elders themselues thinke it best to ease the people of that charge seeing the paines to be taken in the office of the Eldership is not such but that they may attend their ciuill callings and meanes of liuing as well as our Churchwardens and ciuill officers In which words first he wrongfully chargeth me with insulting ouer those Churches Secondly he confuteth himselfe who hauing before denied them to be Lay-Elders here confesseth they haue ciuill callings which they may attend vpon as well as our Churchwardens Thirdly where hee speaketh of the Elders consent in not taking maintenance it is the consent of obedience to the lawes and orders of the Church such as is in our Churchwardens who by the like consent haue no maintenance But to leaue his words
and to come to the substance of his speech seeing their paines are not such but that they may follow their ciuill callings and worldly busines and seeing they haue ciuill callings to attend vpon and other sufficient meanes of liuelihood being in all these respects like if not superiour to our Churchwardens it may not be thought that the Apostle who was desirous the Churches should be eased as much as might be would require them to giue double honour to such as neither deserued nor needed such maintenance And therfore he did not comprise them vnder the name of Presbyters which indeed signifieth Priests or Ministers or if he did no Church must thinke it selfe to haue authoritie to dispense with the Apostle but must acknowledge it selfe bound if it vnderstand Lay-Elders to be comprised in this text willingly and gratefully to giue double that is sufficient and plentifull maintenance to them esteeming them worthy of it for their worke sake The onely thing which is obiected by the learned of that side is that which I mention in the Sermon that their Lay-Elders if they stand in need are to be maintained Whereunto I now adde that some of them so vnderstand the Apostle and I answere that if hee be so vnderstood in respect of Lay-Elders he must in like manner be vnderstood of Ministers his speech being generall and fauouring the Ministers no more then thus that as all Elders are to be maintained if they need so especially Preachers whom notwithstanding the Apostle would haue according to equitie and iustice maintained with an honourable stipend for their worke sake and not onely by way of almes to be relieued for their need But here the refuter behaueth himselfe as one that is at a nonplus for reason and at an ouerplus for rancour his words added to the last I cited be these But to proue it he propoundeth out of the surueyour of discipline cap. 10. an obiection and then answereth it The summe whereof is this that the maintenance allowed them is rather a beggarly almes giuen in charitie for need then that honourable stipend which iniustice is due to them for their worke sake But to proue it saith he what would I proue the refuter is confounâ—ed he knoweth not well what he saith He propoundeth saith he an obiection out of the surueyour Sure his eyes dazeled and his witts were to seeke In the suruey is not so much as a shew of any such obiection neither is it alledged to any other end but to proue that whereunto the letter in the margent directed him that is that they make choise of such as haue no need But what is it the summe whereof is this that the maintenance allowed them is rather a beggerly almes c. Is this the summe of the obiection that is senselesse and yet he seemes to say so What then is it the summe of the answere or of both no man that were not at a losse would say it I professe I haue not often read a speech more senselesse To helpe him out of the maze and to make him confesse that hee was at a nonplus I will explaine my words For whereas some obiect said I c My meaning was this the onely thing which is obiected to disproue my assumption that to the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake is this that Lay-Elders if they stand in need are to be maintained Which obiection hath beene made personally to me I will not say by the refuter though some thinke so for I take that obiector to be an honester man and that which is obiected is that conceit not onely of T. C. the maister and the demonstrator his scholler but of Danaeus also writing on that place To this obiection of their need I answered first that it is needlesse as the refuter also in the words following doth censure it as being preuented by all those reformed Churches where the Presbyters be erected in which order is taken that none shall be chosen into the seigniorie but such as be of good abilitie To which purpose I cited the tenth chapter of the Suruey the argument wherof is this Their Aldermen must be according to their owne positions men of good calling and among other things in that chapter are cited the lawes of Geneua requiring that all their twelue Lay-Elders should be men of state c as I said before Secondly I answered if they chance to haue need which is a case that happeneth as seldome at the least to them as to our Church-wardens and if they be relieued as our Church-wardens also should in the like case that then the maintenance which is allowed is for their need and not for their worke sake But the Apostle saith the Presbyters are worthy of double honour and the workeman is worthy of his stipend c. As if I had said the reliefe which is giuen to Lay-Elders for their need if euer that doe happen doth not disproue my assumption nor proue that they are included in this text For The maintenance which the Apostle requireth to be giuen to Presbyters is not a beggarly almes that is a poore mans reliefe giuen by way of almes bestowed onely in charitie to supply their need but an honourable stipend Paul calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Sauiour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in iustice due to the Presbyters for their worke sake But the reliefe which they require to be giuen to their Lay-Elders is a beggarly almes that is a poore mans reliefe giuen by way of almes and bestowed onely in charitie to supply their need and not an honourable stipend called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c in iustice due for their worke sake Therefore the reliefe which they require to be giuen to their Lay-Elders is not that maintenance which the Apostle requireth to be giuen to Presbyters Now let vs heare what the refuter addeth to his former words But saith he as the obiection is needlesse so his answere is insufficient here now he speaketh with reason though without truth The obiection is made by the chiefe of his side and is the best though needlesse if not the onely obiection they haue My answere is such as you haue heard that is to say such an answere as whensoeuer he medleth with it will bring him to a nonplus againe but because I said he speaketh with reason let vs heare his reason For saith he albeit their necessitie occasioneth their maintenance by common allowance yet is it for their worke sake that they are maintained to which I reply if it were a maintenance in iustice due for their worke sake and not a reliefe giuen onely in charitie by way of almes for their need that then it ought in iustice to be giuen to them whether they be in need or not For the workeman is worthy of his stipend for his worke sake and willingly it
great consequence indeed But if you remember their own positions that the Word of God doth perfectly describe all the lawfull offices of the Church and that no office or calling in the Church is lawfull but that which is directly warranted out of the Word yet it was the sinne for which Coreh Dathan and Abiram were punished in that they presumed though they were Leuites to take in haÌ„d that for which they had no warrant then can you not but expect most manifest pregnant proofes out of the Scripture directly warranting this whole office and all the branches thereof Or if you faile of your expectation you cannot but wonder at the extreme boldnes of them who holding these positions impose vpon the Church an office of such authority not as an humane pollicie but as the holie ordinance of Christ hauing no warrant in the Scriptures But what one pregnant testimonie of Scripture can they produce pursuing any one part of their Lay-Elders office Vpon my credite not one For first a peculiar office either of spirituall watch-men the scriptures acknowledge none Besides Prophets and Priests or Ministers or of Censors of mens manners besides ministers and Magistrates and much lesse doe the scriptures appoint a peculiar officer to be the accuser of the bretheren Indeed it is the dutie of all good Christians mutuallie to exercise the duties of the Communion of Saints by instructing exhorting admonishing rebuking comforting one another And as the Apostle sâ—ith to consider or obserue onâ— another to prouoke vnto loue and to good workes We may not be of Cains minde who said Am I my brothers keeper We are so farre to be keepers and obseruers of our brethren as by all good meanes to further and aduance the saluation one of another The Lord hath charged thee in the Law freely to rebuke thy brother and not suffer sinne to rest upon him And likewise in the Gospell If thy brother sinne against thee either committing an iniurie against thee or giuing thee offence by some sinne committed in thy knowledge laying by his euill example a scandall or stumbling blocke in thy way goe and reprous him privately betweene thee him alone If he heare thee thou hast wonne thy brother But if he heare thee not take yet with thee one or two if he will not heare them tell the assemblie c. But a speciall Church-officer to prye into other mens faults such as S. Peter calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the scriptures do not appoynt and much lesse to informe against or to accuse priuate offenders such as we call Promâ—ters and the Grecians Sycophants As for their diuiding of Parishes into Wardes and awarding them to seuerall Elders as also all the rest of the offices and duties assigned to their Elders of acquainting the ministers who is to bee Baptized what new parishioners are come of helping at the Communion and repelling some there from they must and doe confesse they haue no scripture for them and yet all these duties must bee thought to be prescribed in Gods word To which purpose the arguments which some of their chiefe writers do vse are these First that although all these things be not specially expressed in scripture yet forasmuch as offences must bee auoided and those duties of Charitie and Communion of Saintes must bee performed as also those things which appertaine to good order prouided for and forasmuch as there are no other officers or Elders to whom the charge of these things should belong therefore satis vt opinor apparet haec ad Presbyterorum officium ex verbo Dei referenda esse I thinke it sufficieÌ„tly appeareth that these things by the word of God are to be referred to the office of Elders Their argument standeth thus All necessary duties which the Scripture hath not assigned to other officers or Elders it hath appointed to these Elders But the duties before spoken of are necessarie duties which the scripture hath not assigned to any other officers or Elders Therefore the duties before spoken of the scripture hath assigned to these Elders It seemeth by the proposition that the Lay-Elders haue begged a book of concealmeÌ„ts that they may be authorized to deale in all these causes for which other men haue not expresse coÌ„mission But first I denie that the Scipture hath graunted them any such concealements Nay I most confidently auow that they themselues are concealed in the Scriptures which doe not once mention them in anie place And therefore if there bee cases omitted that the Scripture hath not assigned to other Elders or officers We may thinke it hath referred them to the wisedome of the Church and authoritie of the Soueraigne râ—â—â—er then to them whom it neuer mentioneth Secondly I answere that there are many necessarie duties the performance whereof the holy Ghost hath not assigned to any publike Officers at all as though there should bee speciall offices appointed for them but are to be performed by euery Christian as the aforesaid duties which concerne the auoyding of scandales the duties of Charitie and Communion of Saints Likewise there are duties respecting outward order and decencie which the Scripture doth not prescribe in particular and much lesse assigne to any peculiar office But the determination of these particulars and the nomination of the functions or persons wherevnto they shal be assigned is left to the discretion of the Church and authoritie of the Soueraigne And to such purposes other Churches may appoint Lay-Elders as well as ours doth Churchwardens so they doe not vrge them as the ordinance of Christ nor giue them commission to intermeddle with things aboue their reach as being peculiar either to the Ministers of the Word or the Ciuil Magistrate Their second Argument As for that part of their office of taking heede to offences who can doubt but that charge properly appertaineth vnto the Elders seeing they are said in the Scriptures to ouersee and to gouerne For this ouersight can haue but two parts onely wherof the first partaineth to doctrine religion the other to life and manners Seeing then that two sorts of Elders are expresly named by Saint Paule wherof the first sort are occupied in Preaching and Doctrine It is necessary that the other should haue charge of manners and conuersation for that onely remaineth This discourse containeth 2. Syllogismes the First All Presbyters who in the Scriptures are said to ouersee and gouerne hauing not that ouersight which respecteth doctrine and religion haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoyding offences for these are the two parts of ouersight The Lay-Elders are such Presbyters as in the Scriptures are said to ouersee gouerne hauing not that ouersight which respecteth doctrine and religion Therefore the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoyding offences The 2. If the Apostle expressely name 2. sorts of Elders distinguished according to the 2. parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight viz
vpon vs as the holy discipline of Christ. And now had wee done with this place of the Epistle to Timothie sauing that the refuter looking backe to the â—enth page of my Sermon as being loath thus to leaue wrangling with my exposition of that text noted three things to be cauilled at in this one speech where I say that Ministers are especially to be honoured for their paines in preaching of the word that being in Pauls estimation the chiefe worke of the ministerie For first he would faine know of me why â—adde in Pauls estimation I answere because it was necessarie to be added for in such comparatiue sentences where one part seemeh to be preferred before all the rest we are not alwaies to vnderstand that part simply to be the chiefe but in the estimation of the speaker who in some respect preferreth it to the rest As for example if that you should say all good Ministers or Preachers are greatly to be honoured especially they who goe before their people in the example of a godly life I would expound your meaning as I did the Apostles to be this that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers or Preachers for the performance of their dutie in generall 〈◊〉 they are especially to be honoured for their godly life that being in your estimation the chiefe commendation of a Minister Or to vse the refuters owne example which before I explaned all logicians that reason well are to be well accounted of especially they that iudge well or are iudicious In this speech are to be noted not two sorts but two duties of logicians the one generall to reason well the other speciall to iudge well disposed in a comparatiue sentence wherein the duties of a logician are thus compared that whereas logicians are to be esteemed for the performance of their dutie in generall yet especially they are to be honoured for iudging well that being in the estimation of him that shall so speake the chiefe worke of a Logician I say in the estimâ—iâ—â— of him that shall so speake for another perhaps would say thus All logicians that reason well are to be well esteemed especially those that analise well another perhaps thus All good Logicians are to be honoured especially those that are methodicall another thus especially those that inuent well In like manner I explane the Apostles speech as hath beene shewed before I but saith he if this be true that those Ministers are especially worthy of double honour that labour in the word and doctrine then some poore Ministers that continually preach or would doe if they might be suffered are more especially to be honoured then some great prelates that seldome or neuer preach and it was the enuy of this illation which by saying in Pauls estimation you would deriue from your selfe to the â—â—â—stle Answ. The Apostles comparison is to be vnderstood of them which be of the same degree being Presbyters and no more Neither was it Pauls meaning writing to Timothie the Bishop that any of the Presbyters should haue more maintenance then he for that is the honour whereof hee speaketh though perhaps they were more painefull in preaching as hauing better opportunitie It is well knowne that in the primitiue Church when the reuenewes of â—ach Church were diuided into foure parts the Bishop alone had one fourth part and that was as much as all the Presbyters and all the rest of the clergie though perhaps there were an hundred of them had amongst them For all of them had but another fourth part a third fourth part went to the buildings and reparations and the fourth to the poore His second cauill that in other places viz. pag. 42.45.53 I haue through flatterie contradicted this assertion making gouerning a labour of greater honour then preaching Answ. In none of those places doe I compare preaching with gouerning but Bishops with Presbyters saying and prouing that Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in the power of ordination and iurisdiction and that the Bishops are the Apostles successors in the gouernement of the Church But doth it follow because Bishops are superiour to Presbyters that therefore preaching is a worke inferiour to gouernement I trust Bishops are equall at the least with Presbyters in the power of order as it respecteth the ministerie of the word and sacraments so that what can be said in commendation of the order of Presbyters in respect of the ministerie belongeth also to Bishops If therefore BB. being at the least equall with Presbyters in the power of order respecting the ministerie of the word and sacraments be aboue them not onely in the exercise of that power but also in the power of ordination and iurisdiction they may without disparagement to the ministerie of the word be said to be superiour to other Ministers To your third cauill I might answere as to the first that the Apostle speaketh to the Bishop of Presbyters not to a Presbyter as you doe of Bishops But indeed our Bishops as they ought all so the most of them as I trust doe thinke themselues bound to preach when they haue opportunitie and leysure in respect of their other weightie imployments in regard whereof I haue alwaies thought that one good Bishop though hee haue not opportunitie to preach very oft may doe more good in the Church of God then a dozen good Preachers So that in these three cauilles the refuter hath gained nothing but the manifestation of his owne malice which I pray God to forgiue him CHAP. VII 〈◊〉 Ambrosâ— in 1. Tim. 5. â— doth not giue testimonie to the Lay 〈…〉 that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Sâ—rm Sect. 6. pag. 13. I come now to Ambrose writing on the first verse of the same chapter 1. Tim. 5. where the Apostle exhorting Timothie not to rebuke an Elder or aged man Ambrose giueth this reason For among all nations old age is honourable and then addeth vnde synagoga postea ecclesia seniores habuit quorum sine coÌ„silio nihil agebatur in ecclesia Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri Whence it is that both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Seniors Without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church Which by what negligence it is growne out of vse I knowe not vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes of the learned or Teachers or rather pride whiles they alone will seeme to be something Which words whosoeuer vnderstand as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders they wrong Ambrose c. 10. lines further IN this allegation the disciplinarians haue great confideÌ„ce For this testimonie of Ambrose saith T.C. is so cleare and open that he which doth not giue place vnto it must needs be thought as a Bat or an Owle or some other night-bird to delight in darkenesse And it is a world to see how the refuter thinking that his cause wil
offices and to the Councell of Carthage Ambrose therefore saith that the Bishop must not be offended if either a Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergie doe by mercy fasting integritie learning or reading obtaine great estimation Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise But if any doe not obey the Bishop and desiring to aduance himselfe seeketh aâ— counterfeit affectation of learning humilitie or mercy he is lifted vp with pride going astray from the truth In the Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their owne that is a Bishop for so is the title of that chapter that the parts of the Diocesse without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receiue another Bishop But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers and histories of the Church were no Ministers or that by the word of God they had nothing to doe with the word and Sacraments Farre be it from vs so to thinke for nothing is more euident then that they were Ministers The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops but reckoned these three for sacred or consecrated persons calling them three degrees of the Clergie the Bishop answering to the high Priest the Presbyters to the Priests and the Deacons to the Leuites For proofe whereof there are almost as many euidences in the Canons of the councells as there be leaues But that it may most clearely appeare that the Presbyters were Ministers I will proue it first by their name SecoÌ„dly by their office thirdly by some lawes that peculiarly concerned them For their name as they are most vsually called Presbyters so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri that is Priests In the Councell of Carthage continencie is committed to Bishops Presbyters Deacons as it becommeth holy Bishops Priests and Leuits Tertullian reprouing the disorder of Hereticks saith among them hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus nam laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a lay-man for euen to lay-men doe they inioyne priestly functions Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserâ—ed that God might adde him to our Clergy and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Priests And more plainely in another place he saith that the Presbyters are ioyned with the Bishops in priestly honour Dionysius termed the Areopagite insteed of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon into which three he distinguisheth the Clergie vseth the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons Sozomen also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests Isidorus those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes are they who who are called Presbyteri And then hee setteth downe their office That to them is committed the dispensation of diuine mysteries they rule the Church and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops as also in teaching the people and office of preaching The Ancient Councell of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters who hauing once sacrificed did after refuse to retaine their place notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer the communion to preach or to minister in any part diuine seruice The learned Author of the vnfinished worke which goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome by the seruant which receiued fiue talents and gained other fiue vnderstandeth a Presbyter sent of God whome he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest and sheweth how by his fiue talents he gaineth other fiue that is by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him a godly life by the office of a Presbyter the careful gouernement of the Church by the word the sincere preaching of the word of truth by baptisme the begetting of worthy children to the Church by the sacrifice the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people and making intercession for their sinnes More particularly for the ministerie of the Sacraments the Councell of Laodicâ—a determined that those which returned from the heresie of the Cataphrygians though of the Clergie among them though supposed great men must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church Tertullian saith the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme then Presbyters Deacons c. In the Canons called the Apostles in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the coÌ„munion In the Councell of Nice the Deacons who are there said to haue no power to celebrate the Communion are forbidden to deliuer it to the Presbyter who hath power but must receiue it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands To omit other of the Fathers doth not Ierome expressely testifie that the Presbyters prayers the body and blood of Christ are consecrated For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop doe remoue to other Churches and refuse to returne when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serue any more As for the ministery of the word though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching yet both before and after they were allowed to preach Among their functions as you heard the Councell of Ancyra reckoneth preaching The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie but the Clergie also Ignatius requireth them to feede the flocke Origen testifieth that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos do instruct vs c. Basil saith that to them and to Deacons in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel Caluin speaking of the primitiue Church saith it was the dutie in those times of the Bishop as wel as of the Presbyters to apply themselues to the ministerie of the word and Sacraments Chrysost. hauing affirmed that there is no great differeÌ„ce betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter rendreth this reason for they also haue receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritie to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernement of the Church and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops doe agreâ— also to Presbyters In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉
conclusion labouring as we say clauum clauo pellere and vndertaking to make me see if I will not shut mine eyes the contradictory of that conclusion to be true which notwithstanding cannot be false the premisses being true And first he denyeth that Ambrose spake by guesse as I say but certaienly and vpon knowledge when Ambrose his expresse words bee these Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio nisi forte c which by what negligence it is growne out of vse I know not vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes c. 2. He saith it might be a matter of slothfulnes in the BB to suffer the seniors to neglect their duties But not to their own so great trouble will M D. say we might belieue him if wee saw not pride driue men to vndertake more then they either need to be charged with or are able to weeld Then is it not their slothfulnes belike that caused them to take the whole burden vpon themselues but their pride which made them winke at the seniors slothfulnes as giuing way to their owne ambition Thirdly he saith the Bishops might prouide for their owne ease by putting off the burthen to their Chancellors Commissaries Officialls c therefore it might be imputed to them as a matter of sloth or idlenesse pride to and so the word Doctorum rightly expounded for Pastors of Parishes alone and not to Diocesan Bishops As thogh their Parish-Bishops were more likely to haue had Chauncellours c then Diocesan BB But I answere 1. the question is not what they might haue done but what they did Now it is euident that in Ambrose his time and a good while after till the Presbyteries were in a manner whollie neglected the Bishops had not ordinary vicars or chancellors or ordinary Commissaries which were not of the Clergie But what they did without the aduise of their Seniors they performed ordinarily in their owne persons or else extraordinarily delegated the same to some of speciall trust In some cases it is euident that both then and long after they vsed the assistance of their Presbyterie as in the iudgement of Heresie or for deposing of a clergie man c. Siricius the B. of Rome in an Epistle to Ambrose denouncing Iouinian Auxentius c. for heretickes sheweth that for their triall his whole presbyterie had beene assembled and saith that by the common consent of his whole clergie they were condemned for heretickes The 4. councell of Carthage as you heard ordained that the Bishop should heare mens causes in the presence of his clergie The 2. councel of Towers decreed that a Bishop might not depose an Archpresbyter without the counsell of all his compresbyters But whom negligence casteth out let him with the counsell of the presbyters be remoued The councell of Carthage appointed that in the cause of a Presbyter sixe and of a Deacon three Bishops should be joyned with their own Bishop because as the coūcell of Ciuill determined one Bishop may to Priests and ministers that is Presbyters Deacons giue their honour but one alone may not take it from them but in the cause of inferiour Clergie men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop alone of the place shall heare and determine it viz. in the presence of his Clergie according to the aforesaid Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage But as in some cases they vsed the counsell of the Presbyteri so in others they did for the most part vndergoe the whole burthen themselues For the proofe whereof the examples of Ambrose and Augustine may suffice For Ambrose was so occupied in hearing and determining mens causes that he had so little time left him for his corporall repast or spirituall studies that Augustine could neuer finde him at leisure to breake his minde vnto him And Augustine was so encombred with hearing of causes that scarcely he could haue the forenoone for his studies the afternoone being wholly taken vp with other mens busines neither could he when the Councels of Numidia and Carthage had imposed a taske vpon him and when his people had promised to forbeare him for fiue dayes obtaine so much breathing time from their affaires But when hee was olde and was desirous to spend the rest of his time in writing and in the studie of the scriptures he nominated Eradius to be his successor in most earnest manner requiring and charging the people that they would suffer him to put off the burden of those imployments to him Possidonius giueth him this testimonie that he heard mens causes diligently sometimes to the hower of repast sometimes fasting the whole day but alwaies himselfe had the cognisance of them and determined them The Emperour Iustinian prouided by law that in Ecclesiasticall causes ciuill iudges should haue nothing to doe sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat but let the holy Bishop according to the Sacred Canons determine the cause As for ordinarie Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries which were Lay-men in those times the Bishops had none for not so much as the steward of the Church might be a Lay-man whereupon Gregorie writing to Ianuarius a Bishop chargeth him to take heed that Ecclesiasticall matters be not committed to secular men but to some approued of the Clergie And the second Councell of Ciuil penned as it seemeth by Isidor who was president thereof pronounceth it an vnseemely thing Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi seculares in ecclesia iudicare that a Lay-mā should be the Bishops Vicar that secular men should iudge in the Church for in one and the same officer there must not be different profession Which hauing confirmed out of Deuteronomie it inferreth wherefore it behoueth vs to obey Gods booke and the preceps of the holy Fathers ordaining that they who shal be associated to Bishops in Church-gouernement may not differ neither in profession nor habit Notwithstanding that they extraordinarily committed to others or delegated causes to be heard appeareth by the aforesaid example of Augustine But more clearely by the practise of Siluanus a godly Bishop of Troas not long after Ambrose his time who perceiuing that they of the Clergie made gaine of the contentions of them who came to be iudged he would not at any time appoint a iudge of the Clergie but himselfe receiuing the petitions of Suiters would make choise of some faithful man or other of the laitie whom he knew to be a louer of iustice and to him he would commit the hearing of the cause and for this cause Socrates saith he was greatly renowmed Out of which examples we may note that causes were wont to be brought to the Bishop that he heard them himselfe if he had leisure otherwise that he committed the hearing of the cause to some of his Clergie but yet so as if he saw cause he might make choise of some other whom he durst better trust Secondly I
refuter obiecteth that our BB haue not the like assistance of the Deane and chapter that the ancient BB had of their Presbyteries For Ambrose complaineth that euen in his time their counsell was neglected And yet in these times as the Bishop may vse their aduise if he please so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent Besides sede vacante in the vacancy of the See the custodie of the Bishopricke Episcopall rights as also the election of the new Bishop is after a sort referred to them And as in times past so now the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the citie whom we call Prebendaries appertaineth to the BB a few Churches onely among vs excepted And to conclude as Deanes and Chapters with vs are in a maner peculiar to Cathedrall Churches the seats of Bishops some collegiate Churches excepted so were the Presbyteries in the primitiue Church Insomuch that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say there was in old time now should be a Deane chapter as a Presbyterie in euery parish If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitiue Churches let them seeke and sue that the Bishops may vse the counsell and assistance of the Presbyterie of the citie which we call the Deane and Chapter and they may hope to preuaile if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborne be sufficient which now come to be examined Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 16. But howsoeuer Ambrose knew not what to say of this matter otherwise then by coniecture c to the end of the first point pag. 17. These reasons I added by way of surplusage or aduantage to giue satisfaction if it might be But nothing will satisfie them who set themselues to cauill for whereas I said I doubt not but the true causes c the refuter depraueth my speech as if the word I had beene vttered with an immodest Emphasis when as I meant no more by that speech then when we say proculdubio or dubium non est which kind of speech my aduersarie me thinkes should not so greatly mislike sithens their Lay-Elders which haue beene vrged with such heat haue no better warrant then dubium non est satis opinor constat probabile est as you shall heare when we come to their proofes They may say confidently there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles yea from the time of Moses vntill Christ and that after the example of the Iewes who indeed neuer had such Presbyteries they are to be erected in euery parish and yet haue no better warrant for these things then their owne coniectures They may take vpon them to auow without reason that to haue beene done in the Apostles times whereunto neither scripture nor Father giueth testimonie and in me it is great immodestie to affirme that which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of though I alleage sufficient reason of my affirmation For in the first three hundred yeares after Christ when Christians neither had frequent Synodes to determine doubts nor Synodall constitutions to direct the Bishops nor the authoritie of the Christian Magistrate to rectifie what was amisse in the gouernement of the Church there was great necessitie that the Bishop should vse the aduise and counsell of other wise and learned men otherwise his will would haue seemed to stand for a law and his gouernement would haue beene subiect to ouersight in himselfe to remedilesse wrong towards the clergie and people and to the obloquy and scandall of all But when as prouinciall Synodes were frequently assembled to determine doubts to right the causes of them that were wronged to prescribe so many Caâ—ons and constitutions as to the BB assembling in Councell seemed sufficient for their direction wheÌ„ the authoritie of the christian Magistrate was helpefull to the Church then we may easily conceiue that as the Councell and assistance of the Presbyterie was not so needfull so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone it would seeme needlesse which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equall balance of the Readers iudgement against the cauills of the refuter wherewith he hath blotted more then a whole leafe It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the prouinciall Synodes For when by experience it was fouÌ„d to be very troublesome chargeable to the BB hurtfull to their churches tedious to suiters by reason of multitude of causes referred to Synodal audience that al the BB in euery couÌ„try should twice euery yeare for a long time be absent from their churches to be present at Synodes it was decreed both by the Emperours and BB that those causes wherewith prouinciall Synodes had vsually bene troubled should be referred to the audience and decisioÌ„ of the Archbishop or Metropolitan Euen so when it was found troublesome and tedious to the Presbyters and hurtfull to the Church that their time which might better be spent in studie of Diuinitie to furnish them for the publike Ministery should be taken vp in hearing brabbles and quarrels and also their assistance seemed not needfull to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid it is not to be maruelled that their assistance grew out of vse For whereas the refuter obiecteth and is the onely thing worth the mentioning which he obiecteth that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time and long after I answere that they continue to this day But as their assistance now in matters of gouernement is not much vsed so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected And thus much concerning the testimonie of Ambrose which hauing cleared as well as that 1. Tim. 5.17 being the onely places of moment which vse to be produced in this cause I might safely conclude from all the premisses that therfore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church From whence besides the maine conclusion that therefore the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow The first that therefore there were no parishionall Presbyteries the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were subiect to the Diocesan Bishops Against the former he obiecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that euery Church in the Apostles times had many Prophets Pastors and Teachers which as the refuter saith might make a Presbyterie But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of were not in seuerall parishes but as he saith in populous cities such as that of Ephesus Act. 20 and those prouided not for any one parish but for the whole citie and countrey adioyning that is to say the Diocesse For when my aduersarie shall produce any one pregnant testimonie that in such congregations as we call parishes there was a Presbyterie of Ministers I will also grant
say to the prelate of the Church whom he vnderstood by Church bind him with bands or cords c. Theophylact explaineth the words thus If before two or three witnesses hee being reprooued shall not bee ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Oecolampadius translateth thus Ne graueris tunc in Ecclesiae suggestu invulgare peccatum sticke not then to publish his fault in the pulpit of the Church or iudgement seate But the acceÌ„t sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstaÌ„d An tistites or presides the Prelates of the Church And those words what you shall bind c he expoundeth thus If thou who art wronged shall hold the offender as a Publican or Ethnicke euen such a one he shal be in heauen but if thou loose him that is forgiue him he shal be pardoned in heauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not onely what the Priests loose are loosed but also what we who are wronged doe bind or loose the same shal be bound or loosed where by Priests he meaneth those whom before he called the Prelates of the Church Erasmus maketh this Paraphrase If the offender be so vntractable that he will be moued neither with shame nor feare of iudgement bring the matter to the congregation that either he maybe reformed by the content of the multitude or by authoritie of them which be rulers ouâ— the multitude But if he be so farre past cure that he will not be corrected neither by secret and brotherly monition neither by the knowledge and consent of two or three neither by the shame of his fault vttered and disclosed neither by the authoritie of the â—hiefe rulers leaue him to his disease My aduersarie therefore to salue his credit had need to bring those from whom he had these testimonies at the second or third hand to depose that Chrysostome Theophylact and Erasmus doe say that Christ speaketh of Lay-Elders Otherwise he will hardly escape the censure of imposture and seeking to seduce the people with glorious shewes To the rest of his witnesses I answere that what new writers being parties in the cause doe testifie without warrant of scripture euidence of reason or testimonie of antiquitie it deserueth no credit The second testimonie Act. 14.23 that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in euery Church therefore Lay-Elders How is this consequence proued because the greeke Scholiast and a few new writers say so But here the disputer for his credite sake must plead that he for his part neuer saw the Greeke Scholiast but receiued this allegation from T. C. else he must be accused either of grosse ignorance or notorious falsification I see not saith T. C. why it may not be referred to Elders meaning Lay-Elders as well as too Bishops meaning Ministers seeing S. Paul there setteth forth how they set a full order in the Church And of that iudgement is the greeke Scholiast which affirmeth that those which followed S. Paul and Barnabas were worthy to be Bishops and that they created of them Elders and Deacons Vnderstanding Oecumenius as if by Bishops he meant ordinarie Ministers and Elders and Deacons their Lay-Elders and Lay-Deacons which were a notable deprauing of Oecumenius his meaning if he were so to be translated But his words being these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who haue but small skill in greeke doe know that the article of the plurall number with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth most vsually signifie no more then the proper name alone so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all in one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is vsed by Oecumenius in the very next sentence following as you shall heare Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie they were worthy but they had the dignitie or honour or if they had beene worthy to haue beene Bishops Paul and Barnabas had small reason in that want of sufficient Ministers to make them lay either Elders or Deacons So that Oecumenius his words are thus to be translated it is to be noted that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops for that they ordained by imposition of hands not onely Deacons but also Presbyters Note also saith hee that in Miletum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barnabas and Paul were by imposition of hands ordained but I found another coppie which for Miletum hath Antioch and that is more probable His meaning is that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas were ordained Bishops Act. 13.2 And that Oecumenius by Presbyters vnderstood Ministers or Teachers it is apparant by his words going before for demanding why the Apostles made not Presbyters in Cyprus and Samaria but in these places mentioned Act. 14. he answereth those were neare to Ierusalem and the apostles and in Antioch the word preuailed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in these places they needed much exhortation chiefly those of the gentiles needed much teaching The third testimonie Iam. 5.14 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray ouer him annointing him with oile in the name of the Lord. Therefore there were Lay-Elders in S. Iames time This consequence is proued because Caluin and foure other new writers say so The fourth Rom. 12.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that ruleth in diligence this Ruler must needs be the Lay-Elder For besides certaine new writers Ambrose saith so But Ambrose vnderstandeth the words generally of any Ruler expounding him that ruleth to be eum qui curam vt praesit fratribus suscipit him that vndertaketh the care to rule his brethren The fifth 1. Cor. 12.28 God hath appointed in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernements these gouernements must needs be of Lay-Elders for besides some new writers Ambrose Ierome Theodoret doe testifie so much Ambrose his words be these sunt gubernatores gui spiritualib retinaculis hominibus documento sunt there are also gouernours who with spirituall reines doe nurture men Ierome qui sciunt singulos prout apti sunt gubernare who know to gouerne euery one according as they are apt Theodoret hereby he signified the administrations or gouernements of the Church These be all the places of scripture which this great striker durst make shew of Whereof not any one can be said with any shew of probabilitie to speake one word for Lay-Elders If Lay-Elders were first proued by other arguments or presupposed the best argument that could out of these places be raised were from the Genus to the species affirmatiue as if they should say the scriptures speake of gouernours therefore of Lay-Elders of Presbyters therefore of onely gouerning Presbyters But seeing they neuer were nor euer will be proued by other arguments the reason taken from these places is from the Genus to a fancied and platonicall Idea or poeticall species and that affirmatiuè If I should say it is a bird therefore a Swanne it
were but a simple argument but if thus it is a Bird therefore a blacke Swanne it were too ridiculous Such are the arguments of this disputer for if he should say the holy Ghost speaketh in three of these places of gouernours therefore of Presbyters it were a weake argument but when he inferreth therefore Lay-presbyters who were more rare then blacke Swannes it is very ridiculous If the worst argument in my Sermon euen when he made the worst of it had concluded no better then the best of these he would neuer haue done insulting and triumphing But I cannot blame him they be the best proofes his cause can afford they are the testimonies which the principall patrones of the Presbyterie doe vse to alledge But you will say this is a strange kind of arguing to proceed from men who allow no office in the Church but what hath expresse and direct warrant in the scriptures this is the meaning of the scriptures because some new diuines doe thinke so We are wont to hold that scripture is to be expouÌ„ded by scripture as by conference of other paralell scriptures or by inference out of the context it selfe diduced by some artificiall argument or if these faile especially in such places as concerne matters of storie or fact as for example whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church we fly to the expositions of the Fathers testimonie of antiquitie But what would you haue a man doe these proofes and testimonies fayling the best glosse they can set vpon their cause and the fairest excuse for themselues is that some other new writers in matters of substance for the most part Orthodoxall haue beene partly of their minde and yet if we consider that two or three principall men hauing vpon necessitie deuised the Presbyterie to supply the roome of the Bishop before eiected and afterwards being growne into liking with their owne deuise because a few places of the scriptures and Fathers especially 1. Tim. 5.17 and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1 seemed to fauour the same commended it to others as warranted by scriptures and Fathers others taking it vpon their word without sufficient tryall haue yeelded their consent and by their writings commended the same to posteritie I say if these things be considered we haue no great reason much to esteeme the testimonies either of the principall Authors or of the pedarie fautors of the Presbyterian discipline being all parties in the cause But now if I should proue vnto you that as this disputer abused the names of so many of the Fathers as he hath named so also hath wronged some of the new writers assuredly if he be not as shamelesse as he is namelesse his face which now he hideth he will neuer dare to shew For first where he produceth D. Whitakers as a witnesse that Christ when he said tell the Church meant Lay-Elders it is euident to any that readeth him that by Ecclesia in that place he vnderstandeth the Church represented in a Councell whether prouinciall which he sheweth to be aboue a Bishop or generall which he proueth to be aboue the Pope For if a Bishop or the Pope should offend the course which our Sauiour prescribeth to Peter himselfe and the rest of his Apostles should be taken First by priuate admonition Secondly before two or three witnesses and thirdly if these faile by telling the Church For the second place he alleageth D. Fulke who doth not once mention Lay-Elders nor meane them in that place But our translation being accused by the Rhemists for that where we should say Priests we say Elders D. Fulke doth not deny but that Priests or Ministers are there meant by Elders whom he could be content should be called Priests as Priests is the English of Presbyters and wisheth that the sacrificers of the law had neuer beene called by that name but that it had beene reserued if I vnderstand him to signifie the Ministers of the Gospell There is no question therefore betweene them whether Lay-Elders be there meant but whether the Ministers who are there meant by the name Presbyteri whom the Papists would haue translated Priests may not also be called Elders Aretius though he holdeth the distinction of Elders and so is a partie in the cause notwithstanding by Presbyters Act. 14 23. he vnderstandeth Ministers onely Ministrâ—s ordinat per singulas Ecclesias expende hic quid sint Presbyteri nimirum ministri certis Ecclesiis deputati vnde duplex fuit primitiuae Ecclesiae genus Presbyterorum vnum quod Ecclesiae praer at docendo quales isti hic sunt c. For the third he abuseth againe the testimonie of D. Fulke who as in the former place by Presbyteros vnderstandeth Priests or Ministers And as the Rhemists blamed after the same manner our translation for saying Elders and not Priests he answereth as before And whereas they obiect that our Elders be not such as the Apostle Iames requireth to be sent for as being not deputed specially to publike praying or administration of the Sacraments he answereth that although in some Churches there be some Elders appointed only to gouerne yet is there no Church in which there be no Elders appointed specially to publicke prayers and administration of Sacraments But admitting that the Ministers of our Church be such as the Apostle speaketh of you demaund why we translate them not Ministers I answere saith he because the word signifieth Elders not Ministers yet we contend not for the terme nor refuse the name Priest when it signifieth the same whom the Apostle calleth Presbyterum but when by abuse of Papists it is taken to signifie a sacrificer In the second and fift he quoteth D. Nâ—well who indeed speaketh of certaine Seniors which with the Pastor that is the Bishop were to exercise the discipline of the Church but whether they were chosen out of the Clergie or laitie he sheweth not by the places which he quoteth for the proofe of them diuerse whereof euen in the iudgement of Caluin are to be vnderstood of Ministers he may seeme to meane Seniors of the Clergie In the fourth and fifth he abuseth the testimonie of Th. Morton not the learned and iudicious Deane of Winchester but another old acquaintance of mine who in Rom. 12.8 1. Cor. 12.28 by gouernours vnderstandeth those who haue the gouernement of the Church These may suffice for a taste of his good dealing with new writers especially our owne countrey men the rest let examine them who either haue the bookes or thinke it worth their paines CHAP. X. Containing an answere to the same testimonies and some other proofes as they are vrged by other disciplinarians THus much might suffice to haue answered his allegations out of the scriptures were it not that some perhaps will imagine that these places might be better vrged For their satisfaction therefore I will take vpon me briefly yet fully to answere these and some other of
publican that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided shunned hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance And least any man should lightly esteeme the iudgement of the Church that is of such spirituall gouernors as haue authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders Verily I say vnto you saith our Sauiour speaking to his Apostles and in them to all their successors to whom the keyes of heauen are committed Whatsoeuer you for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Neither thinke when I mentioned the church I meant a great assembly only or the whole congregation for I say vnto you that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name I am there in the middes of them therfore if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God as namely pardon for the penitent sinner it shall be graunted vnto you If against this exposition it shal be obiected that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudiciall to Magistrates I answere offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions Of offences some are open notorious some are secrete priuate Some againe are grieuous and capital crimes which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished other be offēces not so hainous or enormous but they may be concealed and pardoned where is hope of amendment For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course but for the priuate and lesse offences Againe offenders are either in the iudgment of charity our brethren in Christ or the sonnes of Belial For the latter we may take the ciuile course of Iustice for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie that wee may winne our brother vnto Christ or recouer him beeing fallen which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth By Church therefore or assemblie our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto consisting for the most part of Lay-elders Not the former for Christ speaketh of such as should meet in his name to whō he promiseth what they bind vpon earth shal be bound in heauē neither are we to think that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes as Caluin also saith It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza not only to imagine that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place Or if that were true how should this direction belong to vs seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished and their whole policie abrogated Not the latter for our Sauiour by Church vnderstandeth such as should haue power to bind loose sinnes as appeareth by the words following Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners of retaining and remitting sinnes our Sauiour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments as nothing more Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate as they speake of mixed of the Priests and Leuites with the Elders of the people as I am now to shew in answering the assumption For if this be true that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth 18.17 Caluin saith that the Iewes after their returne from captiuitie had a chosen counsell to which was cōmitted the censure of doctrine manners which they called Sinhedrin or Sanedrin in Greek Synedrion T.C. holdeth that the Synedrion was not then first instituted but restored which seemeth to be the truth Howbeit his reason as almost all the rest is but a meere colour For it would follow saith he that the Priests other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench had then their first institution when it is plaine that the Priests and Leuiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion and so might haue cōtinued their functiō though the Sanedrin had neuer bin Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses the instauratiō therof whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod 4. With his Elders therefore as being the eldest in conceit I will beginne This order of Eldership saith hee was taken from the gouernement of the people of God before and vnder the Law Before the Law the Elders which Moses assembled Exod 4. were Ecclesiasticall officers for it is not likely that vnder such a Tyrant they should haue Magistrates of their owne I answere briefly the state of the Hebrews if you respect the whole people was neither a settled Church nor established common-wealth But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families they were ruled by the Elders of the people which were the heads of the Families who as alwayes from the beginning so at that time vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui to the priestly function were both priests and magistrates to their seuerall kinreds and Families Wherefore let them who will needes haue these to be Lay-Elders tell vs who were then the priests whome these Elders did assist Vnder the Law he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house 2. King 6. and in Ezekiels house Ezek 8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could haue the ciuill Gouernors to consult with is it not more vnlike that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell vnder Achab and Iehoram or in Mesopotamia whether Ezekiell and those Elders of Iuda were transported who could neuer be found vnder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem Againe hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra and on the left Nehem 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites and from the people From the people because they stood by Ezra From the teaching Leuites because he speaketh of them after Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders as though either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra or that these might not haue beene priests or that all the Leuites were teachers or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those which are mentioned then and there to haue taught the people Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause must needs thinke this cause to be very badde which he was not able to make good by better arguments then those most vnlikely likely-hoods Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses which should be held both in Ierusalem the
place which he should choose either ordained by Moses or restored by Iosaphat or renewed by the Iewes after their captiuitie Wherefore our disciplinarians might as well desire to haue a parliament or high counsell of state in euery parish as such a consistorie as this was To conclude this place Though it were true that the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of Priests and Elders of the people yet it cannot be proued that in this place of Mathew Christ alluded to it and much lesse that he ordained the like in his Church But now I haue shewed that the Iewes had no such Ecclesiasticall senate and therefore out of this place nothing can with any shew of probabilitie be concluded for Lay-Elders The second testimonie T. C. vrgeth thus Diuerse Ministers were not ordained in euery congregation Diuerse Elders were ordained in euery congregation therefore there were Elders which were not Ministers The proposition he proueth because it was not like that they had diuerse Ministers for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached vnto I distinguish of the word congregation which T. C. vseth ambiguously for in the assumption it signifieth the Church of a whole citie in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one and so it is true that diuerse Presbyters were placed in euery Church In the proposition as appeareth by the prosyllogisme it signifieth euery particular congregation which T. C. seemeth to acknowledge to haue beene diuerse in euery citie or Church contrarie to our refuter as we shall heare in the second booke And in this sense it may be true that not euery congregation had diuerse Presbyters as with vs euery citie or Church hath diuerse Presbyters yet euery congregation hath not I say then what Paul required Titus to doe in Creet the same he and Barnabas performed in these countries that is they ordained Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in euery citie or Church which Presbyters were also such as the Apostle Tit. 1. calleth Bishops and requireth in them abilitie to preach And although in euery citie or Church there were diuerse of them yet not diuerse for euery meeting There is no necessitie therefore nor yet probabilitie that by Presbyters in this place we should vnderstand any but Ministers contrarie to the perpetuall vse of the word Neither can any interpreter be alleaged old or new that is not a partie which doth vnderstand the word of Lay-Elders Zanchius though a fauourer of the Presbyterie reckoneth this place among those wherin Ministers of the word are called Presbyters Aretius though he acknowledgeth the distinction of Presbyters into two sorts yet he confesseth this place is as you heard before to be vnderstood of Ministers Caluin himselfe the principall Patrone of the Eldership vnderstandeth by Presbyters in this place Ministers and Preachers Prebyteros his vocari intâ—rpretor quibus iniunctum erat docendi munus Presbyters here I interprete those to be called to whom the office of teaching was enioyned Yea but saith T. C. though Caluin say Ministers here be called Presbyters yet he doth not say that they onely yea he must be vnderstood as implying Lay-Elders vnder Presbyters seeing he auoucheth the place of Titus which to vs seemeth all one with Act. 14 for the establishment of these Elders and quoteth instit lib. 4. c. 3. s. 8. where he writeth thus Whereas I called those who gouerne the Churches indifferently Bishops Presbyters Pastors Ministers I did according to the vse of the scripture which confoundeth these words for whosoeuer exercise the ministerie of the word it giueth the title of Bishops to them So where Paul commandeth Titus to ordaine Presbyters in euery citie he straightwaies addeth for a Bishop must be vnreproueable Tit. 1.5.7 so Phil. 1.1 Act. 20.17.28 here now it is to be obserued that hitherto we haue reckoned those officers onely which consist in the ministerie of the word You see then how Caluin in his institutions vrged this place in the Epistle to Titus for Lay-Elders Wil you also heare his iudgment in his coÌ„mentarie vpon the place although we gather saith he out of the 1. Tim 5 that there were two sorts of Presbyters yet the context here will straightwaies shew that no other then Doctors are here vnderstood that is who were ordained to teach becà use by and by he will call them Bishops But for all this T.C. seeth not why it may not be referred to Elders meaning Lay-Elders as well as too BB meaning Ministers But say I you must see that Lay-Elders not onely may but must necessarily be vnderstood in this place or else it is absurdly alleaged by you to proue them Yes he and the Author of the counter poison will proue that they are meant here for the word Elders is set downe generally signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers therefore Paul and Barnabas ordained Lay-Elders as well as Ministers To the consequence I first answere that if Elders were a generall name comprising more sorts then one and if Luke had said that they ordained all sorts of Elders this consequence would haue held for from the Genus vniuersally taken we may affirmatiuely conclude the speciall sorts But Luke not speaking so it is sufficient for the truth of the historie if they ordained any sort of Elders Now it is confessed of all that they ordained Ministers therefore though Elders were the Genus yet this were a very weake argument Yea but saith T.C. S. Luke there setteth forth how they set a full order in the Church and his purpose was saith another to declare how the Apostles brought the Churches to a perfect and full order of Church gouernement Whereunto I answere first that the Church might haue a perfect and full order of gouernement without them And secondly that Lukes meaning was not to signifie that they brought those Churches to a full and perfect order of gouernement at their first conuersion which was not to be expected but that now they began to establish Churches placing among them Presbyters or Ministers as being necessarie for the very being of visible Churches without mention I say not of Bishops who notwithstanding were added before they were brought to the full and perfect order of gouernemeÌ„t but euen of Deacons The consequence therefore were naught though the antecedent were true that is though Presbyter were the Genus or generall word signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers for it were onely an argument from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely But the antecedent I haue before proued to be most false there being not any testimonie to be produced out of scriptures Counsels Fathers or histories of the Church where Presbyter signifieth an Ecclesiasticall function in the Church of Christ doth signifie any other but a Minister of the word And therefore it is absurd to imagine that Luke Act. 14. doth by Presbyters meane any other then Ministers
The third testimonie I find not vrged any where but in the counterpoison Where it is said that Iames willing them when they be weake to send for the Elders of the Church thereby plainely declareth that the Church ought not onely to haue a pastor and a doctor whose chiefe attendance must be on reading exhortation and doctrine but also many who ought alwaies to be readie at an instant calling of diuerse and many at once that none in that necessarie worke be neglected It followeth thereby that besides them there ought to be such other Elders as may admonish the vnruly comfort the weake minded and be patient towards all If all this were granted as it is propounded it would not follow thereupon that therefore there should be any Lay-Elders but many Ministers in euery Church for such were those in the place cited and it is the duetie of those whom Iames would haue sent for to attend vnto reading doctrine and exhortation But his meaning no doubt was this There ought to be many Elders in euery Church therefore some Lay-Elders The consequence he taketh for granted the antecedent he proueth thus There were many Elders in euery Church in S. Iames time therefore there ought to be many now For answere to his antecedent and proofe thereof we are to distinguish of the word Church For if thereby he meane the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning there were and are many Presbyters in euery Church but if thereby he meane euery seuerall congregation meeting or assembly of Christians there neither are nor were many Presbyters appointed to euery such Church In S. Iames time though in each Church there were diuerse assemblies of Christians meeting as they could yet were not parishes distinguished nor Presbyters seuerally and certainely allotted to them but to the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning there was one Bishop and many Presbyters prouided But when parishes were distinguished to each of them seuerally a Presbyter was assigned out of the Clergy or Presbyterie of the citie the residue of the Presbyters remaining with the Bishop who as before the diuision of parishes retained still the charge of the whole Diocesse as I will God willing shew in the next booke Wherefore though in S. Iames time before the diuision of parishes there were in euery Church that is Diocesse many Presbyters yet it doth not follow that therefore in euery parish there should be diuerse Presbyters But his consequence is especially to be insisted vpon for though there were in each Church many Presbyters as at Ephesus Act. 20. and at Ierusalem where Iames himselfe was Bishop Act. 15. 21. of which number Iames would haue the weake to send for some yet in that number there was not one who was not a Minister Neither can any sound reason be alleaged why we should conceiue these Presbyters of whom Iames speaketh to haue beene any other then Ministers First the title which is giuen them viz Presbyters of the Church as Act. 20.17 is peculiar to Ministers not one instance to be giuen to the contrarie Secondly the function for the performance wherof they were to visit the sicke chiefely if not onely pertaining to Ministers and that was not onely to pray ouer the partie and that as it seemeth by the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with imposition of hands but also to annoint him with the oile in the name of the Lord that by the oile as an outward though temporarie Sacrament annexed to the temporarie gift of healing granted for a time not onely to the Apostles but also to their successors in the ministerie of the word the sicke might be restored to health and by prayer ioyned with imposition of hands the sinnes of the partie might be remitted and so the cause of the sicknes be remoued Wherefore I make no question but the speach of Saint Iames is to be vnderstoode according to the perpetuall vse of the word the generall interpretation of all writers both old and new excepting not all that be parties in the cause and the generall and continuall practise of the Church expounding him as if he had said let him call for the Ministers c. The fourth testimonie is thus vrged If the Apostle setting downe the ordinary members of Christ his Church which differ in their proper action doe set downe the Elder to be ouer the people with diligence and not to be occupied in the ministerie of the word either by exhortation or doctrine but to admonish them and rule them then the onely-gouerning Elders were ordained by the Apostles but the first say they is manifest Rom. 12.6.7.8 therefore the second But the first say I is so farre from being manifest that it cannot so much as obscurely be gathered out of the text It is true the Apostle speaketh of the members of the body of Christ and of the diuerse gifts bestowed vpon them which the Apostle exhorteth euery one knowing his proportion or measure in all humilitie and modestie to imploy to the common good of the whole body But you must vnderstand First that the members of Christ are not onely officers in the state Ecclesiasticall but all Christians whatsoeuer as well in the body politicke as Ecclesiasticke whether publicke or priuate Secondly that the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices which are not coincident to the same persons but of the diuerse gifts and graces of Gods spirit for so he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c hauing diuerse gifts according to the grace which is giuen vnto vs of which all or most may concurre in the same subiect As for example a good and faithfull Minister hath as a Minister First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift of expounding the scriptures and of prayer Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a function to Minister and serue God in the edification of the church Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift of Teaching 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift of Exhortation 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift of gouernment and as a good Christian. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace to distribute and to communicate to to the necessities of his bretheren in simplicitie and cheerefulnes 3. That these gifts are not proper to Ecclesiasticall persons but common to others But if the Apostle had here propounded distinct offices then might 7. be distinguished and those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in-compatible in the same person But neither are there according to these branches 7. distinct offices And besides they are or may be all or diuers of them coincident to the same person As for Lay-Elders they are neither particular lie expressed nor in the generall implyed The speech is generall hee that gouerneth in diligence appartaining to all that haue authoritie not onely in the church but also in the family or common-wealth Indeed if it were presupposed which will neuer be proued by them
nor graunted by vs that among gouernours Lay-Elders had a place in the primitiue church then this generall might particularly be applyed to them after this manner all gouernours ought to be diligent therfore they But seeing there were none such for men to argue from the generall to a fained speciall and that affirmatiuè in this manner the Apostle speaketh of gouernours therefore of Lay-Elders It is an argument like all the rest not worth the answering Yea but the disputer alleageth Caluin who in his institutions affirmeth that this place cannot bee otherwise vnderstood I would be loath to contest with Caluin whose name is reuerend and whose memorie is blessed Neuertheles it is euident by that which hath bene said that it may and ought otherwise to be expounded Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth else-where that howsoeuer this place doe seeme especially to be vnderstood of Ecclesiasticall Gouernours or Seniors tamen dubium non est quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet Yet it is not to bee doubted but that the Apostle doth commend vnto vs all kindes of iust gouernement And againe although properly he call the Church-Gouernors and namely the Seniors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notwithstanding what he saith of them may vniuersally be extended to gouernements of all sorts By Caluins owne confession therfore the words may generally be vnderstood And if they may then also they must For who shall dare without good warrant to restraine the generall sence of the holy Ghost to one onely particular Especially that being but a counterfeit as if the Apostle when he saith hee that gouerneth in diligence had said let the Lay or only gouerning Elders be diligeÌ„t in their office Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Gouernour as might neither teach nor exhort and therefore beeing neither Pastor nor Doctor it must needes be the only gouerning Elder Of this Enthymâ—me both the antecedent is false and the consequence vnsound For if the Apostle speake of such a Gouernour as might not teach nor exhort then neither distribute nor shew mercie and by the same reason the teacher and exhorter of whome hee spake before may not gouerne But as I said the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices but of diuerse gifts which manie times concurre in the same person So that as hee that teacheth and exhorteth may also gouerne and distribute so hee that gouerneth as the Pastor may teach and exhort and not onely hee but the Father is to teach and exhort his children the maister his familie yea priuate Christians are to instruct and exhort one another Neither doth it follow if he which gouerneth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor that straightwaies he should be an onely gouerning Elder For husbands parents maisters and magistrates maisters of Colleges and hospitalls are gouernors though neither Doctors nor Pastors and yet are they no Ecclesiasticall Lay-Elders To conclude D. Fulke vnderstaÌ„deth this place chiefly of Bishops whom he supposeth here to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Heb 13.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The fifth and last testimonie is thus inforced by them If God hath set in his Church Gouernours distinct from the Ministers of the Word then hath he ordained Lay or onely gouerning Elders But the first is testified by the Apostle 1. Cor. 12.28 therefore God hath ordained lay or onely gouerning Elders In this Syllogisme no part is sound for first the consequence of the proposition is naught for by Church as it is taken in the assumption citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ and by the members of his body all Christians among whom God hath established degrees of superiors to gouerne and inferiors to obey in all societies as well in the family coÌ„monwealth as in the Ecclesiasticall state Secondly the assumption is false for although it be true that in Christs body there are gouernours Occonomicall politicall distinct from the Ministers yet Paul doth not in this place testifie that Christ hath set in his Church gouernours distinct from the Ministers and much lesse doth he testifie that in the Church that is the state Ecclesiasticall he hath ordained gouernours which are not Ministers Nay which is more the Apostle doth not once mention gouernours in this text for it is the fault of the translation for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is helpes and gouernements to read helpers and gouernours it being the purpose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13 and 14. chapters to discourse of the diuerse gifts wherewith God doth adorne the membes of his Church in this context in the midsts of other gifts which are expressed in the abstract he placeth these two for so he saith powers gifts of healing helpes gouernemeÌ„ts kindes of tongues Now it is no better reasoÌ„ to make two distinct offices of helpers and gouernours out of these words then to raise three others out of the other three powers gifts of healing and kinds of tongues But it were ridiculous to make three distinct offices of these three so is it of the other And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts and not as offices why should we not so conceiue of helpings and gouernings that is to say the gift of helping and gouerning Yea I say further that although in the beginning of the verse the Apostle doth reckon three offices Apostles Prophets Teachers yet his purpose was not exactly to distinguish Ecclesiasticall functions but to enumerate the diuerse gifts of Gods spirit wherwith the members of Christs bodie are adorned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the common good of the bodie Some being honoured with the gift of the Apostleship some with the gift of Prophecie some with the gift of teaching some with the gift of working miracles some with the gift of healing diseases some with the gift of helping and relieuing those that be distressed as Chrysostome expoundeth it and as the word is vsed Act 20. some with the gift of gouerning some with the gift of tongues For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distinguish the Functions and Offices of the Church then from this Text should eight distinct offices bee collected neither should these gifts haue bene coincident into the same persons so that teachers might not gouerne and gouernours might not teach c. whereas contrariwise it is euident that the Apostles had all these gifts as Chrysostome also saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers had diuers of them c. It is plaine therefore that the Apostle did not distinguish the offices of the Church but orderlie recount the gifts and graces wherewith the Lord doth beautifie diuers members of the Church And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues and despised others the Apostle sheweth that among all these gifts which hee reckoneth that of tongues deserueth the last place And therfore exhorteth theÌ„ to be zealous of
it may bee demanded what is truly and properly a Church vpon earth Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word that euery company of men professing the true faith of Christ is both truly a Church and also a true Church So is the whole company of the faithfull vpon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ the piller and ground of truth So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to bee termed by the name of a Church For euen as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion were one Church though containing verie many particular Congregations or Synagogues which also were so many Churches euen so the whole people of England professing through Gods mercy the true Catholike and Apostolicke faith is to bee called the Church of England For whereas some alleage that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high Priest who was a figure and therefore ceased it is euident that it was one Church because it was one people or commonwealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high Priest and after there were through corruption more then one Neither was the high Priest in respect of his preeminence and gouernment ouer the priests and people a type of Christ for then had he as well as Melchisedeck been a type of Christs gouernment and kingly office as well as of his priesthood and consequently Christ might haue bin a priest of the order of Aaron as well as of Melchisedeck but in respect of his sacrifice for the whole people and intercession for them and his entrance alone within the sanctuary bearing the names of the twelue Tribes for Christs gouernment appertaineth to his kingdome and not to his priesthood Likewise the Christian people of any Citie and Country adioyning whether that which wee call a prouince or diocesse though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardes Philadelphia c. Jn like manner the Christian people of one Towne or Village containing but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And to conclude the company of faithfull in one familie doe deserue the name of a Church as hath bin shewed Indeed that any particular Chruch of a whole Nation Citie and Country Towne Parish or family family I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but as an entire Church or parish by itselfe may bee accounted a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth the ministery of the word and sacraments and eutaxy or some good order of gouernment Not that all gouernours are to be placed in euery society or Church but that the effect and benefit of the gouernment is to redound to euery particular For as well might an high Councell of State or Parliament such as was the synedrion of the Iewes which was but one for the whole Nation be required in euery Citie and a Maior and Aldermen such as be in London and other chiefe Cities in euery village as a Bishop and Presbytery in euery parish All which J haue the rather noted because some hauing first strongly conceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish nor lawfull church-officers but parishionall haue haled the places of Scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit and thereupon as their chiefe foundation haue built their newfound parish discipline Whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleaged out of the Scriptures Indeed at the very first conuersion of Cities the whole number of the people conuerted being sometimes not much greater then the number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small congregation But those Churches were in constituting they were not fully constituted vntill their number being increased they had their Bishoppe or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons without which Ignatius saith there was no Church meaning no accomplished or fully constituted Church Neither was the Bishop and the Presbytery which at the first was placed in any Citie prouided onely for that set number which was already conuerted but they were there placed for the conuersion of the whole Citie and country thereto belonging their ministery being like to the leuen put into three pecks of meale which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe Neither was it meant that the whole number of Christians of each Citie and territory being much increased should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place but that vpon the multiplication of Christians diuision should be made of the whole Church into diuers particular congregations which after happened in all Churches accordingly But vpon this diuision there was not to euery seuerall congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery but only seuerall Presbyters assigned singuli singulis some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop The Bishop himselfe remaining as it was first intended and as the Church of God euery where throughout the world expounded that intent by their practise the Pastor or Superintendent of the whole Citie and country adioyning Neither are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to shew that there were or ought to haue been after the diuision of parishes and assignement of seuerall Presbyters vnto them any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocesse But of this more hereafter In the meane time hauing shewed that the vse of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not sauour their conceit who imagine there is no true Church but a parish the word signifying according to the vsuall phrase of the holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small I am now to declare the vse of the word Ecclesia paroecia dioecesis which are commonly translated Church parish diocesse in antient Writers Where I am to note that setting aside the general significatiō of the word Ecclesia signifying either the whole Church in general or the two maine parts of it in heauen and earth in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not vsed as also the largest signification of dioecesis containing the whole circuit of a patriarchall and archiepiscopall iurisdiction as the diocesse of the Patriarch of Alexandria contained all Egypt Libya and Pentapolis the diocesse of Antioch the East Countries c. In which sense the word paroecia is not vsed setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis otherwise these three words ecclesia paroecia and dioecesis are for the most part vsed as words of the same signification For as in the singular number commonly each of them doth signifie a diocesse excepting wherein the distribution of the diocesse paroecia is opposed
because hee calleth great Churches after the diuision of them into many parishes not onely in the Country but euen in the Cities by the name of Paroecia To which purpose let vs conferre a few places in Eusebius concerning the Church of Alexandria whereby his meaning when he speaketh of this argument wil easily appeare For hauing said lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of AlexaÌ„dria the rest of Aegypt he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Bishoprick of the paroecia or Churches there in Alexandria and Aegypt Demetrius had lately receiued In the eight chapter he saith that Demetrius was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president or Bishop of the paroecia that is the Church there For so he explaneth himself chap. 26. calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans and what he meaneth by that speech he sheweth chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one hee vseth these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee taketh vpon him the Bishopricke or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria So that when he saith Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or church his meaning is all one as if hee had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of such a Bishopricke as contained many Churches And in the same sense he speaketh though in the plurall number when hee mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the paroeciae or churches of Pontus the churches of Asia the paroecia of the holy catholike church Thus then wee see that in antient writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and paroecia corruptly parochia in Latine is vsually taken for the whole diocesse consisting of many parishes when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge § 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishoprick as wheÌ„ the whole diocesse is diuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the city or chiefe seate or see of the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest of the diocesse in the countrie or countries thereto belonging For manifestation whereof those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Bishops of euery naÌ„tion it behoueth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them and to esteeme him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head or chief and to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their owne charge or iurisdiction without his consent and that euery one doe deale in those things alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belong to his owne Paroecia that is see or Church the couÌ„â—ries which be subiect onto it Neither may he that is the Metropolitan do any thing without the consent of all So shall there bee concorde and God shall bee glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost Which canon is renued and explained in the councill of Antioch the canons whereof were part of the ancient code or book of canons receiued in the ancient church recited some of them in the great councell of Chalcedon and ratified all of them in the generall councell of Constantinople held in Trullo the Emperours Palace The canon is this It behooueth the BB of euery Prouince to acknowledge the Metropolitane B. and that he taketh vpoÌ„ him the cure of the whole Prouince because there is a concourse of all men who haue businesse from all places vnto the Metropolis on mother Citie Wherefore it hath beene thought good or decreed that he should excell in honour and that without him the rest of the Bishops should doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient receiued Canon of our Fathers meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles which it reciteth as you see word for word but those things alone which concerne his owne Paâ—oecia that is his owne See or Citie and the Countries which be vnder it For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administer according to the feare of God wherewith he is endued and hath a prouident care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole region or countrey which is vnder his Citie vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Paroecia and Citie indifferently so that hee may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beyond his bounds hee may doe nothing without the Bishop of the Mother Citie neither may he without â—he consent of the rest Then which testimonies nothing can bee alleged more pregnant either for the signification of the word or for the proofe of our assertion that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes but dioceses Sometimes indeede the word Paroecia doth signifie that which we call a parish but then either it is vsed with such reference to a Bishop as it is plainely noted to bee but one among many belonging to his charge and is commonly vttered in the plurall number or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge To which purpose consider these testimonies The Councell of Carthage which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians speaketh as of the Bishop of the diocesse so of a Presbyter qui Parochiae praeest who is set ouer a parish The Councell of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs per parochias Innocentius the first writing to Florentius a Bishop blameth him for vsurping a parish which belonged to the diocesse of Vrsus another Bishop And elsewhere he speaketh â—â— As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis I hope I shall not neede to prooue that it also signifieth a diocesse Neither do I greatlie neede to shew that in the signification of a diocesse it is giuen to Bishops seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the varietie of the persons to whom it is attributed in the sense of a diocesse as we tearme it it is properly ascribed to Bishops The word indeede seemeth generally to signifie the circuit of any mans charge or administration who hath gouernment in the Church For as there is Ecclesia a Church of a Patriarch and of a Metropolitan of a Bishop and of a Presbyter so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis of a Patriarch which we may call a Patriarchall diocesse of an Archbishop which we call a Prouince of a Bishop which we call a Diocesse and of a Presbyter which we call a Parish For the two first these few examples may suffice The Emperour Iustinian appointeth that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the
the Bishop in euery diocesse had for terme of life A few testimonies therfore shal suffice in this place In the Church of Rome there were many not onely Presbyters besides the one onely lawfull Bishop but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times whereunto Presbyters were assigned seuerally the Bishop being the Superintendent ouer them all About the yeere 250. Cornelius being chosen Bishop of Rome Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians or Catharists but procureâ—â— three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie to ordaine him Bâ—shop of Rome hauing also inueigled by his subtilties certaine famous men that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius Of this fact what was the iudgement of Cyprian of Cornelius and other Bâ—shops and finally of the Confessours themselues you shall in few words heare For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers as to other chiefe Bâ—shops so to Carthage to procure the approbation of Cyprian hee disswadeth them from the schisme telling them that a Bâ—shop being ordained and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow Bâ—shops and of the people another may not by any meanes be ordained And writing to some of those Confessours hee signifieth his great griefe because he vnderstood that they contrary to the order of the Church contrary to the law of the Gospell contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline had thought it meet that another B. should be made that is to say which is neither right nor lawfull to bee done that another Church should be erected the members of Christ dismembred c. Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus and writing of these matters to Fabius the B. of Antioch he saith this Patron of the Gospell forsooth meaning Nouatian did not know that in a Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant but that there are 46. Presbyters and 108. more of the Clergie The Confessors afterwards acknowledging their fault among other things in their submission confesse that as there is but one God and one Lord so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop Now whereas Cornelius testifieth that there were besides the Bishop who ought to be but one 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome and 108. others of the Clergie if any man notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers that there were diuers Churches in Rome whereunto seuerall Presbyters were assigned will needes hold that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation I cannot let him from being so absurd Howbeit this is certaine that in the next age in Optatus his time when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches whereunto seuerall Presbyters were deputed there remained still but one only Bishop The like is to be said of Alexandria wherein as Epiphanius testifieth were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches all which at least so many as were Catholike were vnder one Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ouer them seuerally are Presbyters placed for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabitants who might each of them bee neere vnto their owne Church c. Now saith Epiphanius besides the Church called Caesaria which was burnt in Iulians time and reedified by Athanasius there are many others as the Church of Dionysius of Theonas of Pierius of Serapion of Persaea of Dizya of Mendidius of Amianus of Baucalis and others In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter in another Carpones in another Sarmatas and Arius in another namely that which is called Baucalis The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates affirming that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subiect to the B. of Alexandria committed seuerally to Presbyters as that which is called Baucalis and those which haue their names from S. Dionysius Theonas c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria was by Achilles the B. the predecessour of Alexander set ouer the Church called Baucalis And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times yet is it not to be doubted but that in euery City when the number of Christians was much increased the like diuision of parishes was made vnto which not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appointed there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop as the practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue But now suppose that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish which is most false yet forsomuch as to euery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith a certaine region allotted which belonged to the Bishops charge and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers who seeth nor that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish but a diocesse And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue For Churches containing within their circuit not onely Cities with their Suburbs but also whole Countries subiect to them were dioceses But the Churches subiect to the ancient Bâ—shops in the Primitiue Church contained within their circuit not onely the Cities with their suburbs but also the whole Countries subiect to them Therefore they were dioceses The assumption is prooued by these reasons first The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts the Citie with the suburbs and Country subiect to it For proofe whereof you heard before two most plaine testimonies The former in one of the Canons of the Apostles so called charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia and the Countries which be vnder it The other in the Councell of Antioch which reciting the same words addeth this reason For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is performe the dutie of a Diocesan hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop into the Church of the Citie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nâ—trix Ecclesia and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subiect to the same Bishop that others were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters of the citie or as in some Latine Councels they are called Ciuitatenses others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Countrey Ministers or dioecesanâ— Ministers of the diocesse Secondly
neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
of Cilicia Basil the Great of Cappadocia c. but as hauing one onely Bishop as the nation of the Scythyans hauing many cities townes and castels had all of them by antient custome one only Bishop which was the Bishop of their chiefe citie Tomis CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon prouing that the seuen Churches of Asia c. were Dioceses THese testimonies and proofes hitherto produced are so euident demoÌ„stratiue for dioceses and diocesans as that if no more could be said they are sufficient if not to perswade yet at the least to conuince the gainsaiers But if besides these the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase shall be made to returne vpon him and to driue him and his consorts like the men of Ai vpon these new forces and if the forces which hee bringeth to maintaine his quarell shall bee found to bee of no force and altogether vnable to endure the least encounter then doe I hope that our Disciplinarians themselues will be perswaded to speake no more for the new found parish Discipline But before I enter into this second conflict I am to take a suruey of his forces which I perceiue are diuided into 2. troopes the one encountering with my forces the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline In his encounter or refutations first he findeth fault that I doe not conclude in this second part what he would haue me to conclude according to his forced Analysis For answere whereof let my words be considered Serm. s. 1 pag. 17. I come now to the second which is to shew that in the Apostles time and in the ages following the Churches wherof the Bishops are called Angels or to vse their own words the visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were Dioceses properly and not parishes This is prooued out of this place c. The assertion which I indeuour to prooue in the foure first points of my Sermon was this that the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be This assertion after I had prooued it in the first point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing their Presbyteries in the three next points I indeuour to prooue it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing that they were such as ours are both in respect of the largenesse of their authoritie to which end I shew that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point and themselues Diocesans in the third and in respect of the height of their authoritie and Preheminence that they were superiour in degree to other ministers c. which I prooue in the fourth In this second point therefore if I indeauour to prooue that the primitiue Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries and were indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were not parishes properly but Dioceses nothing could be more directly and pertinently deliuered But the onely thing which I seeke to prooue and maintaine in this part as euery man seeth is that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries c. were not parishes properly but Dioceses And this I first prooue by mine owne arguments and secondly maintaine against theirs My arguments were two The former grounded on the text and is thus to be framed Churches whose circuit contained not onely cities but also countries adioyning were Dioceses The circuit of the 7. churches wherof the 7. Angels were Bishops and whereto other Churches hauing Bishops and Presbyteries indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like contained the cities and Countries adjoyning Therefore the 7. Churches c. were Dioceses The proposition I did not expresse but did presuppose it and take it for granted Likewise that part of the assumption inclosed in the parenthesis affirming that to the 7. Churches all others which had Bishops and Presbyteries and consequently were indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like I also presupposed because it is not to be doubted but that the primitiue Churches indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were of the like nature and constitution And vpon this hypothesis the onely argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause is grounded affirming that it is clear by all learned I know not what that the constitution of the visible Churches was at the first one the same in al places Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoyning it is proued first ioyntly For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries but the first is true for our Sauiour Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and containing within their circuit all the rest Then seuerally The church of Ephesus contained a great and ample citie indeed a Metropolis or mother city and the country subiect to it the church of Smyrna a mother city the country beloÌ„ging to it the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adioyning the church of Laoidcea a mother city and the country vnder it the Church of Pergamus or PergamuÌ„ a famous city which had beene the fear of the Kings of Asia and the countrey belonging to it the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories Now let vs see how our refuâ—er cauilleth with these arguments The first he frameth thus If the churches of Asia to which our sauiour Christ writ were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the couÌ„tries adioyning then they were dioceses properly and not parishes But the churches of Asia were such Therefore they were Dioceses c. Of this syllogisme saith hee the assumption is on the eighteenth page and the conclusion on the seuenteenth The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied To which I answere that the consequence thereof is naught Euen so in your conceit bee almost all that you make for me But â—s your necessity or need such that you caÌ„not frame a syllogisme with hope to answer it vnlesse the propositioÌ„ haue coÌ„sequence which you may deny Let me intreat you that the proposition may be simple as euen now I propounded it theÌ„ deny it if you can Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the coâ—ntries adioyning were Dioceses This proposition will stand vnmooueable when the foâ—â—dation of your discipline wil be raced And so wil the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce which your self propouÌ„d being grouÌ„ded on this propositioÌ„ as the hypothesis therof But why is the consequeÌ„ce naught for it will not be amisse to take a breef view how he playeth with it 2. reasoÌ„s he rendreth 1. Because it presupposeth that al Churches in the world at that time were â—mple and great Cities Which as it appeareth to bee manifestly false to all that are of any vnderstanding so it and some other places in
his booke doe plainely bewray that hee doth not knowe what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexiue proposition The which that hee may know heere after let him dispose his connexiue proposition in an enthymeme and what part of the syllogisme is wanting let him vnderstand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded And if that hypothesis bee false let him know that the consequence is naught But if it bee true as alwaies it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certaine and manifest then is the consequence necessary As for example let his connexiue proposition be disposed in this Eâ—thymeme The 7. churches contained within their circuit not onely the Cities but the countries adioining Therefore the seuen Churches were dioceses That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogisme which is vnderstood viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not onelie cities but the countries adioyning were dioceses Which being a certaine and manifest truth the consequence was necessary But if I should say thus Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countreys adioyning were dioceses Therfore the 7. churches were dioceses in this consequence the assumption were presupposed viz. that the circuit of euerie of the seuen churches contained both the citie and country adioyning Which parts of Syllogismes omitted in Enthymemes if the refuter would adde to make vp a simple syllogisme either in his arguing or analysing hee might spare both himselfe and his aduersary a great deale of superfluous trouble about his consequences Hee must therefore vnlearne that art if he would not be accounted a trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogisme that hee may haue a consequence to cauill with But so farre is the proposition which hee propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those seuen in Asia which it mentioneth to be such That is not presuppoâ—ed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition but the simple proposition which I said was the hypothesis thereof If it be â—aid that what I say of the seuen churches I would haue vnderstood of all other churches and so seeme to presuppose though not in my proposition yet in my argumentation that which the Refuter doth obiect I answere that as in other places I am not to bee blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seuen so neither here for concluding from these seuen to all others For the forme and constitution of all the Primitiue Churches being one and the same as the Refuter confesseth it is euident that what is truely said of other Primitiue churches in respect of their constitution is verified of these seuen And what is verified of these seuen may bee truely affirmed of the rest Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities that was spoken concerning fiue of these in Asia it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery or were as you speake and meane indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Neither can you giue instance in any one to the contrary Yes that they can T. C. hath an instance this disputer also hath one instance pag. 57. and one in this place and in some others And yet all is but this Some church was not a City as for example Cenchrea He might haue said Cenchrea Their reason is thus explicated Cenchreae was not a City Cenchreae was a Church Therefore some Church was not a City J distinguish of the word Church For I denie not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church much more in a village or towne But the question is of such a church as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery and had as they speake the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Such a Church was seated onely in Cities or great towns answerable to Cities And therefore if they meane as they doe or else they might aswell hold their peace that in Cenchreae was such a Church I deny the assumption Cenchreae was subiect to the church of Corinth as al other towns thereabouts and neuer had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her owne Yea but she had a Deacon Suppose that were so what then seuerall Deacons and seuerall Presbyters were placed in parish Churches where was neither B. nor Presbytery nor the power which they speake of of Ecclesiasticall gouernment And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse namely Phoebe Of whom also it may be doubted whether Paul calleth her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ministred to the Church in Cenchreae in respect of an office imposed vpon her to minister to the needy to entertaine strangers on the churches cost or in regard of her voluntary ministring to the faithful there of her own substance For if she were as Bullinger and diuers before him report nobilissima ditissima foemina a most noble and most wealthy woman it is not like that she was a widow maintained of the church but one which like to Mary Ioanna Chusa Susanna mentioned in the Gospell which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministred to Christ of their goods did maintaine and relieue the poore of the Church there and giue entertainement to Christian trauellers of her owne cost In which respect Paul saith of her that she had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a patronesse of many yea of the Apostle himselfe Neither is it likely that a widdow maintained of the church as hauing little or nothing of her owne should haue such busines in Rome or as it is thought at the Emperours Court as that the Apostle should write to the faithfull in Rome to assist her in her affaires But it may be you desire to heare some further reason of his deniall of that consequence you shal heare it For saith he though it were granted that these 7. were great Cities the Countries adioyning â—et there might be diuers others which were small c. See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes What if there were and that is more theÌ„ might be other smal churches as indeed there was none such as we speak of but they were seated in the Cities neither was any so small but if it were indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernment it was of the same constitution with those which were greater What is that to this consequence If these Churches contained ech of them not onely the City but the country adioining then they were not Parishes properly but Dioceses His answere if it bee well weighed is an exception against the conclusion As if hee should say though I would fain wrangle with your propositioÌ„ but caÌ„not for how is it
possible but that if these churches did containe ample Cities with the countries such as we cal shires belonging to them they were not dioceses but parishes although your assumptiō should bee granted namely that these churches contained not only the cities but countries notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against For though these were dioceses yet others might be parishes Such a froward aduersary I haue met withall who in other places accusing mee for not concluding what these churches or the angels of thē were here findeth fault that J cōclude what they were But both his accusations are alike vniust seeing the constitution of them and all others indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment was the same and what is said of the one is to be vnderstood of the other His second reason why the consequence is naught because it doth not appeare neither is it true that euery one of these Churches was diuided into diuers seuerall ordinary asblies all of thē depending vpon some one as the chiefe without power of ecclesiastical gouernment apart in themselus Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion is not the deniall of the conclusion an euidence that the answerer is confounded and is not confusion a manifest signe of one that writeth against his conscience resolued not to bee perswaded though his conscience be conuicted As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion that they were not Dioceses because they were not diuided c. it containeth three branches First that they were not diuided into diuers ordinary assemblies Secondly If they were yet they did not all depend vpon some one as the chiefe Thirdly That they had the power of ecclesiastical gouernement in themselues These assertions would haue beene proued by them that are opponents and will needes perswade vs to admitte of their parish Discipline But I am well assured that they are notable to proue any one of them And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions and to put them to proue them yet because I desire from my soule to satisfie our opposites in this cause as Brethren and because they containe the very grounds of the parish-discipline I will briefly disproue them For as touching the first I haue often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of the churches which were not diuided into parishes to those that bee Would they haue the Church of a City and country belonging to it to bee all but one congregation assēbling ordinarily in one place If they would thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted But though they would the ancient christians would not who when their multitude was increased in all places of the world were diuided into diuers particular assemblies If they would haue them diuided as of necessity they must then let them tell mee whether wee that doe and of necessity must consist of diuers congregations are to follow the example of any ancient church as it was before it was diuided or as it was after it was diuided If the former then are they absurd againe If the latter then haue I that which I desire They will say perhaps that each congregation after the diuision was as that one before Nothing lesse Let them proue that and I will yeeld in the whole cause The one before had a Bishop and a Presbytery as they will confesse which were to attend the whole flocke but after the diuision not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery but one of the Presbyters assigned to it the rest remaining with the Bishop who as before assisted with his Presbytery had a generall superintendencie ouer them as well diuided as vndiuided and was but one in euery diocesse as well after the diuision as before Which is so manifest a truth so confirmed by testimonies before cited so testified by the generall consent and practise of the Christian world not one instance to be giuen to the contrary as that it cannot but conuince the conscience I hope also it will perswade For tell mee I pray you were not parishes distinguished in Constantines time and before as well as now Yes questionlesse Were any other assigned to them seuerally then seuerall Presbyters euen as they be now That also is out of doubt Was it euer or at any time otherwise after the diuision of parishes No without question There remained but one Bishop and one Presbytery for the whole citie and country as well after the diuision as before And that is so euident a truth by that which hath bin said that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer denie it But it will be said that the Churches before they were diuided were not dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuit of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the diuision of parishes as after Euen as the subiect of the leauen is the whole bach in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpe though the loaues bee not yet diuided yea though but a little of the dough bee yet after it is newly put in seasoned If you aske mee how J know this I answere First because the whole Church of God euer since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuit of euery Church hauing from the beginning included not onely the citie but the country thereto belonging Secondly because that diuision of Churches which was three or foure hundred yeeres after Christ with their limits and circuits were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning as before hath been testified by diuers antient Councels Thirdly because it is confessed by Beza and testified by Doctor Rainolds and others that the distribution of the Church did vsually follow the diuision of the common-wealth insomuch that those countries which were subiected to the ciuill iurisdiction exercised in any citie were also subiect ordinarily to the ecclesiasticall and as they were accounted of the same county or prouince in respect of ciuill gouernment so of the same Church or diocesse in regard of spirituall And as the Church followed the ciuill distribution at the beginning so also if there were any new citie erected by the authority of the Emperour it was decreed by the Councell of Constantinople following therein the canon of their forefathers that the order of ecclesiasticall things should follow the ciuill and publike forme Therefore though these Churches had not been diuided into seuerall congregations yet had they each of them been dioceses But now I adde that at the time of writing the Reuelation which was almost an hundeed yeeres after the birth of Christ it is more then probable that they contained diuers congregations For when Paul had continued but two yeeres at Ephesus the holy Ghost restifieth that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare
the Bishop of Samosata to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly calleth himselfe the B. of Caesarâ—a This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes plainly prooueth also that they were not Bishops of any one parish but of all the Churches in the Citie and of the whole diocesse My assertion therefore that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie but the countrey also adioining would according to the true meaning thereof haue beene consuted if hee had beene able and not the words fondlie cauilled with But not contended heere with he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning as if I had said that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Christians Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more I meane vntill Constantines time Neuerthelesse this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute And therefore full soberly he goeth about it telling vs that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants nor it was not then in Ephesus as it is now in London And very learnedly out of hâ—s reading telleth vs that Polycarpus was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude in the sight of his people when euery body knoweth that in all Cities and Countries for the space of almost 300. yeeres the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles If any man aske how it may bee said that the Church contained the Citie and Country when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in either of both I answer as before that the circuit of the Church or diocesse was the same when there were few and when there were many yea when all were Christians Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a few the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country as well when all were Christians as when but a few which J prooued before by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times which ought without comparison to preuaile with vs aboue the authoritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vs who are not so singular for learning as they are singular in opinion whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places and in all ages since the Apostles times is intolerable Yea but saith hee the Church of Smyrna writing of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse it was seated chiefely in the Citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is said to bee in the head and God who is in all places to be in heauen or but that part which did inhabit the Citie you are not to maruell if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City are called a Church seeing the companie of Christians in a parish or in a familie deserueth that name Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it And thus much may suffice to haue spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee Now are wee to examine the second M.D. saith he perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength sought to fortifie it by two reasons This is my aduersaries vsuall though odious fashion sophistically to argue euery assertion of weaknesse for which I bring proofe when rather the proofe if it bee good as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any doth argue the weakenesse of their iudgement who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued and the strength also of the assertion which is armed with such proofe The former reason he propoundeth thus If our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen and some of them mother Cities then were they great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but the Countries adioining But our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen c. To let passe his vnmannerly gibing not worth the mentioning and to referre you to the manner how this Syllogisme is to be framed before mentioned let vs see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashioned He denieth after his vsuall manner both the proposition and the assumption So hard is my happe that scarce any one proposition or assumption which hee frameth for me may be acknowledged to be true and yet so hard is his happe that he is not able to prooue any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue The proposition hee would confute by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that therefore all the rest depended vpon these as children vpon the mother To which he addeth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in denying the former part of the assumption viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case If the Emperour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia should haue written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent saith he that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe of them which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case might a man conclude thereupon that all other Townes and Cities of Asia were subiect to the gouernment of these seuen But say I put the case that the Emperor so should doe with that intent which is and also hath beene vsuall in such cases that is to the intent that what hee writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction would it not strongly proue that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them Come we to our selues When the King or his Counsell would haue any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County from them to the high Constables of euery hundred from them to the Constables of euery towne and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred and much more to the gouernours of the County In like manner when the Archbishop would haue any thing imparted to euery parish hee directeth his letters to the Bishops they to the Archdeacons they to the officers
in euery Deanâ—y they acquaint in particular euery Parish Euen so by Christ his writing to the 7. Churches what he would haue imparted to all the particular Churches it may bee gathered that the rest of the particular Churches were subiect to them And it may well be that when our Sauiour writing to euery one of the Angels seuerally concluding each Epistle with this Epiphonema Let him that hath an eare heare what the Spirite saith to the Churches would haue it vnderstood what he writeth to the Angell he writeth to the Churches which be vnder his charge And thus you haue heard how he hath fared with the Proposition The Assumption hee distinguisheth into two parts the former affirming that Christ wrote to all the churches of Asia the latter that some of these seuen Churches were Mother-Cities both hee denieth as false The former because it is vnlikely as he saith if not impossible that our Sauior writing to that third part of the world which was not much lesse then both the other Africa and Europe would write but to these 7. which were all together in one little corner of it Here I appeale to my aduersary if he be a man of learning whether hee doth not cauill against the light of his conscience seeing he could not be so ignorant as to thinke that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalypse and else where in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles is not meant Asia the great nor yet that which is called Asia minor being the whole Chersonesus now called Natolia bounded on the north with Pontus Euxinus on the west with the Hellespont mare Aegaeum on the south with the Mediterranean sea including according to Ptolemey eight countries whereof Asia so properly called is one And albeit he knoweth as I am perswaded that by Asia in the Apocalypse is meant onely that which is so properly called yet he maketh a great flourish partly to shew some small skill in Geography but chiefly that I may vse his owne terme to dazell the eyes of the simple shewing how vnlikely it is either that the great Kingdomes of Asia maior should bee Parishes vnder the seuen Churches or that those many famous Churches of Asia Minor as the Churches of Derbe Lystria Iconium Antioch in Pisidia Pergain Pamphylia of Galatia which were many were but dependants vpon these seuen If hee doth not know that none of these Countries are contained in that Asia whereof the holy Ghost speaketh let him compare but these few testimonies of Scripture Act. 2.9.10 6.9 16.6.7 1. Pet. 1.1 and he shall find that Cilicia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Bythinia Phrygia Pamphylia and Mysia meaning Mysia maior or Olympina being all parts of Asia minor are reckoned as diuers countries from that Asia which is mentioned in the Scriptures If the refuter would needs haue shewen his skill in Geography he should haue done well to haue set down the bounds and limits of this Asia whereof wee speake For the Authors that write thereof whome I haue seene doe not agree with the Scriptures The Romanes when Attalus Philomator the King of Pergamus and the countries adioyning had bequeathed his Kingdome to them and they had recouered it from Aristonicus who claimed it as his inheritance they reduced it into a Prouince and by the name of the continent called it Asia hoping it would be an introduction to the rest Erasmus saieth it is euident that when Asia is named absolutely that part of Asia minor is signified where Ephesus standeth And on Act. 16. where Paul and his company were forbidden to preach the Word in Asia the holy Ghost meaneth saith hee that Asia not which by the generall name is called minor enuironed on each side but on the East with the Sea and which comprehendeth Phrygia Pamphylia Galatia and some other Countries but that which is neare to Ephesus for that properly is called Asia minor But hee doth not tell vs how much of the Country which is not farre from Ephesus is contained within the circuit of Asia Those which write of Geography giue a larger circuit vnto it then agreeth with the Scriptures bounding it northward on Bithynia westward on Propontis Hellespont and the Aegean sea which in those places is called the Icarian sea Southward on the Rhodian sea Eastward on Lycia Pamphylia and Galatia And by this meanes they include within the limites of it Phrygia both the greater and the lesse wherein Troy stood and Mysia both the greater which is called Olympina and the lesse which is called Pergamene When as Phrygia is in the Scriptures distinguished from Asia and onely the borders or frontiers of it where Laodicea according to their opinion standeth are reckoned in it and likewise Mysia Olympina and Phrygia minor which is also called Epictetus or Troas are reckoned apart from Asia So that according to the scriptures Asia seemeth to include Ionia Mysia Pergamene Lydia or Maeonia and perhapps Caria for thereof is no mention In Ionia stoode Ephesus and from it northward Smyrna In Mysia Pergamene stood Pergamum northward from Smyrna and southward from it Thyâ—tira which Strabo calleth Mysorum vltimam In Lydia which Strabo Ptolemy and Pliny l. 5. c. 29. take to bee all one with Maeonia stood Sardoâ— which Strabo calleth Lydorum caput southward also from Pergamus In the confines of Mysia and Lydia stood Philadelphia The borders of Phrygia Caria and Lydia are hardly distinguished saith Strabo because they meet together and are confounded in the midlands as Aeneas Syluius saith and this confusion is encreased saith Strabo because the Romaines haue diuided these countries not by the nations but according to the administrations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is circuits of iurisdiction wherein Courts are kept and iudgements exercised according to law Now in these confines standeth Laodicea which according to Ptolemey is a City of Caria and by the testimony of the holy Ghost in the Apocalypse is a part of Asia though by the most Geographers it is saide to stand in the borders of Phrygia Eunapius speaking of Clearchus made proconsull of Asia by Valens the Emperor describeth the circuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that which now properly is called Asia that it beginning at Pergamum and comprehending the sea coasts endeth in the continent at Caria the mount Tmolus circumscribing the borders thereof on Lydia So that according to this description the circuit of Asia is lesse then that which is limited in the Scriptures Lydia and Caria being excluded And accordingly in the subscriptions to the Councell of Nice not onely Phrygia but Lydia also and Caria are reckoned apart from Asia that we should not maruaile that a lesse circuit is assigned vnto it in the Scriptures then the Geographers doe describe seeing within a lesse compasse then that which the Scriptures assigned thereunto it is circumscribed by others Seeing therefore Asia is gathered into so small a compasse let vs
see what the refuter can obiect why our Sauiour writing to these seuen Churches should not vnder them comprise all the Churches in Asia Because euen there or near saith he we find diuers other churches as those of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the Scripture to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia Troas beeing the same with phrygia minor and Hierapolis and Colossae Cities of Phrygia maior It is recorded by Eusebius that in the yeare of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero these three cities Laodicea Hierapolis and Colossae were ouerthrowne with earthquakes And although we read that Laodicea was quickly reedified and flourished againe when Saint Iohn wrote the Reuelation and Hierapolis not long after seeing we read that Papias Saint Iohns Scholler was by him made Bishop there yet of Colossae as Caluin obserueth that shortly after the Epistle was written to them that Church with the rest perished so that it stood in Saint Iohns time I read not neither doe I remember any mention of it or of the Bishops thereof in or neere those times Howbeit in processe of time it was reedified and called Conae or Chonae whereof Nicetus the writer of the annales because he was of that citie is called Coniates Oecumenius saith that Colossae was a citie of Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now called Chona and by that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned among the Bishopricks as they are digested by Leâ— the Emperour That Colossae was no parte of Asia Theodoret sheweth For beeing of opinion that Paul had beene at Colossae he prooueth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden of God For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bithynia not of Phrygia As touching Magnesia and Trallis it appeareth not that they were as yet conuerted vnto the faith when they were conuerted as not long after I confesse they were seeing Ignatius a little before his death did write vnto them they were inferiour to those seuen which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subject to the Bishop of Ephesus as appeareth by the subscriptions in the Councill of Chalcedon where Eutropius the Bishop of Ephesus subscribing as other Metropolitanes did for himselfe and the Bishops which were vnder him beeing absent among twentie others mentioneth Alexander of Magnesia and Maximus of Trallis Likewise in the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperour among the Bishops subiect to the Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Tralles and of Magnesia vpon Maander are numbred Vpon these weake premisses the Refuter inferreth a very confident conclusion It is cleare therefore saith he that our Sauiour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those seven which he nameth to noâ—e of which so many and so famous Churches could belong Whereto I aunswere according to that which I haue prooued that euery Church that was in Asia in these times was either one of these seuen or depending on them As for those Churches which he mentioneth in Asia maior or Asia minor yea euen those which were in Phrygia minor or Troas or in Phrygia maior as Hierapolis and Colossae were not any of them in Asia so properly called there remaine only Magnesia and Tralles to prooue his conclusion Which either he cannot prooue to haue beene Churches at this time or if they were hee cannot disprooue that they belonged to one of these seuen So that nothing which he can obiect doth hinder but that vnder these seuen our Sauiour did write to all the Churches in Asia Thus the former parte of the assumption remaineth true and so will the latter though he say it is vtterly false for his reason is no other but that which I haue alreadie confuâ—ed that they were neither mother cities nor cities at all And whereas he obiecteth that the Epistles were directed to the Angell of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephesus the Church Smyrna the Church as of the whole cities were the Churches I answere that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntill it was wholly conuerted to the profession of Christianitie notwithstanding the whole citie meaning vrbs was contained within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles and acknowledged by the iudgement and practise of that Church conformable to the iudgement and practise of all other churches in christendome Neither is that materiall that the church is said to haue bin in Ephesus as it also was when the whole city was conuerted to christianity seing in vrbe in the city the church was chiefly seated as was said before Now that some of these were Metropoleis that is as I said not onely mother cities but also Metropolitan churches I wil briefly declare Those cities which were capita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heads of the ciuil iurisdictioÌ„ where the presideÌ„ts of the Roman prouinces held their assemblies kept their courts were mother cities to the rest which were vnder the said iurisdiction But such were fiue of these as hath beene heeretofore noted out of Plinie viz. Ephesus Smyrna Pergamum Sardes Laodicca Where also Philadelphia is noted as one of the cities subiect to Sardes and Thyatira to Pergamus This distinction the Church followed in al excepting Pergamus which it selfe was subiected to Ephesus and Thyatira which had belonged to it sometimes to Synada for in the councel of Chalcedon Marmianuâ— the Bishop of Synada among the BB. which were vnder him reckoneth Helladius of Thyatira sometimes to Sardes as in the Emperor Leo the Philosophers time The Bishops of the other 4. in the council of Chalcedon in the condemnation of Dioscorus are stiled Metropolitanes and in the diuers subscriptions to that councill are placed among the Bishops of the mother cities In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or distribution of the Churches by the Emperour Leo Ephesus is a Metropolis hauing 36. Bishopricks vnder it among which Pergamum is the 19. Sardes likewise is a Metropolis hauing vnder it 24 Bishopricks whereof Philadelphia is the first and Thyatira the third to Laodicea likewise 21. Bishoprickes were subiect and to Smyrna 7. And so much may suffice for the first argument grounded on the text CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses THe Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him to say no worse for hee should haue looked to the end of that which though he make the 3. section should haue beene ioined to the 2. Where hee should haue found this to be the main conclusioÌ„ of al that which followeth the first argument concerning the 7. churches to that place viz. That the Presbyteries in the Apostles times
were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses From whence the principall question of this part is thus to be inferred The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but Dioceses therefore the churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement were not parishes but dioceses This consequeÌ„ce the refuter graÌ„teth in graÌ„ting the connexiue propositioÌ„ of the syllogisme which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed The antecedeÌ„t which is also the propositioÌ„ of the syllogism if the assumption bee added I proue by 2. arguments The first concluding thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countreys to labor so far as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God were appointed to dioceses and not to parishes This propositioÌ„ I omitted also as taking it for granted As for his cauils against his owne proposition which he framed for the nonce to cauill withall they are not worth the refuting For besides that he absurdly cauilleth with me as thogh I had said that al in the city country were in S. Iâ—bus time conuerted he alleadgeth that there is no necessity that they which were conuerted should be of the same church with theÌ„ who did conuert them As for example they of Ceuchrea receiued the gospel from Corinth and yet were a distinct Church For it is called the church of Câ—nchrea RoÌ„ 16. 1. But I spake of them which did accidentally conuert others but of such as by whose meanes the conuersion of the city and country was originally intended And I say that they whose ministery was intended for the conuersion of the city and countrey to their care or charge both for the first conuerting of theÌ„ gouernment of theÌ„ being conuerted the city country beloÌ„ged As for Cenchreae though it be called a church as euery company of christians may so be termed yet it was not such a church as they speak of indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernement but subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church of Corinth Now followeth the assumption But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries therto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments is set down p. 18. the one the end inteÌ„ded by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities which was the conuersion of the nation for which themselues first preached in the chiefe cities the other is the 〈◊〉 or as they call it causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their hope by the ministery of the Presbyters placed in the city to conuert them which belonged to God both in city country grounded on the force of the gospell restified by our Sauior The words are these for it is euident that the Apostles when they inteÌ„ded to conuert any 〈◊〉 they first preached to the chiefe cities therof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had conuerted some their manner was to ordaine Presbyters hoping by their ministery to conuert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adioyning so many as did belong to God The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leauen which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉 seasoneth all These words thus set downe at large be the assumption of the syllogisme which he hath framed for what cannot he bring within the compasse of his syllogisms and therof he maketh 3. parts About the first he saith hee will not striue viz. the Apostles beginning to pâ—each in the chiefe cities of euery nation which though he think I caÌ„not proue is most easie to bee proued because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conuersion of nations as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures other ancieÌ„t records that they took that course As Paul inteÌ„ding the conuersion of Asia where hee staied three yeares continued in Ephesâ—s all the time intending the conuersion of Macedonia went to Thessalonica Philippi of Achaia to Corinth c. The second also he franckly yeeldeth that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had conuerted some to the truth But the 3 which is indeed the assumption it selfe and which is inferred on the former as I set them downe that if the Apostles intending the conuersion of the nation as they began themselues to preach in the cheefe cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent hoping by them to conuert both city and countrey then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conuersion of all belonging to God both in city and country the assumption I say it selfe he doth deny saying it was the office of those Presbyters to attend vpon the flock that is the company already conuerted but that it can neuer be shewed nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conuersion of the residue either in citie or country By which few words the deepe wisedom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. They conceiue that churches in the first constitution of theÌ„ when there were but a few conuerted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted al being conuerted to the profession of the faith parishes distinguished pastors being seuerally assigned to certain particular ordinary set coÌ„gregatioÌ„s 2. That the flocke ouer which they were set was onely that number of christians already conuerted and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God But our Sauiour calleth the elect not conuerted his sheepe And the Lord in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet conuerted 3. That their proper office was to attend them onely which were already conuerted not to labor the conuersioÌ„ of the rest As thogh the Apostles intended by their ministry the conuersion and saluation of no more then of those few which at the first were conuerted But for the better manifestation of their wisedome they shall giue mee leaue to appose them with a few questions The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained were they not ministers of the word Caluin confesseth it and if you should deny it I haue manifestly proued that they were not lay nay that there were not any lay presbyters Were not the presbyters many in some places more in some fewer according to the proportion of the cities or countreys where they were placed were these many Presbyters who at the first were sometimes as many as those who were besides conuerted the Apostles conueying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit on them whom they had first conuerted who thereby were inabled for the ministry as Acts 19.6 Were they I say being many intended onely to attend that smal number which
at the first was conuerted Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters when few others were conuerted intend the conuersion of more then those fewe and was it not their office theâ— to labour their conuersion Jf they were not to labour their conuersion how were they to bee conuerted Nay if they did not labour it how were they conuerted Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flocke or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe the rest beeing his assistants as the Presbytery When therefore more were conuerted then could well assemble together in one ordinarie congregation were not the congregations diuided Vpon this diuision was there a Bishoppe and presbyterie assigned to euerie seuerall congregation or onely a Presbyter the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie hauing a generall superintendencie ouer all not onelie to attend those who were already conuerted but also to procure the conuersion of the rest and still as people in diuers places were conuerted to furnish them with a Presbyter and to guide and gouerne both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to bee a seuerall Church and his institution to bee their Minister To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the diuision of parishes and after that as either before there was ouer one congregation a Bishoppe and presbyterie so there should after to euery particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbyterie or after as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their seuerall charges was to attend them so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should haue beene prouided properly for that number alone which was conuerted and they should not haue thought it to belong to their charge to seeke or to labour the conuersion of the residue I say to thinke this argueth the parish-disciplinarians to bee of shallow iudgement and the parish-discipline to consist of vndâ—sgested fancies Vpon the proposition therfore and the assumption before propounded this conclusion notwithstanding al his cauills doth follow Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Serm. sect 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c. to page 19. l. 5 The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proued may thus be framed When the Churches were not diuided into seueral parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but werein coÌ„moÌ„ to atteÌ„d the whole flock feding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they were able both in citie and country then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes but to dioceses In the Apostles times the churches were not diuided into seuerall parishes c. Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and euident truth for when there were no parishes distinguished how could the Presbyters be assigned to seuerall parishes And if they were appointed to labour the conuersion of all which belonged to God both in citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses For can hee thinke that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country and which after also were conuerted belonged to one parish Is it not euident that after their conuersion they were diuided into many both in citie and countrey And what though at the very first all the Christians in the citie and countrey if they had beene assembled together would haue made but a small congregation were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all Was not the circuit of the Church as before hath beene prooued and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were conuerted The assumption also is that which the Refuter himselfe holdeth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times Howbeit I except the Church of Alexandria as after you shall heare But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both yet he wrangleth with both and as a man confounded yet resolued to contradict though against the light of his conscience he denieth the conclusion and contradicteth himselfe The proposition after his perpetuall manner hee propoundeth connexiuely If the parishes were not distinguished c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes c. The force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses he suppresseth leauing out the words of greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God so farre as they should be able both in the citie and in the countries adioining And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes he answereth not only he maketh a flourish with the shew of regestion which kinde of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus Howsoeuer the world goeth the consequence must be denied that is resolued vpon though he haue nothing to oppose against it Yes he hath two things to oppose the first a question What if euery one of the Churches then were but one parish As if hee should say What if the maine question betweene vs bee true in that part which wee hold viz. that the Churches were parishes and not dioceses Where are you then Why but I prooue they were not parishes because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses And come you now with this question What if they were Yea but I will prooue they were You will neede your proofes in a fitter place Yea but in the meane time I disprooue your consequence You will say something perhaps to bleare the eies of the simple but you doe not indeede denie and much lesse doe you disprooue the consequence The deniall of the consequence were this Though it bee supposed that parishes were not distinguished and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conuersion of all both in Citie and Countrey yet it doth not follow that they were appointed to dioceses and not to seuerall parishes and not this nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish This is to denie the maine conclusion which is already prooued Yea but the proofe of this deniall disprooueth your consequence The consequent perhaps which is the conclusion but the consequence it cannot without supposing as it doth not those things which are supposed in the proposition thus Though there were no parishes yet they were assigned to parishes though they were appointed both for Citie and Country yet they were not appointed for dioceses You deny therefore as a man amazed the maine conclusion the consequence of the proposition you touch not But let vs see how he disproueth the conclusion though his argument come out of time and be here vsed only for a poore shift It may thus be framed
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
common to attend the whole flocke conuerted For that which is added of labouring the conuersion of the residue c. is the errour forsooth which before he noted How proueth he these points to be false Thus whome can M.D. perswade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies wherein the teachers and hearers should euery day so disorderly be changed And then putteth the like case of a schoole himselfe being worthy to be put into a cloake-bagge For in which of these points doth this orderly vnconfounded man note such disorder and confusion or was not the confused conceite he speaketh of in his own braine Let him call to mind what euen now hee said in oppugning the proposition that euery one of the churches then was but one parish which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers Do we not see the like saith he in the French Duch churches here in England concludeth that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times and none but such Tell me then is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into seuerall parishes which is the first point If they be how are they but one Parish Are their ministers supposing them to be as he saith many as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the diuision of the parishes are they assigned to seueral titles that is parishes or cures If their Church be not diuided into diuers parishes how can their Presbyters be assigned to diuers which is the 2. point Thirdly doe not their ministers communi consilio mutuo auxilio by common counsel and mutuall helpe attend their whole flocke none of them being appointed to a seuerall charge And yet all this I hope without disorder or confusion That therefore which hee bableth in the greatest part of the page concerning disorder and confusion is wholy to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Yea but M.D. telleth vs that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flocke So saith S. Luke Act. 20.28 What of that if they were to attend the whole flocke in cōmon then were they not assigned to seuerall parishes which were but parts of the flocke to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted Doth either of them say that a flocke was any more then one ordinarie assembly and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocesse Either of whome hee had mētioned none but S. Luke onely But let that passe For to what purpose doth he aske whether Luke said that a flocke was any more then one assembly If the flocke were but one assēbly that which I proposed is the more confirmed For if they were to attend al one assembly thē were they not assigned to seueral parishes But yet I would haue him know that the word flock the word ecclesia or church which there the word people which in other places is vsed as a word of the same signification is of a larger extēt then to signifie onely one assembly The flocke is that for which Christ the good shepheard did giue his life vnto which appertained the sheep which his father gaue him not only amōg the Iewes but the Gentiles also And this flock is that Church which God meaning Christ who is God in that place of the Acts is said to haue redeemed with his bloud that people of his which he saueth frō their sins And as this is spoken of the Church in generall so the company of them that belong to Christ in any Nation Prouince Diocesse City or Parish may bee called the Flocke the Church the people of God Neither doe I doubt for the reasons before alleadged but that the flock in which those Presbyters Act. 20. were set as ouerseers was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus and the Country adioyning where he saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily vsed of beasts and fowles that heard and flocke together I confesse it is beyond the compasse of my reading who neuer read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to fowles but haue found the word vsed properly for a flocke of sheepe and metaphorically for the flocke of Christs sheepe but that flocke is not one onely particular congregation For Luke 12.32 Iohn 10.16 as touching the word Ecclesia which he denieth to signifie any other outward company of men then a particular congregation only I haue already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But heare his conclusion if my that is if the word Ecclesia doth not signifie any other then a particular congregation what truth is there in his assumption that denieth parishes to bee distinguished he would haue said to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue been assigned to their seuerall titles or cures This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance vntill as you haue seene him deny it before so you shall see him againe and againe to deny it Jn the meane time I beseech you how is it inferred If the word Church signifie onely a particular congregation and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set Act. 20.28 therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to haue beene distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures Who seeth not that the contrary is to bee inferred Jf the word Church did signifie one congregation and was in euery City but one and if such was the flocke which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common then it followeth that the flocke was not diuided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to seuerall cure◠And so the assumption by his owne inference is proued to be true This and thus weakly saith the refuter hath M.D. proued the point of so great importance And thus and thus stongly say I hath our refuter disproued it Now let the iudicious Reader iudge whether my weakenesse hath not been of sufficient force to ouerthrow his strength CHAP. V. Answering their obiection who say that in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in each great Citie were but one particular congregation assembling in one place NOw wee are to examine their proofes And first that which I obiected for them and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himselfe Serm. sect 4. page 19. Against this which hath been said they doe obiect that in the first two hundred yeeres c. 16 lines Here the refuter chargeth me that I making shew of taking away what euer can bee said against my assertion doe propound but one onely bare obiection whereas diuers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers haue been alleaged by others c. Thus makes he no conscience either of belying me who onely intended to answere that which I tooke to be their chiefe obiection and had of
late been most vrged or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of diuers testimonies and reasons which are scarce worth the answering blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them when himselfe after all his brags bringeth but one and that not so strong though you adde thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of In the obiection which J bring for them he putteth such confidence that if he can make it good against me whereof he doubteth not such is his tried valor all my labour about my Sermon will proue nothing worth No doubt he would appeare to be some tall man if he durst shew his head But let vs heare his dispute for he hath taken the obiection out of my hands because I did not vrge it strongly for them obiecting no more then J knew my selfe able to answere and yet all that he addeth is but losse of time in multiplying of words First he premiseth a syllogisme concluding the maine question that the Churches in the Apostles times hee should haue added as I did and the age following for themselues in their question include two hundred yeeres were not dioceses properly but parishes If the Presbyteries and presidents therof in the great Cities â—ere assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place then the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes But the Presbyteries and presidents thereof in the great Cities were assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes The consequence of the proposition is cleare by that I answered a little before where I said that adâ—cesse must needs consist of distinct congregations But if this proposition haue no better hypothesis to support it I may deny it seeing I haue proued before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes So that the addition of this syllogisme hath made his cause somewhat worse then it was before The assumption is thâ—â—â—râ—â—â—d If all the Christians in any one great Citie did make but one such congregation then both the Presbyteries and presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation hee should say to one particular ordinarie congregation assembled together in one place But al the Christianâ— in any great Citie vnderstand in the first 200 yeeres did make but one such congregation Therefore both the Presbyteries and presidents therof of were assigned but to one congregation The former syllogisme for breuity I omitted desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the maine question after this manner They were prouided but for one particular ordinary congregation assembâ—ing together in one place Therefore not for a diocesse The second which containeth the issue I propounded as forcibly as he hath done But my aduersary is one of those disputers who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied make it good by a connexiue syllogisme When as an Enthymeme for disputation is by somuch better then a connexiue syllogisme by how much it is shorter the consequence being thesame with the connexion of the proposition the antecedent all one with the assumption and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexiue syllogisme Such disputers are good to waste paper and spend time But to the point I deny as before both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme so now both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogisme The proofe of the consequence hee slubbereth ouer for his faculty is better in denying consequences then in prouing of them For saith hee seeing the deniall is vpon this ground that the Prestbyters were appointed not onely to take charge of them that were conuerted but also to labour the conuersion of the rest which we haue shewed to bee false it wil remaine good notwithstanding But I haue proued that it is an vndigested fancy rare conceit of shallow if not giddy heads which see no further then their nose end to imagine that the Apostles intending as they cannot deny the conuersion of the citie and country did place in the citie a Bishop and Presbytery to take charge only of that small number which at the first was conuerted but chiefly from hence to infer that euery particular parish should haue the like Bâ—shop and Presbytery The antient Church of God in all places vnderstood the Apostles intent as I expound the same And therefore when all both in citie and country were conuerted to the profession of the faith they acknowledged the generall care and inspection ouer them all to belong to that one Bâ—shop of the citie and themselues as I said in the Sermon to be part of that Church and neuer did vnlesse it were in time of schisme or heresie set vp another B. and Presbytery within the diocesse but euery congregation contented it selfe with a learned Presbyter if it could bee so well prouided for And this is so manifest a truth that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound iudgement or good conscience that shall deny it This consequence therefore will neuer bee made good And therefore the Refuter might haue saued his labour if it were ought worth which he spendeth vpon the assumption vntill he had proued the proposition Yea but this consequence belike might haue been made stronger For he did wisely saith he to digge the pit no deeper but that he might be able to fill it againe so could hee not haue done had â—e gone as low as we doe who thus frame our reason All the Christians in any one great Citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes did make but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place Therefore both the Presbyters and Presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation I mislike not his addition of the townes about so he will bee pleased as hee addeth them to strengthen his consequence so not to forget as I doubt he will to take them into the defence of his antecedent But where he speaketh of his digging deeper others as good Pioners as hee to vndermine the state of our Church went no deepeer and I durst not adde more to their antecedent as he hath done lest I should make it too absurd But what meaneth that parenthesis vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes I feare to be circumuented with this inclosure Belike there were more congregations then one in the cities and townes as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth and then how shall all both in citie and country be said to bee but one congregation Tush wee haue a bush for that gap We will except all other congregations but that one and so they being excepted all will bee but one Ridiculum caput As if
vnto you but now you haue the fewer enemies by reason of the multitude of Christians penè 〈◊〉 ciâ—ium being almost all citizens penè omnes ciues Christianos habendo by hauing almost al your Citizens Christians Let the Reader judge what the number of Christians were in those times whether Tertullian doth not speake chiefly of the city of Rome let him consider whether almost all the citizens of Rome of whom ordinarily there were diuers huÌ„dred thousands besides christian strangers seruants and the female sex were like to be the people of one parish The same author speaking to the same purpose in another place saith it may be sufficiently manifest vnto you that we deale according to the doctrine of diuine patience Seing we being so great a multitude of men euen the greatest part almost of euery city do cary our selues in silence modestie And so much concerning the multitude of the people Serm sect 7. p. 21. Ad to the multitude of the people the consideration of the times raging for the most part with persecution c. to the end of the 2. point As touching the times the refuter answereth that how furiously soeuer the times raged with persecution yet the christian people did vsually assemble together Whereof I doubt not But the question is whether in diuers congregations as I say as it is most euideÌ„t or altogether in one place which is altogether vncredible As for the places wherin the christians in the first 200. yeares vsed to assemble especially in time of persecution whereas I say they were priuate houses vaults and secret places not capable of such multitudes as haue bin spoken of for refuge he flieth to the vâ—lts holes as he calleth theÌ„ which he supposeth were capable of great multitudes but omitteth priuate houses and other small roomes turned to this vse And whereas J say they were not capable of such multitudes as were thâ— whole companies of Christians in the greatest cities proued before to haue bin in a manner innumerable hee onely saith great multitudes But what we are to coÌ„ceiue of this point let vs enquire of Hospinian a Protestant writer who hath trauelled in this argument He therefore saith in the time of the Apostles and some while after the places of meetings which Christians had were simple houses neither were they permitted by the cruelty of tyrants and rage of the people to build I say not magnificent but not meane Temples The places therefore of publike meetings in those times were base more like dens and secret corners then magnificall Temples as Eusebiusâ—estifieth â—estifieth And Tertullian plainly affirmeth that in his time the Christians had no other temples but simple houses Polydor Virgil testifieth that the Christians were so far from hauing any temple built in these times that all was secret their places of meeting were chapels and those hidden and for the most part vnder the ground rather then in open and publike places Bullinger likewise saith that the antient Christians vnder Constantine the Great were wont vnder the quire of the temples to build cryptaâ— vaults in memory of the persecutions whereby the Christians vnder the Emperors before Constantine were not suffered sometimes to come abroad and therfore they were forced to hold their assemblies and performe the sacred exercises in secret sometimes in dens and other priuy places But saith the Refuter Let them bee as little as he would make them yet it doth not follow hereof that the Churches in the Cities alone contained many particular congregations or parishes To which purpose againe he alleageth his chapels of ease for a meere euasion seeing himselfe is perswaded there was none such in those times And where he saith that although there were diuers places of meeting in those times yet all appertained to one congregation I confesse it to be true for euen after the distinction of parishes both in citie and country all of them belonged to one Church as meÌ„bers of the same body Yea but saith he if there were many particular congregations in euery city how chanceth it he told vs before that the parishes were not distinguished Distinguish the times and the answere is easie In the first hundred yeeres though Christians met in diuers places as they could yet neither were there in the most cities certaine set places of meeting nor certaine Presbyters assigned to them as to their perpetuall and peculiar charge But at the end of the first hundred yeeres Euaristus diuided to seuerall Presbyters in Rome titles that is the set places of meetings which we call parish Churches whereof they were entituled and called the Presbyters of such and such a title or parish And thus haue J maintained my arguments and answers against his cauils Now am I to defend my assertion against his proofes CHAP. VI. Answering the Refuters arguments ANd first because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude he propoundeth the question which is saith he whether in the Apostles times and the age following that is the first two hundred yeeres the visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were parishes or no. In which question seeing he his consorts restraine the times of the primitiue Church to the first two hundred yeeres the Reader will I hope expect that he should conclude that foâ— this whole terme at the least the churches were each of them but a parish and that in all this time there were no dioceses His argumentation containeth two ranckes of instances the former taken out of the scriptures the latter out of the Fathers The former he concludeth thus If the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government were each of them but one parish vnderstand for the whole terme of 200. yeeres then the other visible Churches 〈◊〉 with the like power were also each of them during the same terme but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were each of them but one parish for the first 200. yeeres Therefore the other visible Churches endued with the like power were also for the like terme each of them but one parish The proposition I will be content to yeeld to my aduersarie so it may be lawfull for me to vse the like for then I would conclude thus If the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishionall Churches in the first 200. yeeres neither were the Churches of other Cities But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The consequence is the same with his and grounded on the same hypothesis viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment were at the first of the same nature and constitution The former part of the assumption concerning Alexandria I will manifestly prooue when I come to the third point concerning Diocesans viz. that it was not one parish but contained diuers parishes euen
in the first 100. yeeres Concerning Rome I haue proued already that within the first 200. yeeres it was diuided into many parishes and therefore although there bee not so good euidence for other Cities in particular yet the like is to bee concluded of them seeing they were all of the same constitution Passing by therefore his proposition I take hold of his assumption and doe plainely denie the Churches he speaketh of or any other which had a Bishop and Presbyterie to haue beene for the first two hundred yeeres no more but parishes for J doubt not but it is easier to proue that within this terme not onely the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses but also the Bishops in the same Prouinces were subiect to the Bishops of these three Cities For as it is euident of Antioch by the testimonie of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria so no reason can bee alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth who in the third centurie and in the ages following were Metropolitans were not so in the second or if they were Metropolitans in the third and in the ages following as most certainely they were why they should not haue beene Diocesans at the least in the second The assumption hee saith appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars But what doth he prooue of the particulars Are his syllogismes so soone come to an end His chiefe proofes be that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one Congregation Was this your assumption You that are so strict in exacting syllogismes and direct proofes should not haue sought to carrie away the matter as it were in the cloudes Yea but that which he prooueth doth prooue the assumption That shall thus bee tried by his owne forme of argumentation If those Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place then were they for the first 200. yeeres each of them but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore for the first 200. yeeres they were each of them but one parish The proposition is omitted by the disputer as taken for granted but therein he hath plaied the sophister for he that meaneth truly doth not vse to omit any part of his argument but that which is certaine or confessed But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught for if hee had onely said thus If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres they were so the consequence had beene starke naught or if he had onely said If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation then were they each one parish that consequence also had beene naught but when he saith If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres each of them was but a parish that consequence is as I said worse then naught That the first of the two consequences is naught it is euident for though at the first conuersion of any great City and for a while after the number vsually was so small that they might haue assembled in one place yet it is certaine that within 200. yeeres their number was growne to bee almost innumerable as hath beene shewed and therefore too great to make one ordinarie congregation This one exception if no more should bee added ouerturneth all his dispute As touching the second though it should bee granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarilie assemble together in one place yet would it not follow that therefore each of them was but a parish and much lesse which is the end of all this disputation that all Churches endued with ecclesiasticall power should be but parishes and consequently that euery parish should haue a Bishop and presbyterie The reasons of my deniall of these consequences I haue before set downe at large Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I haue sufficiently ouerthrowne already For a surplussage I adde these two reasons First If these Churches because they were each of them but one Congregation were parishes before the diuision of parishes then were they such Churches as after the diuision parishes were This consequence may not be denied especially by them who would haue all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches But they were not such for the parishes after their diuision had not a Bishop and presbyterie but only a Presbyter assigned to them neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent ouer others neither was any of them intended to bee a mother Church Secondly if that assumption was false which denied parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But he said before that that assumption had no truth in it These two iust exceptions I haue against his consequence If against the former it bee obiected that some of his testimonies doe seeme to prooue that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation I answer that his maine argument and proofes thereof doe speake of the Apostles time Those which are extended further shall bee further examined Now I come to his assumption for though I doe not denie but that at the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soone after their conuersion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation yet I cannot yeeld to all his proofes His proofes be either allegation of Scriptures or other testimonies His Scriptures for Corinth are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians and Rom. â—6 1 for Ephesus Act. 20.28 for Antioch Act. 14.27 Now let vs consider the date of his testimonies and then what is testified in them The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome which was in the yeere 5â— or â—6 Which I do note to shew to what time his proposition is to bee restrained as if hee had said If before the yeere 55. or â—6 they were but one congregation then they were no more vntill the yeere 200. The thing that is testified for Corinth 1. Cor 11. is such as might bee written to the Church of England as verse 18. When you come into the Church I beare there bee schismâ—s among you vers 20. When you come together in the same place this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord vers 33. When you come together to eat expect one another Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae whereof mention hath beene made now thrice to no purpose vnlesse it bee against himselfe for if Câ—nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth as most certainly it was it selfe hauing not a Bishop or presbyterie but a
meÌ„bers into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church and to vnderstand it for the mysticall body of Christ the latter translations vsed that terme not that the other was any corruption or the latter any correction but to declare that both is one Is it not plaine that he by congregation vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church which is a gathering together of all the members into one body but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh neuer a word In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse taken from his mouth are alleadged wherein it is said that the seuen Churches were particular congregations meaning thereby that which I doe not deny particular churches and that euery particular congregation is a Church and hath priuiledges of a Church belonging to it which is also true Fiftly the great Church Bible readeth thus Iohn to the seuen Congregations Lastly D. Bilson saith that the church is neuer taken in the old or new Testament for the Priests alone but for the congregation of the faithfull From which allegations to inferre that each church is but one particular congregation is as I said most childish But those 2. out of Tindall the one that a Bishop was the gouernour but of one congregation the other that hee was the ouerseer but of a Parish to preach the word to a parish was not a childish mistaking but a wilfull misalleadging of the Author who in the former place hath no such thing Or if hee haue any where he vseth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia wherof it is the translation In the latter speaking of such a Bishop as is described 1. Tim. 3. that is of such a one as in his conceit was but a Presbyter hee saith by the authority of the gospell they that preach the word of God in euery Parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to challenge an honest liuing Neither is the Refuter content once to haue falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr but againe in the end of his booke hee alleadgeth him to the same purpose After hee hath thus doughtily proued his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius Tertullian and Eusebius concerning others Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians that they would all come together into one place to praier all as with vs that belonged to the same congregation And perswading the Philadelphians to vnity exhorteth them that they would vse one faith one preaching one eucharist because the body of Christ is one and his bloud one one cup and one bread one Altar for the whole Church and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons for there is but one God the Father c. one faith one baptisme and one Church which the Apostles haue founded from one end of the world to another c. In which words none fauoureth the Refuters conceit but that of one altar seruing for the whole Church the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table which is not likely and too much sauoureth of popery But by one altar is meant Christ who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations and maketh them acceptable to God as Ignatius expoundeth himselfe in his Epistle to the Magnesians all as one runne together into the Temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto one Iesus Christ as it were vnto one altar But that which he alleageth out of the same Epistle that they were to gather themselues together into one place to chuse their Bishop if it were rightly alleaged would proue not their ordinary and parishionall but extraordinary and panegyricall meeting to such an end but this needed not their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his iourny towards Rome as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle as it were vpon an honourable ambassage from the Church as were the BB. of other Churches But he saith it becometh you as being a Church of God to doe as other Churches haue done that is as he sheweth in the words following to appoint a Bishop that he may 〈◊〉 Antioch performe the â—mbassage of God that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place to glorifie the name of God From whence also the Reâ—uter gathereth that a Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people that are together in one place Which is true so oft as he preacheth But Ignatius meaneth nothing lesse then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch but onely willeth them to send a Bishop as it were vpon ambassage thither His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the Sâ—yrneans where he writeth to the same purpose that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace the persecutors contenting themselues to haue taken him who was their ringleader from among them he exhorteth them to ordaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacred Ambassador who when he should come into Syria should reioice with them because they had peace Tertullâ—â—â— also is made to speake for them as though he said the Christian Churches were all one body and came all together into a company and congregation By which testimony if it were truely alledged all Christian Churches as they are one body of Christ so all should meet together to make one parish His words be these I will now set forth the practises of the Christian party That hauing refuted the euils obiected I may declare the good We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion in the truth of discipline or doctrine and the couenant of hope We come together into a company and coÌ„gregation Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times which in euery Church are diuided into seuerall congregations Out of Eusebius hee hath nothing to alledge but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered that he calleth the Church of Ierusalem the parish of Ierusalem the Church of Alexandria the parish of Alexandria c. To which J answere that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he calleth none of them a parish as we vnderstand the word parish In the place which hee quoteth concerning Ierusalem Eusebius saith that after the martyrdome of Iames who no doubt from an Apostle had been preferred to bee a parish Bishop because he was Christs kinsman the Apostles and disciples of Christ which yet remained did from all places come together with those who were of Christs kinred to consult whom they might thinke worthy to bee Iames his successor and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the sonne of Cleophas as worthy the throne of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Church because he also was our Sauiours kinsman All this was done no doubt in a parish meeting to set a parish B.
their owne peculiar dioceses and yet hauing a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince I cannot deny but that long before the Councell of Nice there were Patriarches aboue Metropolitanes whose originall as it seemeth proceeded from humane policie as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to antient custome But the superiority of Metropolitanes was either intended by the Apostles as I thinke when they appointed Bishoppes ouer mother Cities who though at the first actually were but Bishoppes of their owne diocesse yet vpon the conuersion of other Cities in the prouince were to be ackowledged the chiefe or at least as Beza supposeth they were ordained not by authority of Councels but sâ—â—dente natura necessitate flagitante nature aduising and necessitie requiring it For it was conuenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same prouince and that the gouernours of the seuerall dioceses should meete for the common good as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishoppes within their dioceses might bee remedied By consequent therfore it was necessary especially before there were Christian magistrates that one in euery prouince should be held as chiefe or primate who should assemble the synods moderate them being assembled see the decrees executed and haue a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles saith quid aliud hic statuituâ— quam ordo ille quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupiâ—â—â— What other thing is here ordained but that order which in all Churches wee desire may be restored That there were Metropolitane Bishoppes within the first 200 yeeres it is euident by those prouincial councels which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter being assembled and guided by Metropolitanes As the president of the prouinciall synode held at Rome was Victoâ— the Metropolitane Bishoppe of Rome of those in Palestina Theophilus the Metropolitane of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishoppe of Ierusalem of that in France Irenaeus the Bishoppe of Lyons of that in Achaia Bacchylus the Bishoppe of Corinth of that in Asia Polycrates the Bishoppe of Ephesus And so of that in Osroene and of diuers others Now it is to be noted that Eusebius speaking of the synode held in France saith there was a meeting of the Churches in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he That there haue been Metropolitanes and prouinciall Churches euer since the Apostles times this one euidence among many which might bee alleaged may sufficientlie euince In the time of the first Ephesine Councell Dionysius the gouernour of the East whose chiefe seat was Antioch hauing appointed Theodorus to bee the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus the Patriarch of Antioch because the ecclesiasticall iurisdiction for the most part followed the ciuill challenged authority ouer the Isle of Cyprus and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia the mother city of Cyprus To which end the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters both to the clergy of Constantia and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus to interdict them from chusing their Metropolitane the See being then void or if they had already chosen their Bishop that both he and they should repaire to the Councell at Ephesus hoping that by the Councell they should be ouerruled according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire Reginus therefore who was chosen Bishoppe with other Bishoppes of Cyprus put vp a Supplication to the Councell complaining that the Bishoppe and clergy of Antioch had sought contrary to the Apostles Canons and contrary to the determination of the Councell of Nice to bring them in subiection to them and therefore requested that as euer since the Apostles times the prouinciall synod had ordained their Metropolitane so their antient right might not now be infringed Whereupon the Councell hauing censured the attempt of the Bishoppe of Antioch as 〈◊〉 innouation contrary to the lawes ecclesiasticall and caâ—â—â—s of the holy Apostles decreed not onely that the Bishoppes of Cyprus but also of all other dioceses and prouinces should retaine their antient right and that no Bishop should challenge vnto himselfe any prouince which had not bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in former times from the beginning vnder his predecessors iurisdiction It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod that to euery prouince her right which â—â—er from the beginning it hath had shall bee kept pure and iâ—â—iolable according to the antient receiued custome Euery Metropolitan hauing good lâ—aâ—â— to take a copie of this Act for his owne security Whereby it appeareth that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitane from the Apostles time And that no Metropolitane had or ought to haue the gouernement of any prouince which had not alwaies from the beginning been subiect to his Seâ— And that Metropolitanes were either actually appointed or at the least intended by the Apostles appeareth hereby That euer since their times in all prouinces throughout the Christian world there haue been Metropolitanes neuer misliked or contradicted by any vntil this our age And whereas the Refuter obiecteth that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops I say it maketh for them For euery Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop hauing a peculiar diocesse of his owne whereof he is Bishop as the Archbishop of Canterbury hath Canterbury and part of Kent besides some other peculiar Churches the Archbishop of Yorke hath Yorkeshire excepting the County of Richmond which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester and the County of Nottingham To his question therefore demanding where then are our Diocesan Churches become I answere there remaine 24 of them where they were wont to be for any thing that he can say to the contrary besides the Churches of Canterbury and Yorke which as they be prouinciall Churches in respect of the 2. prouinces so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging vnto them And where he saith the Cathedrall Churches are as it were parishes he saith he knowes not what For Cathedral Churches which are the mother Churches of euery diocesse neither are nor euer were parishes nor the Bishop nor Presbyteries of them euer intended to one parish And if it so fall out that to some part of the Cathedrall Church a particular parish belong therto a seuerall Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops haue beene presidents were neuer Parishionall but rather Panegyricall euen in the most ancient and purest Churches vnder the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma as it were with a paire of rams hornes For such is his wisdome that he thinketh diocesan prouinciall Churches which are subordinate one to the other to be so opposite as that to hold the one is to deny the other And therefore if I
can be more euident But hee seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made To returne therefore to mine owne analysis In this section I proue that the antient Bishops were diocesan Bishops euen before the diuision of parishes by three arguments which for breuity sake I ioined together The first If the Churches whereof they were BB. were dioceses and not parishes then were they diocesan BB. But the Antecedent is true as hath already been proued in the second point Therefore the consequent The second If the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles time nor ministers appointed to peculiar titles or seuerall cures then there could be no Parishionall Bishops in that time But the former hath already been proued Therefore the latter is true The assumption is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I said before that is as true for the most part For it admitmitteth some exceptions as namely the Church of Alexandria and perhaps some others wherein I acknowledgeâ— the parishes to haue been distinguished in the Apostles times but so as seuerall Presbyters being assigned to them there remained one Bishop ouer all The third If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses and not to seuerall parishes then the Bishops who were Presidents of those Presbyteries were not parishionall but diocesan But the first is true as hath been already prooued Therefore the second To all three he answereth by denying the assumption the truth whereof dependeth vpon the proofes of the second point which haue been so many and so manifest as I hope to heare no more of the new-found parish discipline Serm. sect 2. pag. 22. Howbeit in the end of the Apostles times parishes began to be distinguished in Cities and afterwards in the Country c. to page 24. line 3. Here I prooue that after the diuision of parishes the Bishops were diocesan albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument which standeth thus Those Bishops who were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country viz. after they were distinguished Therefore the antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The proposition is most euident The assumption standeth on two parts first that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the citie after they were diuided The second that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the country after their diuision The former I proue in this section by induction of particulars the latter in the next The Analysis being here mistaken by him I wil not meddle with that which hee hath thereby taken occasion to speake besides the purpose because heere I finde him more modest then hitherto he hath shewed himselfe neither will I shame him with his owne friends when for an euasion he supposeth that in the primitiue Church some Ministers might haue more Churches vnder them like our double beneficed men and pluralists euen those that haue tot quot and yet be no Bishops Onely I will touch those things which contradict that which I haue deliuered And first he obserueth a contradiction in my speech I said that parishes in cities were not for the most part distinguished in the Apostles times Here I â—ay that in the end of the Apostles times viz. about the yeere one hundred they began to be distinguished at Rome by Euaristus the Bishop there A shrewd contradiction J promise you especially if you consider that all the Apostles but S. Iohn were dead before this time and that this was in the very end of S. Iohns time Yea but after I say that Titus was Bishop of the Cretians I cry you mercy I should haue said Cretans and yet by his leaue the Geneua translation and others read Cretians and Timothy of them in Asia therefore parishes were distinguished in the Apostles times Neither is this a contradiction for although Timothy was Bishop of Asia and Titus of the Churches in Creet yet it followeth not that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Creet were distinguished They were both by Pauls direction as well by letter as example to ordaine Presbyters in the seuerall cities but that they placed any in the country or assigned the Presbyters to seuerall cures in the Cities wee reade not To returne therefore to my proofes The induction standeth thus In Rome and Alexandria and so in other cities the parishes being once diuided were assigned to seuerall Presbyters the Bishop remaining superintendent ouer them all Therefore the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the cities after they were once diuided As touching Rome I shew that the parishes were first distinguished by Euaristus about the 100. yeare and not a Presbytery but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as hath beene prooued heeretofore At Alexandria I proue that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches within the first 200. yeares But what I say concerning Alexandria might well haue beene spared for that is his vsuall censure of such proofes as he knowes not how to answere because that Church is excepted against as the beginner and breeder of diocesan gouernment Excepted against why what was done in Alexandria which all the Churches in the world did not practise so soone as the parishes were diuided But what if this order began in S. Iohns time what if by S. Marke who died fiue or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul let Eusebius alledging the reports of them that went before him be witnesse viz that Marke being sent into Aegypt did preach the Gospell there and was the first which did constitute the Churches in Alexandria it selfe Then euer since S. Marks time there haue bene Churches in Alexandria which all from the beginning were subiect to the B. Of these Churches as J alledged in the sermon was Iulianus Bishop in the first yeare of Commodus viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus Demetrius was Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches in Alexandria And againe more fully that in the 10. yeare of Seuerus Laeâ—us was president of Alexandria and the rest of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the Churches there Demetrius had lately receiued the Bishopricke after Iulianus In the third yeare of Philippus after Heraclas had beene sixteene yeares Bishop Dionysius receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishopricke of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria So it is said of Peter the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria of Alexander that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop one of the Churches which were many at Alexandria for the Arians Valens by his letters signified that Athanasius might safely retaine the gouernment of the Churches What these Churches were Epiphanius before in part declared signifying
that they were of ancient assigned to seuerall Presbyters all of them which were Catholique or orthodoxall beeing vnder the Bishop Neither should this seeme strange that the Churches in Alexandria were subiect to the Bishop seeing the rest in Aegypt were vnder his iurisdiction Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria but commoÌ„ to others especially who were Bishops of mother Cities Ignatius was Bishop not onely of Antioch but of Syria as you heard testified by himselfe Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons was Bishop of the Churches in France And to omitte others as Diodorus the Bishop of Tarsus to whose charge was committed the nation of the Cilicians Amphilochius who gouerned the whole nation of the Lycaonians Photinus Bishop of the Churches in Illyricum Agapetus Bishop of the Churches which were vnder Synada c Eusebius testifieth of Titus and in the next age after of Philippe that hee was B. of the Churches in Creet Theodoret saith the like and of Timothe that hee was Bishop of the Asians whose metropolis was Ephesus It is manifest saith Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed the rest of the Church or that whole nation of Asia To these testimonies of Eusebius and Theodoret I name so many as were cited in the sermon the refuter answers First that Eusebius liued 230. yeares after Timothy and Titus and Theodoret 330. What then the question is not whether the witnesses liued in the first 200. yeares but whether within that time there were diocesan Bishops It is a very vncharitable and vnlearned part that I say no worse to imagine that Eusebius and Theodoret would of their owne heads testifie these things and not by the relation of those which liued in former ages especially seeing Eusebius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is recorded in histories But suppose the testimonies of these 2. were not sufficieÌ„t what will he say to that cloud of the ancient most autheÌ„tick witnesses which with one coÌ„seÌ„t do testifie that Timothy was B. of Ephesus those parts of Asia and that Titus was B. of Creet But of this more heereafter In the meane time let it bee acknowledged as a point of intollerable impudency that in a matter of fact so agreeable with the scriptures I meane especially the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to them as to Bishops any of vs should deny credit to the constant generall and perpetuall consent of the ancient writers whereof some liued 13 or 1400 yeares before vs. 2. Yea but if these testimonies be true Titus and Timothy were Archbishops So is Titus called in the subscriptioÌ„ of that Epistle And that they were Metropolitanes appeareth by all their successors who were Bishops of Gortynae and Ephesiuâ— the one Metropolis of Creet the other of Asia How D. Bilson denieth this let the reader see page 409. of his book the other which the refuter citeth beeing misalledged where he citeth Chrysostome and Ierome testifying that to Titus was committed a whole Iland and the iudgement of so many Bishops Theodoret that to Timothe Paul committed the charge of Asia Now if there were Metropolitan Bishops in the Apostles times who besides their own peculiar diocesse had the ouersight also of other Dioceses Bishops it should not seeme strange that there were Diocesan Bishops who besides their cathedrall churches had manie parishes and Presbyters subordinate to them To which purpose Epiphanius also was alledged who saith that each Bishop had diuers churches vnder them to whom many other might be added as that of Optatâ—â— that in the city of Rome where was but one onely Bishop were aboue forty Churches the Epistle of Constantine to Eusebius mentioning those diuers Churches which were vnder him and signifying as the multitude of Christians did encrease so the number of Churches was to be multiplied the testimony of Theodoret the Bishop of Cyrus who affirmeth that it was his lotte to be pastor of 800. Churches for so many parishes saith hee hath Cyrus Yea but Epiphanius was 390. yeares after Christ. Will any wise man therefore inferre that in the first two hundred yeares it was so Good sir sauing your wisedome you shall seldome reade in ancient records of enlarging of dioceses but of the contracting of them by erecting new Bishopricks very oft It was testified before that the circuits of dioceses were from the beginning of the Churches and therefore what circuit was of any Bishopricke in Epiphanius his time the same ordinarily if not greater was in the first 200. yeares Serm. sect 3. page 24. As touching countrey townes they were indeed conuerted after the cities c. to page 25. ad lin 8. In this section I proue the latter part of the former assumption concerning country parishes viz. that the Bishop of the citie was ouer them also which I proue by this Enthymeme The B. and the Presbytery of the City in all places acknowledged tâ—em to belong to their charge Therefore the Bishop was ouer them as being part of his Diocesse The antecedent I proue by their care ouer them both before they were conuerted and after Before because they labored their conuersion after because the Bishop out of his Presbytery assigned to each of theÌ„ a Presbyter not a Presbytery or a B. 2. Where the diocesse was large he substituted a Chorepiscopus or country B. Of these points the last our refuter wery conscionably concealeth all the former very learnedly he denieth He denieth I say 1. That the Bishop and Presbytery of the city acknowledged the country to belong long to their charge Which as it is a most ignorant conceit as hath beene proued before so would it haue beene most precious to the church of God if the BB. and Presbyof those times had so conceiued Now that both they and the country churches so conceiued as J said the vniuersall perpetuall practise of the church of Christ subiecting in al places the country parishes to the Bishop of the city doth ineuitably proue 2. That they did not labour their conuersion by vertue of their office but were to attend those who were conuerted As if the Bishop and presbytery had beene ordained onely for those fewe that were at the first conuerted and were not rather as leauen put into the meale to season the whole lump I would gladly know therefore who after the death of the Apostles and apostolicall men which laboured in the cities were appointed or prouided for the conuersion of the country towns If it were not the office of the Bishop and Presbytery of the city to which they were subiect much lesse was it the office of others who being neither Apostles nor Euangelists were tied to their own charges might not by the most ancient canons of the church exercise any mysteriall function out of their owne bounds Besides the bounds of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction followed the ciuill ordinarily so that those countries were
subiect to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which were subiect to the city it self And therfore as they were actually vnder the Bishops charge after their conuersion so were they intentionally before This is a point clearly confessed by Caluin as you shall heare So is the third though this learned man deny it viz that Presbyters were by the Bishops of the city assigned to country parishes out of the clergy of the city For the clergy of the city was the seminary of the ministery for the whole diocesse Neither was there any other ordinary meanes to supply the Churches which wanted Schollers of their own fitte â—o be ministers country parishes had not vniuersities there were none learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected vnlesse the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them But hereof I haue spoken before As touching the last that where the diocesse was large the Bishop in certaine places appointed Chorepiscopos as his substitutes who together with their charge remained subiect to the Bishop of the city which is a thing most notorious and confessed by Caluin and Beza being also a most euident proofe that the churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan as J haue shewed before our refuter passeth it ouer in silence with what conscience let the refuter Iudge Passing therefore by this which in no wise he was able to answer he oppugneth the 3. point bringing an instaÌ„ce of his owne and taking exception against my proofe We haue saith hee a plaine instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth A plain instance to what purpose that Cenchrea had a Bishoppe and a presbytery and not a seuerall presbyter assigned to it that when it wanted a presbyter it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth It is euident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subiect vnto it as were al other townes and villages in those parts and as the rest so it euen by his own confession receiued the gospell from Corinth That it euer had a Bishop it is incredible for by the lawes of the church those churches which at the first had Bishops were to haue them stil. Let him shew that euer it had a Bishop or a presbytery or that it was not subiect to the Bishop of Corinth as well as other towns and villages of Achaia that ordinarily it receiued not their presbyter from Corinth from whence by his owne confession it receiued the Gospel and I wil yeeld to him If none of these things can be necessarily proued nay if none of them be probable or likely how could he say that this was a plaine instance to the contrary And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been obiected to no purpose vnlesse it be to confute himselfe Against my allegation of the councell of Sardica hee taketh great exception obiecting two contrary things vnto me whereof if either were true the one would take away the other The former is subtilty and craft as though I went about to delude my auditors at Lambith and readers euery where For saith he when was this Councell held was it not about the yeere 347. almost 150. yeeres after the time in question If I had alleaged that canon only to testifie the practise of the Church at that time not permitting Bishops in country townes and villages there had been some small colour for this obiection and yet but a colour seeing they doe not as you shall heare prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been And therefore the practise of the Church for multitude of Bishops now was as it had been before sauing that by this canon order was taken for erecting Bishoprickes where none had been but not for dissoluing of Bishopricks where any were But it was the iudgement and determination of that Councell which chiefely I alledged which was that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or towne And therefore nothing was in this respect to bee innouated but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them so they should continue The iudgement of these men I hope was not much inferiour to theirs who liued in the first two hundred yeeres This being a councel of three hundred orthodoxall Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the councell of Nice among whom was Osius the famous confessour and Athanasius then whom there hath not bene a more famous Bishop for piety wisdome learning and soundnesse in religion since the Apostles times whose iudgement also in this particular was approued as hath bene shewed by the decrees of other councils by the iudgment of other fathers by the practise of all churches and neuer gaine said or misliked by any in the former ages nor yet by the reformers of the church in our age according to the pretended discipline T. C. and perhaps some one or 2. others excepted Now I would gladly know what either reasons our refuter hath to confute their iudgement or testimonies to ouerweigh their authority There was therefore no subtill purpose in mee to delude any in this allegation but an euill conscience in him that sought with so friuolous an euasion to elude so plaine and pregnant euidence The other thing which hee obiecteth is simple follie in alledging a Canon which as he saith maketh so much against mee For saith hee what greater proofe can there bee that villages or little cities or townes vsually had BB. ouer them euen till that time viz. the yeare 347 then that the councill of Sardica was faine to make such a decree against it For the vntruth of which obiection his ignorance must bee his best excuse It is plaine that in that canon direction is giuen chiefely for erecting of new Bishopricks authorizing the Metropolitane and the other Bishoppes of the prouince if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop to erect a new Bishopricke but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or townes for which they iudged the ministery of one Presbyter to be sufficient Besides the councill of Nice had decreed that the priuiledges of all churches should bee preserued and the councils of Africke more then once determined that what Church soeuer had in former times had a Bishop should still haue a B. and the ancient custome of the church was euer held as a law among them in this behalfe So that I hold it for a certaine truth that what Church in the end of the first 400 yeares had not a Bishop the same had none in the beginning and what Church soeuer had in the first 200. yeares a B. was at the end of 400. yeares acknowledged to haue right to a B. Indeed I doe confesse that the people of countrey townes sometimes being vaineglorious haue desired a Bishop of their owne and the ministers beeing ambitious and as it is
question seeing it is confessed that Nazianzens father was B. of that diocesse These bee all the instances which T.C. bringeth in this cause excepting one more out of the canon law which our refuter thought not worth the obiecting But his inference hereupon is worth the obseruing Al this M.D. could not choose but know if he had read but somuch as M. Cartw. 2. reply with as good a mind as hee did D. Bilson Whereto I answere that I read with resolution to yeeld to the trueth whersoeuer I find it But God hath giuen me so much iudgment as not to be perswaded by meere colours such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to bee and such as in this treatise I haue prooued many of them to bee and so will the rest if the Refuter shall vrge them or take vpon him to maintaine them Hauing so substantially answered the substance of my argument hee taketh occasion to shewe his learning in giuing a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani then I did I said and I am sure haue read it in some learned author that they are so called because the people who liued in the country villages which are properly called pagani a pag◠and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pomp. Festus saith quia eadem aqua vterentur remained for the most part heathenish after the cities for the most part were conuerted to Christianity Hee thinketh the heathen were called pagani because they are not Christs Souldiers induced so to thinke because Tertullian saith Apud hunc tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis Which hee englisheth thus as well a faithfull Souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan Which if it were Tertullians meaning as well Christians as infidels should be called Paganes But Tertullian is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 darke and writeth as it seemeth aboue some mens capacity With Christ saith Tertullian as well a belieuing pagan is a souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan meaning by Pagan according to the vse of the Romanes him that is not a Souldier Whereas therefore among the Romanes and all warlike nations those who were Souldiers were greately honoured as the vse of the word miles and armiger with vs doth shew and contrariwise those who were not Souldiers were of base esteeme called Pagani perhaps in some such sense as Villani with vs that is to say villaines clownes boores Tertullian disswading Christians from going to warre vnder infidels perswadeth thē not to be moued with this respect of being honoured if they be souldiers and dishonoured if they be not for saith he with Christ a faithfull man though despised in the world as a pagan is highly esteemed and honoured and also an vnfaithfull man though honoured as a souldier or cheuallier in the world is of base account with Christ. But how heathē people should from hence be called Pagani I know not vnlesse christians were also called milites or cheualliers for Pagani here as a base terme signifying villains or clownes or boores is opposed to milites as a name of honour Serm. sect 4. pag. 25. Thus then parishes were distinguished both in the cities countries and seueral presbyters particularly assigned c. to promiscuously pag. 26. In this section I proue that the BB. both before after the diuision of parishes were diocesan and first I answere an obiection for wheras some might imagine that Bishops before the diuision of parishes were parishional after diocesan as being set ouer many churches I shew which before hath bene proued that the circuit of the Bishops charge or diocesse was the same before the diuision of parishes which it was after c. And to this purpose I declare that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the country subiect vnto it And wheras some vnderstand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a parish according to the vulgar vse of the English word I shewed that in the best authors euen after the diuision of parishes it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs My reason standeth thus To whose iurisdiction both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the city suburbs though containing manie parishes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the whole country belonging to the same citie is subiect he is ouer the Churches both in citie and country and consequently a diocesan But to the iurisdiction of the antient Bishoppes both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the citie and suburbs and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the country thereto belonging were subiect Therefore the antient BB. were ouer the Churches both in the citie and country and consequently were diocesans The proposition is of vndeniable truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so vnderstood as I prooued before The assumption J proue by two most pregnant testimonies the one being one of the ancient canōs called the Apostles the other a canon of the councell of Antioch whereof I haue also spoken before But to them we may adde the next canon called the Apostles which is also recited in the councell of Antioch That a Bishoppe may not presume out of his owne limits to exercise ordinations to Cities and Countries not subiect to him And if he shall be conuinced to haue done this without the consent of them who hold those Cities or Countries let him be deposed and those also whom he hath ordained This syllogisme being too strong to be refuted his best course was not to see it Notwithstanding he cauilleth with some points therein For whereas his chiefe proofe before was that the Church of Antioch of Ephesus of Ierusalem of Alexandria c. were each of them but one particular congregation c. because Eusebius calleth each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby abusing the Reader as if Eusebius had by that name ment that which we cal a parish here he disauoweth the authority of Eusebius alledged according to his true meaning vnlesse he had said it was of that signification in the end of the Apostles time and the age following Which is a silly shift seeing Eusebius speaking of the Churches of whole Cities in the first two hundred yeeres euen of such as he had expressly mentioned as containing many Churches he calleth them by that name As at Alexandria he acknowledged the Churches to haue beene instituted by Saint Marke and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards yea after the number of them was increased vnder the name of the paroecia in Alexandria as I haue shewed before And where besides Eusebius I quote Epiphanius and the Councell of Antioch he saith It is to no purpose to cloy the Reader with multitude of allegations concerning the decrees or practises of latter ages Which also is a very friuolous exception seeing it is easie
to shew that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were vsually lessened but that they were any wheres inlarged he will hardly shew Therefore looke what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time the same at the least they were in the first two hundred yeeres And whereas I alleage one of the antient canons called the Apostles nor that I thinke they were of the Apostles owne penning but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called and by all sorts of writers so alleaged he chargeth me with seeking to bleare mens eyes with the name of the Apostles Canons In that I said they were so called it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them shew my meaning But let vs heare what he can say against them for my mind giueth me he will leaue them in better credit then hee found them If wee were so simple saith he as to take them for their doing yet should not a man of his profession so abuse our simplicity He knoweth there was a time when Rome her selfe saw too much in them to acknowledge them for the Apostles See Gratians decree dist 15. c. sancta Romana dist 16. cap. canones In both places it is said that they are apohryphall as we call the bookes of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome not because they are either false or counterfet but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles owne writing for if they were they ought to be esteemed of canonicall authority like the other scriptures Notwithstanding they are ecclesiasticall canons which for their great antiquity and authentike authority are commonly called Apostolicall receiued of antient Fathers and approoued by Councels And although some of them may be suspected as foisted in or depraued by heretikes yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councels as authentike are without exception being of as great credit as any other ecclesiasticall writings whatsoeuer Such is the canon wee speake of the words whereof which I cited being verbatim recited in the Councell of Antioch I will not discusse this controuersie wherein much may be said on both sides Only this J will say that as Damascen exceeded the truth in reckoning them with the canonicall scriptures so some learned and iudicious men haue been much ouerseene in too much censuring of them as first that they are condemned in the canon law when indeed the very scope of the 16. distinction is to authorize them and to acknowledge them though not as canonicall scriptures yet as authenticall canons Secondly that Isidor condemneth them Whereas indeed the words of Isidor in the true copy are these That by reason of their authority we prefixe before the other councels the canons called the Apostles although of some they are called apocryphal because the greater part receiue them and the holy fathers haue by synodall authority ratified them and placed them among canonicall constitutions Thirdly that they are condemned by the Councell in Trullo when as indeed that Councell reiecting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the constitutions of Clement which also were called Apostolicall because they were depraued by heretikes authorized the canons decreeing that the 85. canons shall remaine firme and sure which of their holy and blessed fore-fathers were receiued and confirmed and deliuered vnto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles And whereas some thinke that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them I finde it to bee otherwise For diuers of them are cited before his time being sometimes called absolutely the canons sometimes the ecclesiasticall canons sometimes the antient receiued canons of our Fathers sometimes Apostolicall canons as I haue partly noted before Neither is the authority of the generall Councell held at Ephesus though after Epiphanius his time to be neglected which calleth them the canons of the holy Apostles So much of those canons and also of this section which though it doe most directly and necessarily conclude that Bishops were set ouer dioceses yet he calleth it a needlesse discourse which because he knew not how to answere he taketh leaue to passe by it Serm. sect 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I haue intreated are of such euident c. to page 28. line 6. In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Caluin whom I produce not as this sophister cauilleth as a captiue by way of triumph but as one that taketh part with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians especially in the second and third point which their dissenting from Caluin Beza and other learned Authors of discipline he alwaies cunningly dissembleth And that his authority may be of more weight as I confesse him to haue bin a worthy seruant of Christ whose memory with me is blessed so I professe him to haue bin the first or chiefe founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline in setting vp whereof the Bishopricke being dissolued and the common weale reduced to a popular State I acknowledge him to haue dealt very wisely his proiect of discipline being the best that that Citie did seeme at that time capable of there being no hope that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers would be admitted But he cannot indure to heare that Caluin should bee esteemed the first founder of this discipline For coÌ„futation whereof he telleth vs what we haue heard an hundred times but neuer shall see proued that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times and primitiue Church and hath testimony from many learned men Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose c. Wickliffe the Waldenses Luther and diuers others hereafter to be named that liued before Caluin writ hee should haue said that writ before Caluin liued and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true which as I haue manifested already in respect of Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Luther so farre as they haue been alleaged so shall I in respect of Wickliffe and the Waldenses whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries and much lesse of their new-found parish discipline Neither can he abide that Caluin should be said to agree with vs in these three points but he must abide it for truth will preuaile But that were exceeding strange saith hee that he should ouerthrow that discipline which he was so carefull to establish Let him not abuse the Reader his agreeing with vs in the second and third point ouerthroweth the new-found parish discipline but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers and with the practise of Geneua vnderstanding by B. as they doe the President of their Presbytery their Church being a diocesse consisting of many parishes ouer which one Presbytery only is appointed Of which Presbytery if the President were perpetuall â—as he was in Caluins time and as alwaies he was in the primitiue Church there being not one instance to be giuen to the
contrary which order Beza misliketh not but sometimes wisheth it were restored then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches then now they doe In the meane time as their Church is a diocesse and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse so the President for the time being is diocesan But whether that be so or not once Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points It may be saith he for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres But the conscience must ground it selfe vpon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God As though we were destitute thereof and they contrariwise for their discipline had the precept and practise of the Apostles Which well may they take for granted but neuer will bee able to prooue and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement ioined with a good conscience what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles For if any man shall say that all the Apostolicall Churches and all the godly Fathers and glorious Martyrs did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed I doubt not to say of such a man that as hee is void of modesty so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vs will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged the title whereof is this Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy The which as he saith in the beginning will represent vnto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution For although the Bishops of those times made many canons whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word that you may easily perceiue that they had almost nothing in this behalfe dissâ—nant froÌ„ the word of God This is a good testimony you will say giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church but doth hee testifie that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto that shall you now heare And first concerning the Presbyteries hee saith as before I alleaged euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers c. The Refuter repeateth the words which I cited out of Caluin thus that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers Thereof giuing this censure Crafâ—ily or carelesly is this spoken The former if wittingly hee left out onely the latter if he did not heed it Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders No man can be so ignorant or so shamelesse as to say that Caluin was of opinion that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onely either in the Apostles times or in the age following What shall become of mâ—â— now no man being so ignorant and shamelesse I hope to salue both presentlie I confesse good sir that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17 I confesse also that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church he saith coldly and in few words the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church he giueth full testimony to the truth For can any man vnderstand Caluin as saying they had any other Presbyery besides the colledge of Presbyters in euery Church Doth not Caluin plainly say euery citie had their colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers Yes that he doth but the word only was either craftily or carelesly omitted Heare then the words of Caluin Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium qui pastores erant ac Doctores Nam apud populuÌ„ munus docendi exhortandi corrigendi quod Paulus episcopis iniungit omnes obibant quo semen post se relinquerent iunioribus qui sacra militae nomen dederant crudiendis nanabant operam Euery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching exhorting and correcting which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes and also that they might leaue a seed behind them they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort who had giuen their names to serue in the sacred warfare that is the younger sort of the Clergy Thus therefore J reason The Colledge of Presbyters according to Caluins iudgement consisted onelie of Ministers The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters Therefore the Presbyterie of each City according to Caluins iudgement consisted onely of Ministers The assumption is euident The proposition himselfe proueth when hee saith omnes all of them exercised the officâ— of teaching c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. c. What can be more plaine For where there are none but Ministers there are Ministers only where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people which Paul inioyned Bishops and instructing the younger sort of the clergy there are none but Ministers Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching c. there are Ministers only As touching the second Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following Vnicuique ciuitaâ—i erat attributa certa regio qua Presbyteros iude sumeret velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur To euery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country which from thence should receiue their Presbyters and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church What can be more plaine that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning that both citie and country made but one Church as it were one body whereof the head was the citie the other members the parishes in the country that the Presbyteries were only in cities and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter when they wanted from thence Who therefore to vse his owne words could be either so ignorant as not to see or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses How doth he auoid this Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses But doth he not meane dioceses when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church No doth he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities of which the Bishops were Presidents As for country parishes they had not Presbyteries but seuerall Presbyters and those they had as Caluin saith from the Presbytery of the citie Besides when he maketh the citie and country to be
but one body it cannot be doubted but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body and the rest of the parts subiect vnto it Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse where it was large as the Bishops deputy in the country subiect to him But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe let the Church of Geneua framed thereby testâ—fie Which is as much a diocesse now as when it was vnder a Bishop there being but one Presbytery vnto which all the parishes are subiect But let vs heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to haue acknowledged in this behalfe He neither nameth dioceses nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church but onely acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen to be not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience being conuicted with euidence of truth but desirous to make a shew of opposition when they know not what to say against it Doth not Caluin plainly say that to each cittâ— was attributed a certaine region and that both were one Church as it were one body To what purpose doth he then say that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake c. Is not his answere in effect this Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses and that the Bishops had vnder their charge both the citie and country adioyning for that also he confesseth in the next point but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of that is I confesse he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point as you say but yet in the fourth which also you confesse he dissenteth from you Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly when he saith not a diocesan but a titular Bishop For was not the Bishop a diocesan if his Church was a diocesse if he had vnder his charge both the city and country adioyning Yea but he was not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to haue been only President of the Presbytery like to the Consull in the senate of Rome which you call a titular B. wherein being the fourth point he dissenteth from vs yet doth he acknowledge that vnder his Bishopricke was contained both the citie and country and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse be not a diocesan Bishop His testimony therefore to the third is cleere especially if you adde that which followeth concerning the Châ—repiscopi or country Bishops For Caluin saith If the country which was vnder his Bishopricke were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in euery place rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place Which is a most pregnant testimony both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan For if euery parish had sufficient authority within themselues what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnder his Bishopricke Why doth he say that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey But what saith the Refuter to this he confesseth not ingenuously but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerua as if it stuck in his teeth that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose But that somewhat is as good as nothing for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops O impudency neither doth he speake of the Apostles 〈◊〉 of which all the question is for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of gouernment All the question concerning the Apostles times doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares And if nothing will settle the coÌ„science but what is alledged from the Apostles times what haue you to settle your conscience for your opinion who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times nor afterwards But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter seeing I haue heretofore proued that the circuit of euery Bishops charge was from the beginning as great if not greater then afterwards And if nothing may be in the Church but as it was in the Apostles times then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity because none was then and as well might they alleage that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith because none was in the Apostles times as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church because it was not so in the Apostles times Thus haue I manifestly proued that Caluâ—â— giueth testimony to the first point and in the two latter that he wholly agreeth with vs. So doth â—eza as I haue shewed before testifying the Churches were dioceseâ— and that in the chiefe towne of euery diocesse the first Presbyter who afterwards began to be called a Bishop hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times was set ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and countrey that is the whole diocesse And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection or ouer sight they had also their Chorepiscopi that is countrey or vice-Bishops Yea but saith he being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vs it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all seeing he affiâ—meth withall that they were but humane ordinances and aberrations from the word of God That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree which is the fourth point wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vs and from the truth supposing it to be of custome and humane constitution that the â—â—futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment when as he plainely testifies that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the gouernment that there 〈…〉 it almost dissâ—nant from the word of God Doâ—◠〈◊〉 where say or insinuate that it is an aberration from the word of God either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region being portion of the same Church Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey It will neuer be shewed And now are we come to his conclusion containing a most vaine braâ—ge proceeding either from pitifull ignorance or extreme vnconscionablenes That hauing answeared my arguments in such sort as you haue heard and wanting indeed proofs worth the producing he shal not need the vntruth of this third point is so euident to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion And so I leaue him
conceiuing hope of victory like the King of Aâ— betweene these old forces which I haue made to retire vpon him and the new supplies marching towards him FINIS THE THIRD BOOK prouing the superiority of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHAP. 1. Confuting the refuters preamble to the fourth point and defending mine owne entrance thereinto Serm. sect 1. pag. 28. In the fourth place therefore we are to intreat of the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers for although the Presbyterians and we agree in this c. almost to the end of the pag. 29. OF the fiue points which I propounded three haue alreadie been handled the first concerning Lay Elders against both sorts of Disciplinarians aswell the elder as the younger though betweene their opinions there is this difference that the elder require such a presbyterie in each Citie or Diocesse the yonger in each Parish In the second and third concerning Dioceses and Diocesans I had to deale onely with our new sect of Disciplinarians who vrge the new-found parish-discipline In the fourth and fift which remaine I propounded to my selfe the confutation of the elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians not greatly regarding what our innouatours in these 2. points do hold or deny their proper opinions concerning the parish discipline being in the three former points sufficiently confuted The which I doe the rather note for 2. causes The one that the reader may vnderstand the refuters euasions in disauowing such assertions as I ascribe vnto the disciplinarians to be to no purpose seeing they are held by men more learned and iudicious with whom principally I had to deale The other that he may discerne the pouerty and weakenesse of their cause the chiefe and almost only strength thereof being the allegation of diuers protestant writers whom I called the learneder sort of Disciplinarians who are parties in the cause As touching the fourth point the refuter before hee come to my words maketh an idle flourish the summe whereof is this that were it not that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops he should overthrow the Supremacy of the Pope he would scarse haue vouchsafed an answeare to my discourse Here therefore he sheweth two things first that by confuting the superioritie of Bishops he shall withall refute the supremacie of the Pope 2. that otherwise an answere to me in this fourth point were needlesse In the former he seemeth ignorantly and yet maliciously to presuppose that the superioritie of Bishops and the supremacie of the Pope hang as it were vpon one pin and that he which graunteth the one must needs hold the other For the Basis or ground of his dispute is this such as is and ought to be the gouernment of the whole Church such is and ought to be the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches and contrariwise from hence he hath two inferences the first thus Such as is and ought to be the gouernment of the whole Church such is and ought to be the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches But the gouernment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall and not Monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the parts or seuerall Churches is and ought to be Aristocraticall and not Monarchicall The proposition he taketh for graunted noting it as an absurditie in me To fight for that in the particulars which in the generall I wish ouerthrowne But it would be knowne what he meaneth by the particulars or parts of the Church whose gouernment he would haue aunswerable to the vniuersal or whole Church If he mean only parishionall Churches as he needs must For there is no other visible Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in his conceit but a Parish Parishes no doubt may be proud of the comparison for then as some of them haue written in stately maner as Rome had her Senate Lacedaemon her Seigniorie Athens her Areopage Ierusalem her Synedrion Venice which our Refuter addeth her councell of State and lastly which exceedeth all as the vniuersall Church hath her Oecumenicall synode so the Church of euery Parish in euery street and in euery hamlet must haue an Ecclesiasticall senate But what parts soeuer he vnderstand whether Parishionall Nationall or Diocesan Churches the proposition is vntrue for of Prouinciall or Nationall Churches the Metropolitans and Bishops of dioceses are and ought to be the gouernors But howsoeuer in that respect the forme of gouernment may seeme to be Monarchicall yet in respect of the maner of gouerning the Metropolis vsing the aduise of the Nationall or Prouinciall synodes the Bishop of his Presbyterie they may be Aristocraticall Who knoweth not that the common wealth of Rome somtimes was popular and likewise that of Athens for it is an errour of the Refuter to reckon Athens with Venice as an example of Aristocracie yet the seuerall prouinces were ruled by seuerall gouernours as Propraetors and Proconsuls The gouernment of this whole Island blessed be God for vniting the two Kingdomes in the person of our Soueraigne is Monarchicall yet the gouernment of seuerall parts by Counsels and Presidents thereof may seem so far Aristocraticall The gouernment of the whole Church in Heauen and earth is Monarchicall vnder one head and Monarch which is Christ our King And for the gouernment of the whole Church vpon earth he hath no Vicar generall but the holie Ghost who appointeth gouernors vnder him which may gouerne the seuerall parts of the Church in some respect monarchically though the whole Church by the mutuall consociation of her gouernours for the common good and by the concurrence of them to an Occumenicall synode is gouerned Aristocratically for the whole Church beeing but one bodie there ought to be a Christian consociation of the gouernors thereof for the common good of the whole bodie If among the Princes of the whole world there were the like consociation the vniuersall world should be gouerned in that respect Aristocratically though the seuerall parts for the most part Monarchically So much of the proposition The assumption he prooueth by the testimonies of our writers against the Papists with whom himselfe and his copartners do not agree For first when they say that the regiment of the whole Church is Aristocraticall they meane in respect of the gouernors of the seuerall Churches who as being seuered rule their Churches seuerally there being no one visible Monarch ouer all so being congregated in an Oecumenicall Synode do make one Ecclesiasticall Senate But our new Disciplinarians doe hold that euery parish is an entire body by it selfe hauing within it selfe for the gouernment of it selfe sufficient authority vnsubordinate and independent and therfore do not acknowledge any lawful authoritie in Synodes to define determine or commaund but onely to deliberat and aduise as H. I. in his booke vrging reformation and other the Christian and modest challengers of disputation together with the humble petitioners suing for a toleration do teach Secondly Our writers hold the gouernment of the Church
vniuersall to be Aristocraticall because as our Sauiour Christ ascending into Heauen left his twelue Apostles as it were twelue Patriarches aunswerable to the Princes of the twelue tribes furnished with equall authority and power whose colledge was the supreme Senate of the vniuersall church so they committed the Churches to Bishops as their successours being equall in degree who as they gouerne the Churches seuerally so ioyntly with other gouernors are the highest Senate of the vniuersall Church But it was neuer practised in the Church of God that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to generall councils to haue right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils but both they and Deacons I meane some of them were to attend their Bishop to assist him with their priuate counsell and aduice which one argument by the way doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops ouer other ministers But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion who ascribing the supreme authority in their seuerall Churches to the whole congregation stand for a popular state rather then Aristocraticall Whereas indeed the gouernment of Churches as they are prouinciall are according to the ancient Canons which are in vse with vs gouerned by prouinciall synodes and therefore by a regiment Aristocraticall So that of this syllogisme the proposition is false the assumption is gainesaid by themselues and the conclusion confuting their owne assertion agreeth with the practise of prouinciall churches with vs. § 4. His other inference is this If the gouernment of the seurall Churches may be monarchicall then by the same reason the gouernment of the whole Church may be monarchicall But the gouernment of the whole Church may not be monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the seueral Churches may not This consequence is vnsound there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts And that is the answere which ouâ— men doe make to the papists when they vrge this reason as there was but one high priest for the gouernment of the Church vnder the Law so there should be but one chiefe Bishop for the gouernment of the whole Church They answere there is not the like reason betweene the Church of one nation and of the whole world Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius totius orbis longè diuersa est ratio perinde est ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat For of the vniuersall Church Christ onely is the head which supreame and vniuersal gouernment if any man shall assume to himselfe as the Pope of Rome doth thereby he declareth himselfe to be Antichrist or emulus Christi sitting in the Church of God as God and lifting vp himselfe aboue all that is called God But as touching the seuerall Churches those who be the lieutenants of Christ may be called the heads or gouernors thereof as soueraigne princes of all states and persons within their dominions Metropolitans of prouinciall Churches Bishops of their dioces and Pastors of their seuerall flocks Secondly whereas particular men are enabled by God to gouerne seuerall churches no mortall man is able to weild the gouernment of the whole Church which is one of the maine arguments which our writers vse against the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church which this refuter seeketh in vaine to infringe The Romane Emperors when their Empire was at the largest and they esteemed themselues Lords of the world enioying indeed not one third part of the whole yet finding themselues vnable to weild so great a burden were faine to assume colleagues vnto them with whom they parted the Empire when they might haue retained the whole Thirdly the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church would proue dangerous and pernicious to the same if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into errour or idolatry especially he being so aboue the whole Church as that he should not be subiect to a generall Councell But the heads of seuerall Churches if they erre or fall may by the Synodes of other Bishops be brought into order or deposed Examples whereof we haue in all euen the chiefe seats of Bishops as of Marcellinus at Rome Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch Dioscorus at Alexandria Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotâ—â— concordiâ— muâ—na glutino atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregâ—m Christi lâ—cerare vastare tentauerit subueniant cateri c. Fourthly to the head of seuerall Churches the members may haue easie and speedie recourse for clearing of doubts and deciding of controuersies c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble besides manifold inconueniences repaire to one place These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition The assumption is false in respect of Christ who is the Monarch of the Church otherwise I acknowledge it to be true but without any disaduantage to my cause the odious consequence of the proposition which is so oft vrged being vnsound If therefore he can no better disproue the Supremacy of the Pope then he doth the superioritie of Bishops it were better he should be silent then busie himselfe in matters aboue his reach The other part of his idle flourish is a vaine bragge that were it not for that cause he should not neede to busie himselfe in answearing or examining this point For if neither the Churches were dioceses nor the Bishops Diocesan to what end should wee enquire what power or iurisdiction they had But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan as I haue manifestly proued before and as those Disciplinarians do confesse with whom chiefly I deale in this point who granting that the Churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan doe notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree c. § 5. Now that the state of the controuersie betwixt vs and them may appeare I shew wherein the Presbyterians agree with vs and wherein they dissent from vs. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians as sometimes I doe also Disciplinarians though thereby I meane no other but such as doe stand for the Presbytery and for that discipline being loth either to call them aduersaries whom I acknowledge to be brethren or to offend them with the title of Puritans wherewith others doe vpbraid them And howsoeuer he in bitter scorne doth say that of my charity I doe in scorne so call them I doe professe vnfainedly that out of a charitable mind I did terme them Presbyterians not knowing how to speake of them as dissenting from vs more
in the fourth century then in the third or in the third then in the second or in the second then the first the first Bishops in all likelihood hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority yet our new Disciplinarians for a poore shift and euasion deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to haue been in the first two hundred yeeres because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second as for the third Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century will needs haue the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles And when they are driuen from that they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vpon the earth For my part I make no doubt but that Anianus who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria being a man beloued of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery way admirable had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him and that he and those which succeeded him euen in the Apostles times viz. Abilius and Cerdâ— had no lesse authority as diocesan Bishops then those which came two hundred yeeres after them Indeed when the Churches multiplying there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop which from the first might bee intended and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him he became a Patriarch the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary Now if any man shall thinke that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first and vpon consâ—ciation of parishes subiected to him became a diocesan he is to vnderstand that the diocesse and the mother Church of the diocesse was before any parish that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse that thâ— Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish but for the whole diocesse that at Alexandria in and from S. Marks time who constituted the Churches there there haue been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts viz. 1. Parishionall 2. Diocesan titular Bishop being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop though not solely 4. Diocesan L. Bishop 5. A Patriarchall Bishop 6. An vniuersall Bishop Of the first sort it is said all were in the first two hundred yeeres Of the second there beganne to be some in the end of the second century The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time The fifth for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans whom hee outskippeth and Patriarches sometimes before the Councell of Nice And how is all this proued It is strange to see how strong some mens conceits can be when their reasons are full weake The proofes for the parish Bishop J haue before disproued How is the second proued Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria Perhaps But why he rather then S. Marke or Anianus or any other of his predecessors Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius that there were diuers Churches in that Citie and hee Bishop of them This would haue gone for a stout reason no doubt had not Eusebius himselfe testified that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once How is the third demonstrated It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place Very well perhaps it may be these are very good proofs But why may it be It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning where he saith that some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius Heare Ieromes words Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in a higher degree called him Bishop euen as an army chooseth a Generall Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters and to prefeâ—re them before Deacons both because they chose their Bishop as also because they did elect him from among themselues vntill Heraclas and Dionysius But it is a world to see what is collected from these words both by that Author and also T. C. By that Author first That some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas then after and had not signified some difference onely in their election For Heraclas and Dionysius who had been Origens schollers and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist or Teacher in Alexandria in respect whereof they were no more Presbyters then Origen himselfe had been notwithstanding for their excellent learning the Presbyters who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne number to be Bishop made choice of these two one after the other although at the time of their election they were not Presbyters But what followeth At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort viz. of titular diocesan Bishops and with Dionysius began another viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop ouer a parish seemeth to haue continued exclusiuely from Marke to Iulianâ—â—s for he was ashamed to say that Saint Marke who as the same Ierome testifieth was the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop ouer a diocesse from Iulianâ—â— to Heraclas 〈◊〉 and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse to haue 〈◊〉 with Dionysius O acumen But the proofe is admirable and the conclusion passeth all The proofe is this Nothing lâ—â—teth vs but that thus we may probably thinke More is the pitie For true learning and a sound iudgement would haue let you from entertaining and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies Yea but by this meanes Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree I answere though these fancies had neuer beene heard of there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them The conclusion Howsoeuer it is this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times As if he had said Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort c. Nothing letteth vs but that thus wee may probably thinke But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be wee are resolued vpon a certaine conclusion it is certaine c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vpon so vncertaine premises especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time there were not onely diocesan but also Metropolitan BB. But
shew they had then can it not be doubted but that diocesan Bishops much more were in the Apostles times for euery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse being not actually a Metropolitan vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince being constituted there was a consociation among themselues and subordination of them to him as their primate There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches and those which followed as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church either to the end of the second century or of the first with hope to escape that way Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth yea or fifth century for the superiority of Bishops they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question vnlesse they shall be able to shew not onely that no such thing was in vse but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time and the age following for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome so soone as God gaue peace vnto his Church was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning The second corner of his first starting hole wherewith the second also meeteth is that the question is of the seuen Angels And what of no other Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis to the thesis especially when it is confessed by the Refuter that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels in respect of the substance of their calling may be concluded of other Bishops and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church may be verified of these Angels The third that I must proue these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which also is repeated in his second euasion But where doe I say in all the sermon that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction Where doe I deny either that the BB. did or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters for either of both or that in the defect of Bishops both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters In a word where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters But let the Reader vnderstand that there are two maine calumniations whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers The one that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino as though no other manner of gouernment were any way or any where lawfull The other that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers which haue not such BB. to ordaine them His other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or starting hole is that which hee hath already foure times runne into and making vse of it now the fifth time in the beginning of the next section desireth the Reader that it may not be tedious to him that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me for not concluding what hee according to his forced analysis would haue concluded though all men see I doe directly prooue what before was propounded for the proof of my first assertion viz. that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses and themselues diocesan it remained that J should proue that they were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree c which if I did not endeuor to proue directly he might haue had some quarrell against me CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree Serm. sect 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree all antiquitie with one consent if you except Aërius c. to the end of pag. 31. MY reason hee frameth thus If all antiquitie except Aërius who for dissenting in this point was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine with one consent doe acknowledge that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree But the former is true therefore the latter First hee cauilleth with the consequence which no man bearing the face of a Diuine I had almost said of a Christian would doe calling it sore poore feeble and insufficient vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added Where let the Reader consider what is the question which is here concluded viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree This question plainly is de facto of what was for de iure that is of the quality lawfulnes I intreat in the second assertion Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity rather then the truth Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree and hath any of vs the forehead to deny it Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting as ◠proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact as also in respect of the right in the demonstration of the second assertion Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate that the Bishops described in the first assertion are of Apostolicall institution as I am well assured that this Refuter with all his partakers will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth but that captious persons may easily cauill with it And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion to haue produced such euidence as doth testifie onely de facto yet many of the allegations which I bring doe also giue testimony to the right Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie whereon the consequence is grounded Now to the thing testified which is the assumption which I proue by fiue arguments The first If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes condemned by the antient Catholike Church for denying the superiority of Bishops then the antient Church doth giue testimony to the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de iure But the first is true therefore the second Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say but where I said all antiquity besides Aërius did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops against this he obiecteth that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops no more then Ierome did And de iure
Ierome denies it as well as he For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement is a vaine flourish let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres I thinke I might say 1000. and I wil yeeld the cause And those latter Writers which consent with him vse his words build vpon his authority so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders whoÌ„ if I can disburdeÌ„ thereof there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops First then I say that they abuse Ierome who match him with Aërius for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke being a most perfect Arian as Epiphanius saith who liued at the same time liuing in a Church of Arians standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius who also was an Arrian out of a discontented humor the common sourse of Schisme and heresie broached this heresie as Epiphanius Augustine censure it Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying the Superiority of Bishops both de Iure as Augustine reporteth his opinion and de facto as Epiphanius alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For there is one order saith he of both one honor and one dignitie The Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the B. giueth the lauer of Baptisme so doth the Presbyter the B. doth administer Gods worship so doth the Presbyter the B. sitteth on the throne so also doth the Presbyter But Ierome was not so mad to vse the refuters words of Aërius who indeed as Epiphanius saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a franticke fellow as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which oftentimes he doth auouch neither doth he deny it de Iure And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes the one that he saith Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which most manifestly he did and did it no doubt with this mind that though he missed of the Bishopricke which ambitiously he had desired yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop The other that he saith Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be an Apostolicall tradition and therefore either he may be vnderstood as holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini but Apostolici iuris or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture that Presbyters are called Bishops But heereof wee may not conclude that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one for not onely Bishops but also Apostles are called Presbyters and the Apostleship is called Bishopricke For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops yet that one among many who had singular preheminence aboue the rest is by the warrant of the holy Ghost called the Angell of the Church and by the same warrant may be called the Bishop Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onely proueth the superiority de facto but de iure for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike but as Epiphanius reporteth all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers that being abandoned of all they were forced to liue in the open fields and in wods And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius that his opinion is not heresie because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops and that Augustine followed Epiphanius himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man For be it that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered as J haue shewed and seeing euery testimony alleaged by each heretike hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by euery one that hath written against them The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1 doth onely proue that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time he which was the Bishop of Philippi namely Epaphroditus was called their Apostle And it is confessed by many of the Fathers that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi which in a generall signification were called Bishops yet there was but one nay that there could be but one which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi And as touching Augustine I maruell that learned men could derogate so much from him as that he at that time especially would write vpon the authoritie of others what himselfe vnderstood not For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time but hee wrote that booke in his elder age euen after hee had written his bookes of Retractations at what time hee had written 230. bookes besides his Epistles and Homilies Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke whereby it might bee gathered that hee was in doubt whether any of those particulars which he noteth were to be judged heresies onely he saith that what maketh an Heretike can in his judgement hardly if at all be set downe in an accurate definition Notwithstanding he distributeth his intended Treaâ—ise into two parts The first of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine and which he could come to the knowledge of among which the heresies of Aërius haue the 53. place in the latter hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike But though he came not to that or if he did what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands yet in the conclusion of his Treatise which is extant he saith thus What the Catholike Church holdeth against these meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited it is but a superfluous question seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know Eam contra istâ— sentire nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam dâ—bere recipere that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe And again Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus istâ— non debet credere
Reader then by Aâ—ticus preferred to the Deacon-ship afterwards when he was Presbyter he was by the same Atticâ—â— made Bishop of Cyzicum Opâ—aâ—us as I alleaged in the Sermon assigneth to Deacons the third ministerie to Presbyters the second to BB whom he calleth principes omnuiâ—Ì„ the first Burchardus citeth this saying of Augustine being a Bishop You Presbyters know ye that your degree is the second and next to ours for euen as Bishops haue the place of the Apostles in the Church euen so the Presbyters of the other disciples the former haue the degree of Aaron the high Priest the latter of his sonnes In which words the third point also is testified Whereunto Ierome himself in more places then one giueth testimony affirming that in the Church the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are answerable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits Now to reject these testimonies as being vnder age as though they did historically relate only what was in their own times and not dogmatically set downe the orders and degrees of the ministerie perpetually obserued in the Church of Christ is a verie vnlearned shift If any one of these as namely Ierome shal but seeme to fauor any of their assertions though in their sense he contradict himself and gainsay all others both Councils fathers against such a testimonie no exception either of minoritie of age or singularitie of opinion will be admitted but that authoritie must ouerweigh all that himself and others say to the contrarie It is a world to see how Ierome in this case is magnified and preferred before all antiquitie Who can tell better then Ierome who better acquainted with the historie of the Church then Ierome c. But when most pregnant plain testimonies are produced out of Ierome prouing the superioritie of Bishops agreeable with al antiquity then Ierome is a youngling and vnder age But where I said in the judgement of antiquitie Bishops Presbyters Deacons are answereable to the high Priest Priests and Leuits he saith This gay reason Cardinall Turrâ—cremata Bellarmine out of him bring to proue that there must be one Pope ouer the whole church as there was one high Priest among the Iewes and it proueth that as substantially as it doth this The which is wickedly spoken and desperately as many things of late haue been vttered by that faction as that the Papists arguments for the Popes Supremacie were as good as ours for the superioritie of Bishops But of these blasphemous speeches whereby they match the ordinance of Christ by his Apostles with the height of Antichrists pride I hope this Refuter his consorts will one day haue the grace to repent I confesse it is ordinary with the Papists to alledge out of the Fathers for the Popes supremacy what they testified for the superioritie of Bishops But will any be so desperate as to say the same testimonies abused and detorted by Papists do as substantially prooue that for which they are alleaged besides the true meaning of the fathers as that for which they are truely and faithfully alleaged Good reason therefore had Caluin and the rest to refute that argument because as Caluin saith There is not the like reason betweene one small people and the whole world The whole Church hath no head or vniuersall Bishop but Christ But each seuerall Church may haue their head and seuerall Bishop answerable to the high Priest of the Iewes as diuers of the Fathers haue taught Therfore Ignatius requireth the Smyrneans to honor the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the high Priest and it is an vsual thing with the Fathers not only to apply those things which were spoken of the high Priest to Bishops but also to call the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 poâ—tificem Sacerdotem summum c. and Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There remaine yet the testimonies of Ignatius to be discussed which I produced in this 2. argumeÌ„t The authoritie wherof the refuter first calleth in question Wherin he may seeme to preiudice his own cause for T.C.W.T.D.F.H.I. and others of that alphabet haue oft times dragged some testimonies out of him yea this refuter himselfe oft times doth cite him and once I remember he threatned to prooue his lay Presbyters out of Ignatius when he should come to answere my allegations out of him which how it will be performed the reader is now to expect In the meane time little reason had he so much to cleuate the authority of those godly and learned epistles for his own confession that they are recorded in Eusebius is a good proofe they are not counterfeits But he is pleased to heare him speak And whereas Ignatius teacheth that the lay 〈◊〉 must be subiect to the DeacoÌ„s they to the Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishop the refuter denieth the Presbyterie and Deaconship to haue been degrees of the ministery but vnderstandeth such Deacons as were only imployed in looking to the poore and such Presbyters as were only gouerning elders The vanity of which conceipt J haue sufficiently declared before if anything will suffice And I am ashamed for the refuter that he should be either so ignorant as not to know or so vnconscionable as not to acknowledge that these three Bishops Presbyters and Deacons haue alwaies since the Apostles times been esteemed three degrees of Ministers by the vniuersall and perpetual consent of all Christendome vntill our age Notwithstanding his arguments such as they are must be answered And first for Deacons he saith they were no Ministers of the word but imployed only in looking to the poore and that he proueth by the confession of D. Bilson What maner of men the Deacons were of whom Ignatius speaketh Ignatius himselfe sufficiently declareth in his Epistles to the Trallians where he calleth the Deacons the ministers of the mysteries of Christ and to the Smyrneans Deacons of Christ vnto the word of God to the Philadelphians ministring to the Bishop in the word to the Antiochians the sacred Deacons Neither doth D. Bilson deny it Only he maketh question of the 7. which were elected Act. 6. whether they were such as properly were called Deacons and are the third degree of the ministry or such as were chosen onely to be ouerseers of the poore to which purpose he citeth the generall Councill held in Trullo correcting the Canon of the Council held at Neocaesaria which appointeth that in euery Church there should be 7. Deacons in imitation of the act of the Apostles in ordaining 7. But say they we comparing the sense of the Fathers with the speech of the Apostles do finde that they spake not of men seruing at the mysteries such as properly be called Deacons but at tables alledging Chrysostome who enquiring what the office of these 7. was plainely denieth that they were Deacons whereupon they denounce as D. Bilson hath alledged that the foresaid 7. Deacons
must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither And verily to me it seemeth more then probable that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. were in vse in the primitiue church being a degree inferior to Presbyters for these 7 or the most of them were as Eâ—â—phaenius others do testifie chosen out of the 70. Disciples were no doubt principall men among them full of the holy Ghost wisdom being before this ministers of Gods word For as the Apostles the chiefe and principal ministers thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore so wheÌ„ the Apostles were disburdned therof that care was committed to 7 others who were chief men among the disciples Neither may it be doubted but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher so the rest wheÌ„ their teÌ„porary function at IerusaleÌ„ was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpoÌ„ the death of Steuen gaue theÌ„selues to the preaching of the word as appeareth in Philip who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith that D. Bilson coÌ„fesseth the Deacons to haue bin only imploied in looking to the poor the coÌ„trary is euideÌ„t for speaking eueÌ„ of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts coÌ„cerning DeacoÌ„s that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore but also to attend the sacred assemblies seruice of the Church euen a step to the ministery of the word meaning as I suppose to the Presbytery As for those who properly are called Deacons it is most euident by innumerable testimonies that they were the third degree of the ministery whose office was a sacred ministery helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice offering the bread and the cup performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in dismissing those which were to depart in commanding silence and exciting the people to deuotion and attention In the Council of Nice fault is found with Deacons who in some Cities did giue the Eucharist to the Presbyters but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds knowing that they be the Bishops ministers are inferior to the Presbyters and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters at the hands either of the Bishop or the Presbyters Iustine Martyr speaking of the Eucharist saith after the president hath giuen thanks and the people hath blessed they who with vs are called Deacons do giue and communicate to euery one that is present of the bread wine and doe carie it to those which are absent And hauing repeated the same againe he speaketh of the collections for the poore shewing that what was collected was coÌ„mitted not to the Deacon but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President by him to be distributed Tertullian saith The chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath the right of giuing Baptisme then the Presbyters the Deacons but yet not without the authority of the Bishop Cyprian euery where speaketh of theÌ„ as being of the sacred ministerie The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon If any Deacon ruling or hauing the charge of a people without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish The council of Carthage speaking of BB. other inferior orders which do handle the sacred mysteries reckoneth Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters Ierome hath these words If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth they are to be lamented who in villages and townes other remote places being baptized by Presbyters and Deacons do sleep or depart this life before they be visited of the Bishop The safetie of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest meaning the Bishop To whom if a power peerelesse and eminent aboue all be not giuen there will be as many schismes in the Church as Priests Hence it is that without the Chrisme which the Presbyters Deacons were wont to receiue from their own Bishop and commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize In the 4. Councill of Carthage which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians ther is direction giueÌ„ for the ordination of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon other of the Clergie The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter as of the Bishop The Deacon is authorized euen in the preseÌ„ce of a Presbyter if ther be necessity he be coÌ„maÌ„ded to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people to wear an Albe only in time of oblation or reading To conclude Cyprian and other of the fathers when they terme the Deacons Leuits make them answerable to the Leuits as they do the Presbyters to the Priests do euideÌ„tly declare what they thought coÌ„cerning the office of Deacons That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word the refuter proueth thus They who might not preach nor baptize nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers The Presbyters might not preach nor baptize nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence Therefore they were not Ministers The proposition is proued by 2. reasons First because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office Secondly because euery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis that is power to do all things that belong to his order First to the proposition it selfe I say it is very false and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true viz that they who might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall dutie being therto licensed of the Bishop were ministers From which we may assume and conclude thus But the ancient Presbyters might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall duties being therto authorized by the Bishop Therefore they were ministers And that the proposition is false it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church and of all the antient Churches whose Presbyters are and were Ministers as I haue sufficiently prooued before for the conuiction I doubt not of the refuters conscience and yet neither may nor might preach baptize administer the Lords Supper and performe other ministeriall functions but by leaue or authority from the Bishop Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now nor of the Presbyters in times past a mockery because it agreeth not with his fancy but his fancy is a meere nouelty disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis into the power of
ecclesiasticall gouernement to haue beene dioceses as hath beene shewed I say then which also I prooued afterwards by the testimonies of Cyprian and Ierome whereto the authoritie of Basil may bee added that the vnitie of each Church meaning a diocesse dependeth of the vnitie of the Bishoppe and the setting vp of a second vnlesse it were by way of coadiutorshippe hath euer been esteemed the making of a schisme in the Church But of this more anon § 2. But let vs heare if it bee worth the hearing what more particularly hee obiecteth against these three points And first he trifleth to no purpose when he asketh If there bee not as much vnity in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder a Bishoppe For though ech parish if it were according to the new conceit an entire body within it selfe vnsubordinate to any other may perhappes haue vnitie within it selfe yet in the Church of the diocesse or prouince that may happen which Ierome affirmeth is like to happen where is no Bishoppe that there shall bee as many schismes as parishes And surely what man of iudgement and moderation can without horrour thinke of those manifold schismes and diuisions which would ensue if euery parish should haue according to the newe conceit sufficient authoritie within it selfe vnsubordinate and independent for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes ecclesiasticall Yea but saith he If there bee not as great vnitie of the Church in a parish vnder one Pastor as in a diocesse vnder one Bishoppe then the more Churches are vnder one gouernement the greater is the vnitie But the consequent is false therefore the antecedent The consequence of the proposition is true being not extended without the limits of the question The more particular Churches in any one visible Church are subordinate to one Bishoppe the greater is the vnitie But by one visible Church I meane the Christian people of one diocesse or of one prouince or at the most of one Nation For the Christian people liuing vnder diuers lawes as they be diuers Nations so are they diuers visible Churches though the faithfull in them all are members of one and the same Catholike Church Let vs heare how he prooueth the assumption If the more Churches are vnder one gouernment the greater vnitie then welfare the Pope who if this be true maketh vnitie of all Churches in the world As who should say all the Churches in the world are vnder the Popes gouernment so that whiles hee denieth the superiority of Bishoppes hee seemeth else there is no sense in his speech to hold the Popes supremacie If any man shall say that as the vnity of ech Church dependeth on the singular preeminence of the Bishoppe so the vnity of the whole Catholicke Church by the same reason shall depend of the Popes supremacy which seemeth to haue beene the Refuters meaning who desireth as much as may bee that the superioritie of Bishoppes and supremacy of the Pope may seeme to bee of one tenure I answere that the vnitie of the whole Church standeth in this that it is one body vnder one head Christ. And as in a diocesse to set vp a second head is to set vp an Antibishoppe and to make a schisme from the true Bishoppe so in the whole Church to acknowledge a second head is to set vp Antichrist and to make an apostasie from Christ. Neither was it euer the meaning of our Sauiour that as euery particular Church should be vnder one Pastor so the whole Church should be vnder one visible head or earthly Monarch For then would not he haue furnished his twelue Apostles with equall power and authority as I haue said before As touching the second he confesseth all that I said namely that from the power of ordination the perpetuity of the Church dependeth and yet cauilleth with mee as if either I had said there could bee no ordination at all without a Bishoppe or that the Bishop had the sole power thereof Thus being resolued to wrangle if he finde not matter to cauill at he will faine it I did not say there could be no ordination without a Bishoppe but that euer since the Apostles times to our age it hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God that the right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons is such a peculiar prerogatiue of BB. as that ordinarily and regularly there could be no lawfull ordination but by a Bishop otherwise I doe confesse in the sermon that extraordinarily and in case of necessity Presbyters may ordaine in the want of a Bishop Concerning the third he saith it is enough to preserue good order in Churches if iurisdiction be in the ministers and Presbyters Hee meaneth in the seuerall parishes which may after a fashion be gouerned where the supreame ecclesiasticall officer◠I meane the parish minister assisted with such a senate as ech parish is like to afford hath the reines of gouernment in all causes ecclesiasticall committed to them But I pray you how shall there be any good order in the gouernment of the Churches of a diocesse or prouince when euery parish is so according to the new conceipt an entire body of it selfe indeed a member by Schisme rent from the the rest as it hath neither consociation with nor subordination to others For they are not gouerned by consociation who deny the definitiue power of synods as our new Disciplinarians do neither do they acknowledge any subordination for their Pastor forsooth is the supreme ecclesiasticall officer and the power of ech parish is independent immediatly deriued from Christ. Now how is it possible there should be good order in the gouernment of so many parishes in a Kingdome where is no subordination no superiours nor inferiours but all equall But this is enough for our Disciplinarians if they might be subiect to no superiors but that each of them might be the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church Serm. sect 4. pag. 32. As touching the first whereas there were many Presbyters in one Citie c. to pag. 36. l. a fine 8. Jn this section I proue that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in singularity of preeminence for terme of life Which is a point very materiall prouing both against the new Disciplinarians that the BB. were diocesan there being but one for ech diocesse as hath been touched before and against the elder that the BB. were not such as their Presidents of the Presbytery or Moderators of assemblies among them whose preeminence is but a priority of order and but for a short time and against both disprouing the parity of Ministers which is the other maine piller of the pretended discipline Here therefore it behoued the Refuter if his cause were such as indeed he could maintaine with soundnes of learning and euidence of truth both to haue disproued this superiority of BB. and to haue proued his parity of Ministers But he passeth by in
haste touching only vpon the points as a dogge by the riuer Nilus not daring to stay by it yet so brag he is that he would seem to haste away not for feare but rather in disdain as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertineÌ„t as the former part of this section or so needlesse as the latter For this is his vsual guise to cast off those points of the Sermon which indeed are most materiall as impertinent or needlesse The former is impertinent because it is not prooued to belong to those seuen Angels nor within the first two hundred yeeres Which is a meere euasion vnlearned and J greatly doubt also vnconscionable Doe I not plainely note that these seuen Angels had this singularity of preeminence when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth that whereas there were many Presbyters who also were Angels in euery Church yet there was but one who was the Angell of ech Church For to his obiection of their not being diocesan Bishops I haue answered before And for the time doe I not affirme that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus Titus in Creet Epaphroditus in Philippi Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times As for the rest of my witnesses they doe either testifie de iure which in their iudgement is perpetuall or if they speak de facto it is of that which was in the Apostles times Cornelius the worthy martyr who was Bishop of Rome about the yeere two hundred fifty auoucheth that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters c. This testimony is reiected because it was giuen fifty yeeres after the date which were but an euasion if it did testifie de facto onely But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure of what ought to be I hope that which ought not to haue been in Cornelius his time was not lawfull before vnlesse the Refuter can shew that before Cornelius his time plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawfull § 5. The Councell of Nice whose testimonie I also alleaged was of this iudgement that there ought not to bee two Bishoppes in one Citie For hauing decreed that when the Catharists that is Puritans or Nouatians returned to the Catholike Church those who were of the clergy should retaine their degree as hee that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue and likewise a Bishoppe for euen the Puritanes or Catharists themselues had their Bishoppes if there were not another alreadie in the Catholike Church But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholike Church alreadie then it is manifest before hand that the Bishoppe of the Church shall haue the honour of the Bishoppe but hee that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall haue the honour of a Presbyter vnlesse it please the Bishop to communicate vnto him the honour of the name But if that like him not he shall finde him out either a Chorepiscopus that is a country Bishops or a Presbyters place that still he may be retained in the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there may not be two Bishop in one Citie Which words in Ruffinus are the tenth Canon Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopi Augustine also vnderstood though somewhat too late that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice that there should be any more Bishops in a Church then one For how soeuer whiles he was ignorant thereof he was drawne to take vpon him the Bâ—shopricke of Hippo whiles Valerius was aliue yet when himselfe was old and desired that Eradius might bee his Coaâ—â—utor whom also he nominated for his successor yet he thought it vnlawfull that whiles himself liued he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius liued saith he I was ordained Bishop and I sate with him both of vs being ignorant that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice But what was reprehended in me shall not be blamed in him Or as Possidonius speaketh Quod sibi factum esse doluit alijs fieri noluit In the next place I bring the testimonies of Ierome Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which I confesse liued after the two hundred yeeres but they testifie that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one And the like hath Primasius on the same place To all this hee answers that he will not greatly striue about mens deuices which noâ—withstanding he can neuer proue to bee humane and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels in Timothy in Titus c. was no humane deuice But though he will not striue yet he alleageth that little which hee was able and that also more then himselfe doth beleeue to be true For he obiecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiasticall story reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time Founders they both were of the Church of Rome as Irenaeus testifieth and hauing founded the Church ordained Linus Bishop but that either of them both and much lesse that both at once were Bishops of Rome the Refuter himselfe doth not beleeue To what purpose then doth he alleage that which himselfe is perswaded to be false Would he haue his Reader beleeue that to be true which himselfe beleeueth to be vntrue That which he quoteth out of Athanasius that there were diuers Bishops in some one Church though I cannot finde it may be true in time of schisme and diuision as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops c. His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe is very childish as though when he saith that Paul ordained in euery Towne or Citie Presbyters and Bishops his meaning were that in euery Citie he placed more Bishops then one If I should say there are Bishops placed in euery Citie or diocesse throughout England J should speake truly and yet my meaning would be that in euery diocesse there is but one Where I say that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preseruation of the Church in vnitie and for the auoiding of schisme so is it for the same cause to be retained he would seem half amazed that I who do not deny other formes of gouernment to be lawfull pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopall function to be of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof pag. 92. should now plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan BB. for the preseruation of the Church in vnity c. But the Readâ—r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing
But no wheres he saith that Bishops and Presbyters were equall for before BB. were ordained he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall he saith they were the same After Bishops were ordained which he acknowledgeth to haue been done in the Apostles times and that by the Apostles for which cause he calleth their institution a tradition Apostolicall he plainly confesseth that one who was chosen from among the Presbyters and was called the Bishop of the Church to haue been placed in a higher degree But hereof we shall haue occasion hereafter to intreat more fully His second reason Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power The words are Nam Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in â—â—ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters haue alwaies called one being chosen out of themselues and placed him in a higher degree Bishop euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius to haue been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters as the generall aboue the souldiours And truely of the two T. C. conceit who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter hath the better glosse for he imagineth that vntill Heralas and Dionysius they who were chosen from among the Presbyters were called Bishops but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church ceased to call him so And he might haue added with no lesse colour out of the words that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers brought them a peg lower To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof which heretofore I haue declared to giue some colour of likelyhood were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie Wherefore of all collectors my Refuter shal beare away the bell For he that can collect out of these words Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishop was placed in a higher degree that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops needs not doubt to collect quidlibet ex quolibet what himselfe will out of any thing whatsoeuer His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie is most false For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination and in the end concludeth that what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites were in the temple the same let Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselues in the Church The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome in the end rejects it For if this be true that vnlesse the Bishop haue a peerelesse power there will be as many Schismes in the Church as there be Priests then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope there will be as many Schismes in the Churches as there ar Bishops but this latter consequence is naught so is the former Thus Ierome on whose only authoritie among the ancient the Disciplinarians in this cause relie when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops whereby he seeketh euery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope But all in vaine For though it be true in Ieromes conceit that if there were no Bishops there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests yet it doth not follow thâ—t if there were no Pope there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops For first experience teacheth how to judge of this matter for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie and yet the Church was more free from Schismes before that time then since whereas contrariwise when there were no Bishops for a short season in the Apostles times in most of the Churches euery one of the Presbyters as Ierome speaketh sought to draw Disciples after him which he supposeth to haue been the occasion of instituting Bishops Secondly there is great oddes betweene BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters One Bishop say the Fathers of the Africane councill may ordaine many Presbyters but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found Thirdly before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie pacificall or formed letters And if any were in error they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them and if they preuailed not they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie or to depose them Cyprian saith that the Catholike Church is one not rent into Schismes nor diuided but euery where knit togither coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues And in another place which before hath beene alledged Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord and with the bond of vnitie that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ and to make hauocke thereof the rest may helpe c. Whereas contrariwise if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils as the Papists teach when he doth erre who should reclame him when he is exorbitant who should reduce him into the way when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell who may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth which may be prouided for as it was wont yea better then it was wont where are Christian and Orthodoxall magistrates by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in euery seuerall Church and mutuall concord of them in the truth so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring consenting in vntruth But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop when he erreth and goeth astray he becommeth as we see in the Papacie the head of
antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus and Titus in Creet to that end that they might ordaine elders notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before Whereto he answereth that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters and people to haue ordained but at the first they were lesse fit for the purpose then an Euangelist That the people sometimes haue had some stroake in election of their Bishops I do not denie but that they euer had any right to ordaine can neuer be proued That the Presbyters had right to haue done it he should haue declared But what Presbyters doth he speake of ministers they I trust if the new conceit be true were confined ech man to his own parish neither might they intermeddle in other parishes euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe neither can it be thought that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues were not fit for the execution of their power assuredly if it were not fit for them to ordaine but for Timothe and Titus by the same reason neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards but for Bishops who succeeded Timothe and Titus Jf he say the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine he must first proue which he will neuer be able to doe that euer there were such Presbyters and then he must proue that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers which when he hath performed he may hope to proue any thing The latter part of the antecedent I proue thus Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches and not Presbyters Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters was the power of Ordination deriued Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus were Euangelists and not Bishops and therefore that which followeth of deriuing their authoritie to their successors is meerely idle Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared vnlesse it be the conclusion But to answeare his reason whereby he goeth about 〈◊〉 clâ—â—â— pelâ—ere their being Euangelists whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations and were not deputed to any one place doth not hinder but that they might be and were Bishops as all antiquitie with one consent testifieth when they were assigned to certaine Churches Neither is it greatly materiall as touching the force of this argument whether they were Euangelists or Bishops seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with them but to be transmitted to them who should succeed them in the gouernment of the Church Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet and so of all other Churches did succeed Timothe and Titus and other Apostolicall men who were the first gouernors of the Churches is a most certaine truth as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times doth ineuitably euince But hereof I shall haue better occasion hereafter to speake Now that the Presbyters were not their successors it is euident for they had the selfesame authoritie and no greater vnder the Bishops who were successors to Timothe and Titus which before they had vnder them For they which had no other authoritie after them then they had vnder them could not be their successors Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery c. to ex authoritate pag. 39. MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vpon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries yet this text maketh not for them That it maketh not for them I proue by this reason If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous As first that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one Be it so but yet there may be question which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen is the sense of the holy Ghost vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost which the refuter fancieth For my part I did not take vpon me to determine whether sense is the more likely Jt was sufficient for me that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries His first exception therefore is to no purpose Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter maketh nothing for their Presbyteries it is more then euident And that this exposition which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries is very probable I shewe first because the word is in that sense oft vsed though not in the new testament yet in greeke writers of the Church It suffiseth the Refuter that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures doth as much prejudge his own exposition as this How be it I do not deny but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures onely this I say that there is no other place wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie meaning either the company of Presbyters or the office of a Presbyter This then being the onely place where it is so vsed we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense Secondly I shew that this may be the sense because not onely diuerse in former times as Ierome Primasius Anselmus Haymo Lyra but Caluin also doe so expound it To this his answere is worse then friuolous that though these writers doe so expound it yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood And why so I pray you because he confesseth that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron for I must not say founder of the Presbyterian Discipline neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other no more then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes but
Presbyters as this Bishop also did vnder his presence to do those things which are not done but by Bishops but that he should call for a Bishop to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church But if we must talke of toyes what a toy was this that all these things which I haue alleaged being duely considered diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers haue renounced their ordination which they had receiued from a Bishop that they might be ordained by such as themselues And thus you haue heard how easilie he hath answered the Councils by vouchsafing them no answere Now let vs weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome His common answere to both is such as vnlearned yet obstinate Papists vse to giue that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments yet there be learned men which can There be Lectures of the parâ—â—ie of Ministers one day to be published which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome Why but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne that he referreth vs thus to other men yes no doubt such answeres as his are neuer to seeke First he wrangleth with Ephiphanius and then with me for alledging him He telleth Epiphanius that he beggeth the question Alas good man he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing And what was the question I pray you was it not the same which is now betweene you and vs whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall as Aërius held This assertion of Aërius Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments as I do yours prouing that BB. are superiour to other Presbyters both in the power of ordination and iurisdiction His former argument may thus be concluded That order which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church is superiour to that which hath not that power The order of Bishops hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church which the order of Presbyters is not able to doe Therefore the order of Bishops is superiour to the order of Presbyters Call you this begging of the question Yea but Aërius denied that Bishops had power more then Presbyters to beget Fathers How is this proued he said they were equall It followeth not Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things that the Bishops did in some particulars by an insufficient enumeration or induction concludeth that therfore there was no difference betweene them The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people noting those things whch be common to Bishops with other ministers as their imposing hands on the penitent their giuing of Baptisme their executing of Diuine seruice their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues Epiphanius therefore sheweth that although it were true that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity yet this hindreth not but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances which Aërius himselfe could not denie because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons which Presbyters had not the second because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters The Refuter therefore should rather haue suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement then haue laid such an imputation vpon Epiphanius What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme He denieth in effect though perhaps he intend not so much both the proposition and the assumption and first the assumption For where Epiphanius saith that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers he asketh What hindreth them but the vsurpation of Bishops In which words two things are implied The first that the power of ordination which the BB. haue is vsurped by them The second that Presbyters haue as good right to ordaine as they But you will say how are those things proued you must be intreated to take them vpon his word for prooâ—e he hath none and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions self-set assertions which haue no ground nor warrant in the word of God or true reason before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers of all the approued Councils of all true Christian Churches of former times We proue that the Apostles had the right of ordaining that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes and to their successors to their substitutes as to Timothe in Ephesus and Titus in Creet to Mark at Alexandria to Polycarpus at Smyrna to Euodius at Antioch to Linus at Rome c. to their successors as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles the same was deriued to their successors which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers and Councils many of them affirming and confirming not one I say not one denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation As touching Presbyters that they haue right to ordaine we see no warrant in the word but rather the contrarie no testimonie of Fathers no decree of Councils for it but many testimonies and decrees against it no approued example to warrant it how then could he say the Presbyters haue as good right to ordain as BB But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes this I will offer him that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers Councils or Histories of the Church prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers J meane Presbyters and Deacons I will promise to subscribe to his assertion But if he cannot do this as I know he cannot then let him for shame giue place vnto the truth Againe whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith that BB. beget Fathers meaning that they haue power to ordaine ministers of the word and sacraments or as he expoundeth himselfe teachers he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words saying that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vnto God Why but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers ordained of God to this end that they may by the lauer of regeneration ministery of the Gospell beget children vnto God when Stephen
was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria that euer since his time and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn there hath beene a Bishop in a degree superiour to other Presdyters that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus c. That word afterwards therefore is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters which custome as he supposeth continued vntill one of the Presbyters beeing chosen from among the rest was called Bishop for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB. BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen he began for difference sake to be called the Bishop the Angell of the Church Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria For euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. who were not chosen from among the Presbyters the Presbyters haue alwaies called one chosen from among themselues and placed in a higher degree the Bishop euen as if an army doe choose their generall or Deacons choose from among themselues one whom they know to be industrious and call him the Archdeacon His fourth argument is this There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe which a Deacon cannot but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon by how much he is nearer to the Bishop this is the verie scope of this place and to the same are all the arguments following referred c. the summe whereof is that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops and Deacons You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures not that the office but the name of Bishop and Presbyter were for a time confounded Now let vs see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch he would say at Alexandria that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one See you not how he prooueth it when he saith that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters Was this to prooue that a Bishop and Presbyter are equall or all one or did Ierome intend any thing else but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons and that by such arguments as before I analysed We haue heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures and practise of the Church at Alexandria now at the last let vs heare the end of his speech That he I know not who might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Toto coelo errat it was not Ieromes end to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop but superiour to the Deacon For if the former had beene his intent this and the other from the practise of Alexandria had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree therefore they were equall The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination therefore Presbyters be his equals Hath not the Refuter now great cause thinke you to crake of this answere was this among all the testimonies which I alledged chosen as most misalledged by occasion whereof he might pay me mine owne and tell me that it was wherried in with â—areâ— by him that looked an other â—ay Blessed bee God that so guided me in the way of truth that among all my allegations the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one As for this nothing could bee more pregnant and pertinent to proue that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination then as I said in the sermon that Ierome himselfe euen when and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters as high as hee can aboue the Deacons doth confesse ordinatioÌ„ to be peculiar to Bishops Now whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth excepting ordination I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected that if BB. bee superiour onely in the power of ordination then are they not superiour in iurisdiction This obiection I preuented in these words Where you are not to vnderstand him or other of the Fathers speaking somâ—time to the like purpose as though the B. were not superiour in any thing else but that potestate ordâ—nis as touching power of order â—e is superior only in ordination For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis they euery where acknowledge I know some answere that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuinâ— superiour to other Ministers onely in the power of ordination but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico in that hee acknowledgeth that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes Which answere I refusing because Ierome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in generall and of the power of ordination in particular that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata concordiam sacerdotum solueret et scandala generaret made choice of this other as the more like to bee true Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome and some other fathers who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction and yet affirming that hee is superiour onely in the right of ordination or imposing hands must thus bee vnderstood as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onely therein quoad ordinis potestatem as touching the power of order they holding other things belonging to the power of order as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper to bee common to BB. with other ministers but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters because as Thomas saith ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem Hereunto the Refuter after his malepert and saucy manner answereth that I vnderstand not this distinction For saith he potestas ordinis power of order is not potestas ordinationis power of ordination but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued as Tolet sheweth But
whether of vs spake without vnderstanding let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge For he conceiueth me as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining whenas I plainely made it according to those Fathers iudgement but one part of the power of Order they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vnto Presbyters but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop and in that sense say the Bishop in respect of the power of order is superiour onely in ordination Yea but Bellarmine for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter must serue the turne saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments Me thinks the Refuter should adde that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments Doe they not meane fiue others besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper the ministery of two whereof viz. of confirmation and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order because the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments which the Presbyters may not viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders Howbeit of the former Ierome saith that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij quà m ad legis necessitatem It is true that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt They hold that the Sacrament of the altar as they call it is the Sacrament of Sacraments whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar and that euery one of their 7. orders all which they call Sacraments is onely to be counted a Sacrament as it hath reference to the Eucharist to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders according to their diuers offices referred to that Sacrament And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ which is as well performed by a Priest as a Bishop therefore they teach that Bishops and Priests are both of one order and that the order of Bishops as it is a Sacrament is not superior to that of Presbyters but only as it is an office in respect of certaine sacred actions in this sense saith Thomas that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest the office of a Bishop is an order For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to haue referrence to the body of Christ either verum his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar which they call the power of order or mysticum mysticall that is the the Church and members thereof which they cal the power of iurisdiction This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the Masse their doctrine of transubstantiation wherby euery Priest is as able to make his maker as the Pope himselfe I call it newe because all the ancient writers doe confesse as before hath been shewed Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees and consequētly orders of the Ministery for what is an order but that degree which among things or persons which are subordinate one to another some being higher some lower any one hath obtained Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts let vs consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth 1. And first that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction 2. That the power of order is a spirituall power whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men which they who are not of the same order at the least may either not at all or not ordinarily performe 3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order though they haue no iurisdiction or charge and therfore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order 4. That of Ecclesiasticall order there are three degrees in Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and because neither of the two superiour orders may be granted to any per saltum therfore each superiour order includeth the inferiour so that a presbyter may doe that which belongeth to a Deacon and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter but not contrariwise 5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme and to preach common to them with Deacons who shall be thereunto authorized by the B. a power also to minister the holy communion and authority to remit and retaine the sinnes of men which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order First because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter without iurisdiction or relation to a charge And secondly because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him Besides this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order and according to the Popish doctrine belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance 6. The power of order in B. B besides all this power which is in the Presbyters is power by imposition of hands to conuey grace as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to penitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the ministery for their ordination As touching the former the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order yet the Apostles alone and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vpon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost Acts. 8. 19. And for the latter we read that both the Apostles themselues and such as they ordained Bishops did ordaine ministers by imposition of hands insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Creet where were diuers Presbyters before Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordaine ministers I hold this authority
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
â—â—daciousnes of wicked men be feared that what they cannot doe by right and equity they may â—ccomplish by rash and desperate courses actum est de episcopatus vigore de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church But more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople and also in the writings of Ierome Euery Bishop saith the Councell of Antioch hath authoritie of his owne See both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies and to haue a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to gouerne all things with iudgement The Councell held in Trullo decreed that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function that they should retaine their eminent dignitie and authoritie so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes and that they may vse within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authoritie of their Prelacie and that all their administration be firme and lawfull But what saith Ierome He hauing intreated of the other degrees of the Clergie at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church qui ordo episcopalis est which is the order of Bishops the power whereof he setteth downe in these words Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites that is Presbyters and Deacons c. Hee gouerneth the Church of God he sheweth what euery one ought to do he condâ—mneth he receiueth he bindeth hee looseth that which was bound hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God meaning heauen hauing nothing meaning no ecclesiasticall order aboue him c. But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters haue both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse and also in respect of the deriuation thereof The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience the Bishops publike and in the externall Court also The Presbyter gouerneth the people onely of one flocke the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese but the Presbyters also themselues The Presbyters receiue institution vnto their iurisdiction from the Bishop and exercise it vnder the Bishop of the Diocese who hahauing as the Councell of Antioch and Ierome say the care of the whole Church or Diocese admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis into part of their care by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron and are the successours of the 70. Disciples as diuers of the Fathers doe teach but the Bishops answer to Aaron and are the successors of the Apostles as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome who saith that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles and of Irenaeus that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors deliuering vnto them their owne place of gouernment To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all Of these points I purpose not saith he to say any thing in this place because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction must presently be disputed the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice auâ—ided these allegations which he knew not how to answer and very featly rid his hands of them But if the Reader shall vpon examination finde that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred hee must needes thinke that their cause of sinceritie as they call it is not very sincerely handled Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction let vs now descend vnto particulars The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church or the persons Whatsoeuer things saith the Councell of Antioch appertaine to the Church are to be gouerned husbanded and disposed by the iudgement and authoritie of the Bishop to whose trust the whole people is committed and the soules of the congregation And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning for as what was at the first giuen to the Church was laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards what was contributed was committed saith Iustine Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishop Heereof you may reade more Conc. Gangr c. 7. 8. Concil Tol. 3. c. 19. 4 c. 32. Balsam in Concil Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33. As touching persons they were distinguished at the first into Clericos Laicos vnto whom afterward a third sort was added viz. Monachi monasticall persons who though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men as they count them yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop The great Councell of Chalcedon determined that no man should build a monastery any where or house of prayer without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie and that those which in euery Citie or Countrey did leade a monasticall life should bee subiect to the Bishop See more c. 8. Conc. Afric c. 47. Agath c. 27. 58. Theod. Balsam saith that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop then to the Gouernour of the monasterie As touching the Laitie I said Serm. sect 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof c. Not neede saith the Refuter Yeâ— you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano as indeede it must be seeing they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order The Refuter is to be borne with if hee talke at randon seeing he is as it seemeth out of his element The thing which I was to prooue if it had beene needfull was that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish and that priuately the Bishop gouerneth the people of the whole diocese and that publikelie the which I held needlesse to prooue because before it was prooued that they had the charge of the whole Diocese
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
you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes in respect of iurisdiction that the Presbyters and Deacons though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order yet they might not exercise that power without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable which is celebrated vnder the Bishop that is in his presence or by such namely in his absence or in those Congregations where he is not present as he should permit or appoint The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuent the Refuters cauill who saith that the Church was but one Congregation whâ—rein no man had authoritie to minister the word or Sacraments but with the liking of the Pastor For that Eucharist which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the congregation where the Bishop was present it being administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize But the idle conceit of one onely Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted Where I alleged Cyprian reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution without warrant from him though he were absent therin not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum the Bishop who was set ouer them nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui Cathedrae seruantes nor reseruing vnto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire the Refuter saith the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian will serue as a poore shift for Cyprians testimonie who had iust cause to complaine that the Presbyters who in his absence were to feede the Flocke had taken vpon them to admit to the Communion c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne Is it not plaine that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of who as hee saith elsewhere were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood who were to feed the people and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people were Ministers of the word and Sacraments Againe will it serue the turne to say either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I haue proued before to haue beene a Metropolitan In the end he resteth in his first answer that Cyprian is vnder age Alas good Cyprian how hard was thy happe that thou wert not Bishop one fortie yeeres sooner that the Refuter and his consorts which now haue excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church might haue esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres The like I might haue added concerning other ministeriall functions The second Councell of Carthage decreed that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare celebrare diuine seruice and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie hee should be deposed The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed who shal performe the actions of the church meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice and the ministerie of the word and sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop The ancient Canon called the Apostles appointeth that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God vse of the sacraments that he should be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious The same hath the Councell of Antioch in the fifth Canon which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon all the BB. gaue it this acclamation This is a iust rule this is the rule of the Fathers This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice and offer the Communion c. the Councell determined if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. c. let him be anathema For a conclusion I alleged the words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the B. that is without his leaue and authority doe any thing that belongeth to the Church To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer of one congregation which I haue confuted more then once To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters in the first place I alleged Cyprian who telleth Regatianuâ— a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon that pro Episcopatus vâ—gore Cathedrae authoritate for the vigour of his Bishopricke and authority of his chaire hee might himselfe haue censured him as he thought good counselleth him if the Deacon did persist hee should exercise the power of his honor towards him and either depose him or excommunicate him Secondly Ierome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter did not virga apostolica with the apostolike and with an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessell and deliuer him vnto the destruction of the flesh Both these the refuter casteth off as vncompetent witnesses who speake but of the practise of their owne times as who should say it had beene otherwise before their times But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies some whereof I will cite anon that the ancientest Canons Councels and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church As for the Apostles times I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus The former reason if the Refuter will giue me leaue to frame it is this Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselues Apostles and were not or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers The Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reproued for the latter Therefore these Angels which before I haue proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers His answer is friuolous that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops which before hath been prooued nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters which word himselfe deuised for a shift Is it not against sense saith hee that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles If they were not subiect to him why is hee either commended for exercising
B. Geminianus And this was the vsuall stile which Presbyters did vse when they did subscribe to Councels instead of their B. whose place they supplied As to the Councell of Arles Desiderius Presbyter directus à Domino meo Ioanne Episcopo directed from my Lord Iohn the B. haue giuen my consent and subscribed and so three others there mentioned in like maner to diuers other Councels Whosoeuer will peruse the Acts of the great Councell of Chalcedon hee shall seldome read any B. mentioned without some title of great reuerence and honour as reuerendissimus sanctissimus And long before that Socrates acknowledgeth that it was the vsuall manner in his time not to speake of BB. without titles of great honour calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most religious most holy or such like And Chrysostome saith plainly that Heretikes haue learned of the Diuell not to giue due titles of honour to Bishops But where hee findeth fault with them for that in stead of those titles which argue their authoritie they said your reuerence your wisedome and such like what would hee haue said to the tearmes that haue beene vsually giuen to our Bishops by the Disciplinarians among vs I say among vs for Caluin Beza and others when they haue had occasion to write to our Bishops haue not refused to giue them their titles of honour To omit the rest Caluin writing to Archbishop Cranmer vseth these titles Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime clarissime Praesul c. Zanchius to Bishop Grindall Reuerendissime Antistes Beza and Sadeel to Archbishop Whitgift Reuerendissimo viro in Christo Patri Domino Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi serenissimae Reginae Consiliario totius Angliae Primati c. His second answer containeth two things the former that the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giueth to BB. for that onely J mentioned is quite besides the purpose my argument being this The holy Ghost giueth BB. a more honourable title in calling them the Angels of the Churches then if he had called them Lords Therefore wee should not thinke much that they are called Lords He answereth The Angels are glorious creatures of heauen and haue some fit resemblance of the Ministers office Lord Lordship and grace are tearmes of ciuill honour not so well befitting the Ministers of Christ Iesus I confesse they doe not so well befit them because they come short of that honour and excellencie which in the name of Angels the holy Ghost ascribeth to them For they are called not only Angels that is messengers and ambassadours of God as all ministers are in respect of their ministerie but also each of them is called the Angell of the Church whereof he is B. in respect of his gouernment and gardianship of the Church as the holy Angels of God are said to be their Angels ouer whom they are appointed Gouernours and gardians Therefore the name Lord giuen to them in respect of their gouernment and authoritie is a title of lesse honour then that which in the same respect is giuen them by our Sauiour Christ. Neither are they therefore ciuill Lords because they haue that title of Lords common to them with the Lords temporall For who knoweth not the distinction betweene the Lords spirituall and temporall so often mentioned in the Acts of Parliament And whereas in the second place hee would insinuate that our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth these titles of Lordship and grace Luc. 22. where though hee readeth thus The Kings of the Gentiles reigne ouer them and they that beare rule ouer them are called gracious Lords but you shall not bee so yet he is not so ignorant of the Greeke tongue as not to know that neither gratious nor Lords are there mentioned in the originall text That was an affectionate translation of those who were too partiall in this cause That very title which our Sauiour speaketh of two of the Ptolemies Kings of Aegypt did assume vnto themselues either of them being called Ptolomeus Euergetes Ptolemy the bountifull or benefactor But indeed in the language wherein our Sauiour spake the word which is translated Benefactors is often vsed for Principes or Heroes as Psa. 118.9 It is better to trust in the Lord then to put our trust in Princes And that seemeth to haue beene Lukes meaning as not only Merceruâ— but Beza also supposeth The 70. translate the word Prou. 19.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King in Psal. 118 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Princes So Psal. 47.10.83.12.113.7 But 1. Sam. 2.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pro. 8.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is also plaine that the disciples imagining that Christ should be a worldlie Monarch expected that themselues should be earthly Princes in great authoritie about him euery one affecting a neerer place about him then his fellowes as appeareth by the two sonnes of Zebede whose ambitious suite to Christ that they might sit one on his right hand and the other on his left in his kingdome gaue occasion of this speech as Matthew noteth Whereas therefore they both erred in their imagination thinking that they should be great Princes vnder an earthly Monarch and were corrupt in their affection each one of them ambitiously seeking superioritie ouer the rest our Sauiour seeketh to reforme both telling them that neither they should bee earthly Princes as they imagined in these words But you not so neither ought they to affect ambitiously superioritie ouer others but that by how much they should exceed others in dignitie they should labor by so much the more to excell them in humility imitating his example Neither did our Sauiour Christ interdict his Apostles either superioritie of authority ouer others or titles of eminent honour The authoritie and dignitie of being his Apostles is greater then any either honour or title that is giuen to our BB. Ierome writing on Pauls stile which he assumeth to himselfe Tit. 1.1 saith Where hee calleth himselfe the Apostle of Iesu Christ it seemeth some such thing as of hee had said Prâ—fectus prâ—terio Augusti Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberij Imperatoris For euen as the Iudges of this world that they may seeme the more noble take names from the Kings whom they serue and from the dignitie wherewith they are puffed vp euen so the Apostle challenging to himselfe great authoritie among Christians he signified before hand that he was the Apostle of Christ that by the authoritie of the name bee might bring in awe those that should reade shewing thereby that all which beleeue in Christ must be subiect to him Hauing thus answered the first obiection I did easily foresee that three other things would bee obiected the first if Bishops may be called Lords then they may behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches I answered that although they may not behaue themselues as Lords of the Churches yet being the Angels of the Churches and spirituall Fathers to
therefore as the first point was bootlesse so this last is needlesse If he like not of this assumption he cannot make this conclusion which notwithstanding he maketh if he will assume that they were not sufficientlie cleared as he hath borne the reader in hand all this while then he must needs conclude against himselfe that therefore these other arguments were needfull The truth is though the former points were so sufficientlie cleared as that the refuter had nothing whereby to auoid the euident truth thereof conuicting his conscience but beggerly shifts and sophisticall euasions notwithstanding for so much as some of them with whom I had to deale are so lead with a spirit of contradiction as if they were in the contradiction of Chore the Lord open their eyes and turne their hearts I therefore thought it needfull for the more full conuiction of the gainesayers to confirme by other arguments the doctrine which I collected out of the text But where I had beene to blame for not setting downe this collection plainely were it not a point of Art sometimes to conceale Art the reader is to coy the refuters head for making so plaine a collection for his own conuiction as they say for gathering a rod for his own taile The collection being reduced into a sillogism standeth thus The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan BB. such as our be are here meant by the Angels Therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. such as ours are is lawfull and good The proposition is such as no man of vnderstanding or conscience will make question of saith the refuter we aske no more but to haue this assumption confirmed that the Angels were such and then you shall not need other arguments to proue this conclusion But the assumption say I is that which in the Sermon and in this defence thereof hitherto hath beene proued how sufficiently I referre to the reader and I appeale to the refuter This therefore may stand for the first argument I proceed to that which was expressed in the Sermon omitting what else he hath in this section as being either refuted before or vnworthy to be mentioned now Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 55. All the question now a daies is of the lawfulnes c. to pag 56. l. 1. All the question saith he of the lawfulnesse had beene ended before this time if the Angels of the Churches had beene proued to be such BB. But say I the Angels of the Churches were the BB. of the primitiue Church who in the former part of the Sermon were proued to be such and those proofes in this defence haue hitherto beene confirmed in such sort as I hope the refuter will acknowledge himselfe to be satisfied if not yet it is but folly to multiply words concerning the proofes of the former assertion for they must stand vntill the refuter or some other of more strength shall take vpon him to assaile them And I doubt not but they will stand after they haue beene assailed My argument therefore standeth thus What function hath diuine institution and approbation is lawfull and good The function of BB. such as were described in the former part of the Sermon hath diuine institution as being Angels sent of God and approbation as being Starres which Christ holdeth in his right hand Therefore the function of such BB. is lawfull and good To the assumption he hath nothing to answere besides the bare deny all thereof but that which already he hath repeated three or foure times since he entred into this fift point that diocesan BB. are not meant by the Angels and Starres and chargeth me as though I thought it enough to affirme it would haue my readers to take it vpon my bare word when the thing which I haue proued hitherto hath beene only this that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were such as in the former assertion wer described But the assumption I proue in the residue of the sermon first by consequēce then directly By consequence in the next section Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 56. for what function or gouernment is of Apostolicall institution that is to be acknowledged a diuine ordinance in respect of the first institution as hauing God the author thereof The Episcopall function or gouernment by BB. is of Apostolicall institution Therefore it is a diuine ordinance c. to pag. 61. l. 2. The proposition is acknowledged not onely by Beza who saith if it proceeded from the Apostles I would be bold to ascribe it wholy as all other Apostolicall ordinances to the institution of God but also by the refuter himselfe as needing no proofe The assumption I proued by three arguments wherein I proceeded as it were by degrees two whereof saith the refuter are needlesse as if still he held it superfluous to bring more arguments then one I confesse that any one of these cords are strong enough to bind a stronger man then this refuter yet I thought it not needlesse to vse three knowing that as Salomon saith a three-fold cord is not easily broken The first of the three I thus propounded That gouernment which was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles and was not ordayned by generall Councils was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution This proposition I proued first by two testimonies of Augustine whereunto might be added the like testimonies out of Tertulian Constatid ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum T. C. saith the example of the Apostles and generall practise of the Church vnder their gouernment euen without a commandement draweth a necessitie Secondly By reason shewing that both it is incredible that all the godly Fathers and Christian Churches would abolish that gouernment which was ordayned by Christ and his Apostles and also impossible that a gouernment not receiued from the Apostles nor ordained by Councils should at once be set vp in all parts of the Christian world But the refuter saith I did not need to proue the proposition for though such a change might be possible yet it is so vnlikly that it is against both Christianity ciuility to suspect that there was any such for which grant though he could doe no other I thinke my selfe as much beholding to him as if he had granted the cause But thereupon saith he we may boldly inferre that if in the Apostles times the gouernment was in the hands of the presbitery it continued in the Church along time after their decease from which proposition I may boldly and truely assume conclude that after the Apostles times the gouernment was not in the hands of such presbiteries as the disciplinarians speake of therefore neither in the Apostles times The assumption consisteth of two parts the former that the gouernment of the Churches by such BB. was generally and
perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the latter and was not ordained by generall Councils The former part I proue by foure arguments The first whereof is this If the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church in the first 300. yeeres after Christ and his Apostles were diocesan BB. then the gouernment of the Church by such BB. was generally and perpetually vsed in that time But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent He maketh a doubt of the proposition because he hath not learned that speeches in disputation indefinitly propounded are generally to be vnderstood for auoiding of clenches and therefore when I say the Angels or gouernours I meane all the Angels or gouernours when I say in the three hundred yeers I meane throughout that terme euen from the death of Saint Iohn to the end of the foure hundred yeere after the incarnation of Christ. The assumption hath beene proued at large in the former part of the Sermon and in this defence thereof first by this disiunction either the Churches after the Apostles time were gouerned by diocesan BB. as we say or by presbiteries consisting for the most part of Lay-elders as the disciplinarians hold But neuer by such presbiteries Therefore euer by BB. Secondly I haue proued that euer since the Apostles times the Churches haue been dioceses and the BB. diocesans superiour to other ministers in degree hauing singularity of preeminence during life and majoritie of power in respect both of ordination and iurisdiction his answere is that he hath answered those points of my Sermon where he hath shewed that I proued no such matter whereunto I reply that all his answeres were but shifts and euasions and stand fully confuted But perhaps the refuter will say if I had vnderstood your proposition as vttered in generall termes as now it is expounded by you then I would haue taken the same exception against the proofe of the assumption which I did against your proposition for although in some part of that time some BB. were perhaps such as you described yet it followeth not that generally and perpetually in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles they were such That they were generally such in the last of the three hundred yeeres which is the fourth century after Christ it thing most fully testified and most manifestly proued in the proofe of the former points and hath been confessed by the refuter neither can be denyed of any man who hath any sound learning ioyned with a good conscience Let vs then consider when such BB. had their beginning Perhaps some will say they began with Constantine for then was the greatest alteration in the state of the Church I answere the alteration was in respect of outward peace and prosperitie wherewith God blessed his Church not in the discipline or doctrin of the Church in respect of the wealth and better maintenance of the BB. not in the substance of their calling It is euident that BB. were diocesan before they were actually Metropolitanes and Metropolitanes before they were Patriarches for of the combination of dioceses did follow Metropolitanes and vpon the consociation of prouinces were Patriarches ordayned and yet long before the Councill of Nice the Patriarches were in vse and the customes of subiecting diuerse prouinces to them are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ancient customes In the same canon it was also decreed that the priuiledges or prerogatiues of Churches meaning especially the priuiledges of being mother Churches should be reserued to them which priuiledge as I haue shewed before belonged to them euer since the Apostles times When the B. of Antioch attempted to ordaine the Metropolitane of Cyprus the BB. of Cyprus complaine to the Councill of Ephesus alledging that euer since the Apostles the Metropolitane B. of Constantia was ordained by the Synode of the prouinciall BB. whereupon the Councill not onely censured the attempt of the B. of Antioch as an innouation contrarie to the rules of the Apostles but also determineth first that no B. should haue to doe with any countrey or prouince which had not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning belonged to his See and secondly that euery prouince within it selfe should retayne inuiolable such rights as they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer from the beginning according to the custome receiued of old If therefore Metropolitanes and Patriarches were in vse long before Constantines time who can doubt but diocesan BB. were much more Long since saith Cyprian in all prouinces and in all cities BB. are ordained in age ancient sound in faith tryed in affliction c. in Prouinces Metropolitanes such as himselfe was in Cities diocesans Without doubt if diocesan BB. had their beginning after the Apostles times then was it shortly after their decease But that cannot be first because as I shall proue in the next reason they were in the Apostles times secondly because as I said in the Sermon it is incredible that all the Churches would and impossible that they could agree in abolishing a gouernment receiued from the Apostles and setting vp at once in all places of the world one other vniforme gouernment by BB. without the gaine saying of any one of the godly Fathers or worthy Martyrs of Christ. Besides the succession of BB. from the Apostles times as I shall shew doth plainely proue their originall to haue beene in the Apostles times Whereunto may be added the testimony of Eusebius concerning the age succeeding the Apostles times for hauing shewed that about the twelfth yeere of Traian which was about seauen yeeres after the death of Saint Iohn Primus succeeded Cerdo in the Bishopricke of Alexandria and Alexander Euaristus in the Bishopricke of Rome he testifieth that in those times both the doctrine of Christ and his Church did flourish dayly more and more Likewise in the time of Adrian he testifieth both that the Churches shined in all places of the world like most glorious lights and the faith of Christ in all nations flourished And in the same book after he had noted the succession of the BB. of Rome Alexandria Antioch shewing how Soter succeeded Anicetus at Rome Agrippinus Celadion at Alexandria Theophilus Heros who had succeeded Cornelius and he Heron at Antioch and hauing mentioned some other famous BB. as Dionysius of Corinth and Pinytus of Candy Philippe Apollinaris Melita Musanus Modestus and Irenaeus he saith that Hegesippus flourished at the same time whose testimonie of the estate of the Church in his time he hath recorded to this effect that iourneying toward Rome in many places he had conference with the BB. all which he found to be teachers of one and the same doctrine and hauing spoken of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians he giueth this testimony to the Church of Corinth in particular that it had continued in the right faith
vntill that time when hee comming to Corinth saw Primus the B. with whom he conuersed there a good while reioycing together in the true faith But when I came to Rome saith he I continued with Anicetus whose Deacon Eleutherius was but Soter succeeded Anicetus and after him Eleutherius was B. Now saith he in euery succession and in euery city all things stood as the law preacheth and as the Prophets and as our Lord. And afterwards speaking of the heresies which did spring in his time after that Iames saith he surnamed the Iust had suffered Martyrdome Simon the sonne of Cleophas is made B. whom all men preferred for this cause because he was the Lords cousin wherefore they called the Church a Virgin for as yet she had not been corrupted with vaine doctrines but Thebulis because he was not made B. began to corrupt it being the broacher of one of the seauen heresies which were in the people So much of the first argument The second is taken from the testimonie of Ierome in two places the former in Titus 1. where he saith thus before that by the instinct of the deuill factions began in the Church and it was said among the people I am of Paul I 〈◊〉 of Apollos I am of Cephus the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters but when euery one accounted those for his whom he had baptised it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from the presbiters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of that whole Church or diocese should appertaine and that the seeds of schismes might be taken away For full answer to this testimony he referreth vs to another place and when he commeth thither I doubt he will not say much to the purpose In the meanetime he answereth first to the testimony itselfe and then to my inference out of it to the testimony he answereth that Ierome maketh the beginning of this constitution of BB. not in the Apostles times nor in the times immediatly succeeding the Apostles Not the former because otherwhere he saith that BB. were superiour to presbiters rather by the custome of the Church then any ordinance of God Whereto I answer that custome himselfe calleth an Apostolicall tradition and else where most plainely and fully testifieth in many places some whereof are noted in the Sermon both that BB. were in the Apostles times and also were ordayned by the Apostles themselues Not the latter because it is as I had told him against the modest charitie of a Christian to imagine that all the Church would conspire at once to thrust out the gouernment established by the Apostles and insteed thereof to bring in another of their owne But say I it is most manifest that BB. were placed in all Churches in the next age to the Apostles and therefore he must either grant that the Apostolicall Churches receiued this gouernment from the Apostles or else confesse according to his vsuall modesty in setting light by the testimony of all antiquitie that all Churches conspired to alter the gouernment which the Apostles had established But of his modestie I would know when he thinketh this gouernment by BB. began and whether he must not be forced of necessity either to lay that foule imputation vpon all the ancient Churches on all the godly Fathers and blessed Martyrs or to yeeld that they had receiued this forme of gouernment from the Apostles My inference also he denyeth When as not withstanding the allegation giueth full testimonie to the generality saying it was decreed in the whole world and of the perpetuity there can be no question if the beginning were not latter then I intended But it is plaine that by Ieroms meaning it began in the Apostles times at the first indeed he saith before BB. were ordained the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and vntill factions beganne the Churches were gouerned viz. in the absence of the Apostles by the common counsell of the Presbiters which may be true of the most Churches excepting that of Ierusalem by Ieromes owne confession But when factions began as those did in the Apostles times whereof he speaketh the Apostles ordayned and in the whole Christian world it was obserued that for auoiding of schisme one should be chosen from among the presbiters who should be set ouer the rest and to whom the whole care of the Church that is the diocese should appertaine As for the reasons whereby he proueth the consequence feeble they are exceeding weake First because Ierom speaketh not of the times immediately succeeding the Apostles It is very true for he speaketh of that which was done in the Apostles times as hath bene said secondly saith he because he saith it was decreed in the whole world which could not well be without a generall Councill vnlesse it soaked in by little and little till at the last it ouer-flowed all places The decree which he speaketh of could be no other but of the Apostles for as hath been said what was generally obserued in the Churches in the first three hundred yeares before there was a generall Councill to decree it proceeded vndoubtedly from the Apostles Now it is more then euident that long before the first generall councill there were not onely Diocesan BB. but Metropolitanes also yea Patriarches that which he talketh of soking in by little and little agreeth not with the generall decree whereof Ierome speaketh whereby what is instituted is ordayned at once Neither can hee assigne any time after the Apostles when BB. had either lesse charges or lesse authority then in the end of the first three or foure hundred yeares Their Diocesses oft times as hath beene shewed were lessened in processe of time but seldome or neuer enlarged Neither is it to be doubted but that their authority among Christians was greater before there were Christian Magistrates then afterwards For before they called and held their Councels by their owne authority they heard and iudged all causes among Christians they punished all kindes of faults by Ecclesiasticall censures The other testimony of Ierome is out of his commentarie on Psal. 45. which I haue mentioned before That the Church in steed of her Fathers which were the Apostles had sonnes which were the BB. who should be appointed gouernours in all parts of the world He saith first this testimonie is an allegorie vpon the 45. Psalme and not a historie of the times Which is a friuolous euasion For it is an exposition of the Prophecie by the historie or euent and so not onely he but Augustine also expoundeth the place Secondly he alledgeth that Ierome doth not say that the Church had BB. as soone as the Apostles were gone which also is friuolous For he signifieth that the BB. did succeede the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church which else where he plainly professeth saying that BB. are the successors of the Apostles
If any other had come betweene them and the Apostles those other should haue beene the Apostles successors and they the predecessors to the BB. Besides others of the Fathers in plaine termes testifie that the Apostles committed the Church euery where to the BB. and left them their successors which in the successions also of BB. in the Apostolicall Churches is plainely declared Simeon the sonne of Cleophas succeeding Iames Evodius Linus Timothie Tittu c. substituted by the Apostles Peter and Paul and succeeding them in the gouernment of those Churches wherein they were placed Thirdly he saith Ierome applied the Psalme to the practise of the times wherein he liued not expounding the meaning of the Prophecie which if he had done he must haue acknowledged that such BB. were by the ordinance of God Who could be so shameless as to say that Ierome expoundeth not the meaning of the Prophecie when hee commenteth thus Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filij Fuerunt O Ecclesia Apostoli patres tui quia ipsi te genuerunt nunc autem quia illi recesserunt à mundo habes pro his Episcopos filios quia à te creati sunt sunt énim hi patres tui quia ab ipsis regeris Hee therefore expoundeth the meaning of the Prophecie applying it to the state of the Church immediatly after the decease of the Apostles and not onely to Ieromes times Why but then Ierome must be thought to haue helde the function of BB. to be a diuine ordinance that followeth not for he might hold them to be prophecied of as he also confesseth Es. 60. and yet esteeme them but an apostolical ordinance being neither immediately ordained of God nor yet prouided as generally perpetually to be necessarily obserued as those things which are said to be simply diuini iuris My third argument consisteth of two branches the former affirmatiue that the Councels Histories and Fathers with one consent giue testimony to the gouernment by BB the other negatiue that not any one pregnant testimony of any sound writer or example of any one orthodoxal or apostolicke Church viz. in the first three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles can be produced to the contrarie To the former he answereth that the Councels Histories and Fathers either beare witnesse of their owne times which is nothing to the purpose seeing the ancientest Councell was in the fourth age of the Church or else iudge of the BB. in former times by that which they saw then in practise taking all that had the same name of BB. to haue beene pertakers of the same authoritie If the Fathers did beare witnesse onely of their owne times it were sufficient for the proofe of my assertion seeing there were diuers in all the terme specified of three hundred yeares after the Apostles which giue testimonie vnto it as in the first age after the Apostles to omit them of the two latter Ignatius Hegesippus Irenaeus Clemens Tertullian doe giue plaine testimonie vnto it and two of them as hath beene shewed to wit Ignatius and Irenaeus were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitane BB. But the Fathers histories and councils doe not onely speake of their owne times but also relate what was done in the Apostles times and immediatly vpon their decease Doe they not testifie with one consent as I partly shew in the two arguments following that there were BB. in the Apostles times appointed and ordayned by the Apostles themselues doe they not say that the Apostles committed the Churches to them and left them to be their successors in the gouernment of the Church is not this one of the chiefe things which Eusebius propoundeth to himselfe in his history to set down the succession of BB chiefely of those who next succeeded the Apostles in the Apostolicall Churches But let the Reader iudge of the Refuter and his cause by that which followeth The Fathers discerned not or knew no difference betweene the calling or authority of the BB. which were in their owne time and those which had beene before them but thought and wrote of them as being alike the chiefest of them in euery age from the Apostles being BB. themselues The refuter and his fellowes comming thirteene or foureteene yea almost fiueteene hundred yeares after some of them will needes haue a difference and rather then it shall not stand all the Fathers must be condemned as Idiots for not seeing that which these learned men doe see I greatly meruaile with what face or rather with what conscience the refuter could auouch these things The Nagatiue part of my reason he saith is directly false in both the parts of it as well for testimonies as examples But I desire the reader to haue an eye to the refuters dealing so shall he easily discerne to what poore shifts he is driuen first consider what was the assumption of my first Syllogisme which by these foure arguments I doe proue to wit that in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was generally and perpetually vsed This I proue in this third reason by the testimonies of Antiquity both affirmatiuely that all antiquity viz. Councils Fathers Histories with one consent giue testimony to it and also negatiuely that no testimony or example of antiquity no ancient Councill Father or History no example of any antient orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to the contrary This any reasonable man would take to be my meaning Now consider his instances wherein he spendeth aboue sixe leaues and if any one of them be both true and direct to the purpose then say that I haue no iudgement First for testimonyes We haue pregnant testimonies saith he of the ancients and of many sound writers in these latter ages who affirme that BB. and ministers were all one in the Apostles times and that one minister exercised not authority ouer his fellow ministers as BB. since haue done and still doe First consider the persons of the witnesses which he is about to produce and then the things which they are to depose for whereas I neuer meant to extend the negatiue part of my reason further then the affirmatiue and therefore as I said that the Councils Histories and Fathers doe all giue testimonie to the Episcopall gouernment so I meant that no pregnant testimonie either of Councils Histories or Fathers which I comprised vnder the generall name of sound writer could be produced to the contrary he for instance alledgeth a company of new writers in this present age as if they were competent witnesses to depose in a matter of fact or to testifie what was done or not done in the Church foureteene or fifteene hundred yeeres agoe or as if when I chalenge them to shew any one testimony of antiquity to the contrary it were a sufficient instance to oppose against me a sort of new writers who for the most part also are parties in
the cause But yet what shall these witnesses testifie forsooth two things First that in the Apostles times BB. and ministers were all one whereunto in the first place I answere that this deposition is not to the purpose In this argument I speake of what was in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles but he will make his witnesses to depose what was in the Apostles times perhaps he will say the conscience must build it selfe vpon the practise of the Apostles times but say I in this reason I proue that the Episcopall gouernment was in vse in the Apostles times because it was generally and perpetually vsed in the next three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times which consequence himselfe hath granted â—gainst the assumption therefore he should bring his witnesses if they had any thing to say and not to be so absurd as by them to deny my conclusion againe the Ancients that say BB. and Presbiters were all one in the Apostles times speake of that part of their time when as in the most places there were no BB. or at least not chosen from among the Presbiters for before there were such BB. the same persons indeed were called Episcopi Presbyteri but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters which they also confesse was done in the Apostles time as namely at Alexandria they professe that then those which were so chosen and placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbiters began to be called BB. The other thing which he will haue his witnesses testifie is that in the Apostles times one Minister did not exercise authority aboue another as BB. since haue done to which assertion I am sure no sound writer will depose for I pray you were not the Apostles ministers were not Timothie and Titus ministers were they not also superiour to other ministers did they not exercise authoritie ouer them If Timothie therefore and Titus were superiour to other ministers and exercised authoritie ouer them why may not BB. who succeed not onely them whether they were BB. or not but also the Apostles in the gouernment of the Church be superiour also to other ministers and exercise authoritie ouer them But come we to his witnesses whereof he would seeme to haue great store howbeit he will content himselfe with a few and he will passe by Ignatius Iustin Martyr and Tertullian as hauing done their seruice already â—et the reader vnderstand that this is a most vaine flourish for he is not able to produce any one testimonie out of any one of the Councils Histories or Fathers that speaketh against the gouernment of the BB. in the first three hundred yeeres in respect either facti or iuris that is as either denying that the Church was so gouerned then or that it ought to haue beene so gouerned And as for Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian the greatest advantage he could haue by them was to vse their names for there is not a word in them sounding against the gouernment of BB. but pregnant testimonies for them especially in Ignatius and Tertullian whom I haue often quoted in this cause It is true that the refuter did alledge these Authors as witnesses to proue that fond and vnlearned conceipt that the ancient Churches were no other but Parishes to proue that which is more fond that there is and ought to be no other visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment but Parishes But the vanitie of his conceipt and the weakenesse of his allegations haue I hope beene sufficiently layd open before in the defence of the second point Passing therefore by them the refuter will begin with Cyprian who affirmeth that the menaging of the Church busines euen in his dayes belonged to the Counsell of himselfe and the rest of the Presbyters omnium nostrûm concilium spectat and therefore durst not take it to himselfe alone praeiâ—dicare ego soli mihi reâ— omnem vendicare non audeo Here let the reader consider with me first the person of the witnesse which is produced and then the thing which is witnessed was not Cyprian himselfe not onely a Diocesan but also a Metropolitane B. did not he in iudgement allow the function of such BB. directly he saith that BB. are the successors of the Apostles and that they answere to the high Priest in the law that the Lord Iesus when he appointed Apostles ordained BB. The Deacons must remember saith he that the Lord himselfe chose Apostles that is BB. but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselues after the Ascension of the Lord as ministers of their Episcopall function and of the Church Doth not he teach that in one Church meaning a whole Diocese there may be but one B. that to set vp a second is to make a schisme and to rend in pieces the body of Christ doth he not often plead for the superioritie of BB. ouer the Presbiters shewing how they ought to reuerence and obey them and that the contrary is the source of all schisme Neither doe heresies saith he arise or schismes from any other beginning then this that the Priest of God meaning the B. is not obeyed neither one Priest for the time in the Church and one Iudge for the time in stead of Christ is acknowledged whom if the whole brotherhood according to Gods commandement would obey c. How oft doth he speake of the vigour of the Episcopall power and of the authoritie of his chaire whereby he acknowledgeth euen those of the Clergie might be either excommunicated or deposed Is it not likely therefore thinke you that Cyprian would testifie against the function or authoritie of BB. But let vs examine the allegation it selfe There were some in the Church of Carthage that had fallen by denying their faith in time of persecution and returning to the Church againe would in all hast be reconciled and receiued to the communion whereof some by their importunity preuailed with some of the Presbiters whom as I noted in the Sermon Cyprian being absent reprooued by letter that they not regarding their Bishop set ouer them nor the honour due to him nor reseruing to him the honour of his Episcopall office and his chaire had without his appointment though absent reconciled them and receiued them to the communion others procured the Martyrs and Confessors to write to Cyprian in their behalfe that when peace should be restored to the Church peace might vpon the examination of their cause be giuen to them Cyprian therefore writeth to the Martyrs commending them that whereas the Presbiters should haue taught them what appertained to the discipline of the Church they were to learne of these Martyrs to referre their petitions and desires to the B. and then willeth them to set downe in writing particularly whom they desired to be receiued he writeth also to the people signifying that he had receiued letters from the Martyrs in
by reason of his great learning and renowned piety yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop Ierome was farre from it and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine giueth him titles of great honour vsing this inscription Domino verè sancto beatissimo Papae Augustino c. And this farewell the Lord preserue you Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa and the like I haue said before of Caluin From Augustine he maketh a large step to Erasmus who saith Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter a Priest but that the Refuter left out for feare of excluding his lay-elder and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret Beda Sedulius Oecumenius Primasius Theophilact c. who affirme the same And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter Episcopus were confounded and the same men were called Presbyteri Episcopi what will hee conclude thereof that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter were at any time confounded nay can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded Ignatius who liued in the Apostles times euery where distinguisheth them and so doe the after Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Eusebius c. sauing that to BB. they giue sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters or Priests which is not to be meruailed at seeing the Apostles Peter and Iohn doe call themselues Presbyters Yea but some Protestant Writers whom afterwards hee will cite haue vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth and not they onely but Michael Medina a Popish Writer is of opinion that they held the same error with Aerius This is a strange kind of arguing which our Refuter vseth to bring new Writers to depose what the old haue testified Are not their testimonies extant in print may we not read them with our owne eyes and weigh them in our owne iudgements that wee leauing the records themselues should seek to the dâ—positions of new writers to know what the olde haue testified but of the errour of them who suppose Ierome and some other of the Fathers to haue beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I haue spoken before neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius no more then I do for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say that in these places the names Presbyter Episcopus were confounded which places my selfe haue alledged to the same purpose After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers and yet neuer a word to the purpose he proceedeth to the new Writers who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie to the light of the Gospell heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order and without iudgement and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law and some Popish Writers among them And because to follow him were to runne the wild-goose race I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads and then giue him an answere to them all Some therefore are brought to testifie that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one the which is true for the same men were called Presbyters and BB as Heming and Zauch in Phil. 1.1 Isidor and Dist. 21. c. Cleros ex Isidor Duaren de ministr benef l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord Hugo Card. Cassander the councils of Constance and Basill Chemnitius Lubbertus D. Fulke D. Willet D. Morton Some that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times but afterwards BB. were set ouer Presbyters as Danaeus Some that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards and when they were brought in they were not Monarches of the Church c. as Chamier Some that iure diuino Episcopi Presbyteri be all one as Iunius and Phil. Morney and D. Whitak which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino as D Holland whose not writings but speeches he citeth vpon report Some that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same not in name onely but also in office as Sadâ—â—l Some that in the Apostles times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus Some that Christ made ministers equall that there was at the first no contention which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie whiles Christ was with them as Bullinger Some that as the Apostles were equall so their successors which is true for the BB. are equall among themselues though superiour to other ministers as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples as D. Whitakers Some that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus Presbiter is all one which is true neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more and that Ambrose Chrysostome Ierome and Augustine were of the same iudgement as B. Iewell Some that in the Apostles times there were onely two degrees of ministers Presbiters and Deacons as D. Humfrey Some that Bishops were not in the Apostles times as Sadeel Some that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree and not by scripture by custome of man not by the authoritie of God by mans law and not by Apostolicall institution as Heming in Phil. 1.1 Bulling Iunius B. Pilkington the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo as Cusanus not by Gods law as D. Raynolds no otherwise but by custome as Sadeel Some that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one as D. Raynolds Some that there was alwaies one principall which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe though not alone both in gouernment and ordination as D. Fulke Some that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie but not Princes that not they onely are Pastors that they haue the right of consecration though not onely as D. Willet Some that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny as Bullinger Some that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall but Aristocraticall as Chamier Some that elections were not in corners nor by one as Gualther Some that Presbiters may ordaine as being all one with BB. in office as Sadeel Some that Priests had voices and seates in Councils as indeed they haue with vs as the councill of Constance and Basill Some that
such Archbb. as are aboue Metropolitanes were not ordayned by Christ and his Apostles as D. Bilson who also is alledged as hauing beene of the Refuters minde because he citeth Ierome in Tit. 1.1 ad Euagr. Some that there were two sorts of Elders as Iunius Some vnderstanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began not of the Apostles times but afterward as Iunius These are all his witnesses besides some with whose names onely without their testimonies he thought best to make a simple flourish Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the forme of a Syllogisme concluding the contradictorie to my assertion viz. that some auncient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernement by BB. was not generally and perpetually vsed it would appeare to euery one how ridiculously our refuter argueth As for example Danaeus Musculus Iunius c. doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was not generally receiued Therefore some ancient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie so much Yea but you speake of sound Writers in generall will he say and so I conclude Therefore some sound Writers doe testifie so much But it is plaine say I that I meane the ancient But to his argument such as it is I answere first that if these Writers had testified that which is contayned in the antecedent yet had not they beene competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteene or fifteene hundred yeares before their time the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause But indeede not all no nor any one of his witnesses doth testifie that in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment of Bishops was not generally receiued but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion are most ridiculous As for example in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same Therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment by Bishops was not receiued Bishops were ordayned not by Gods law c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred yeares and so of the rest But some body will say though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose and I must needes confesse that your Refuter did grossely abuse his vnlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them notwithstanding some of the allegations contayne assertions contrarie to some points in your Sermon Of whom in steed of answere if I should aske this question whom hee conceiueth to be aduersaries to vs in this cause he would answere those that stand for the pretended discipline And who be those Caluin Beza Danaeus lunius Sadeel and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alledged If they be aduersaries in this cause is it to be wondred that they haue deliuered contrary assertions and if they be parties in the cause are their testimonies to be admitted Verily he might better haue alledged M. Cartwright and M. Trauers then some of those whom hee did cite being more parties in the cause then they as not onely hauing written in defence of their discipline but liuing where it is practised but that hee knew the simple Reader vvho cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties vvas ignorant that these outlandish Writers vvere aduersaries vnto vs in the cause to vvhose assertions seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men vvho are on our side vvhom the Refuter vvould reiect as parties I oppose the testimonies of antiquity and the reasons contayned in this booke desiring the Reader in the feare of God to giue credit without partiality to that side on which there is better euidence of truth And thus hauing turned ouer and as I suppose ouerturned more then fiue leaues vvhich hee blotted vvith these testimonies I come to his examples of vvhich hee hauing not any one betweene the Apostles times and ours therefore giueth instance in the Churches of our time and in the time of the Apostles But marke I pray you vvhat vvas my assertion vvhich hee vvould seeme to contradict Was it not this that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to proue that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by Bishops vvas not generally receiued No saith hee vvhat say you then to the Churches of Heluetia France lowe Countries c. in our time and to the Church of Corinth Cenchrea Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times Marry this I say that the Refuter is a very trifler vvho pretending to giue instance of some Church vvithin three hundred yeares after the Apostles times contrarie to my assertion thinkes to satisfie his Reader eyther vvith examples of some Churches in our age or of those in the Apostles times vvhereof this present question is not I confesse that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishoppes excepting that of Ierusalem Notwithstanding before the death of Saint Iohn the Churches had not onely Bishops but diuers of them a succession of Bishops and such were two of those which he nameth to wit Antioch and Ephesus for at Antioch there were Bishops successiuely in the Apostles times Evodius and Ignatius And at Ephesus before the Angel to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1 Timothie About the yeare one hundred seauenty and foure Dionysius was B. of Corinth and before him was Primus who was of the same time with Anicetus Anno one hundred fifty sixe before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time as Hegesippus recordeth As for Cenchrea that neuer had a peculiar Bishop of her owne but was subiect as other Townes and Parishes of Achaâ—a to the Bishop of Corinth As touching the Churches after the Apostles times the Refuter hath nothing to obiect but what before he hath alleadged out of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian in whom there is not a word against Bishops Iustin Martyr speaketh but of one gouernour in each Church whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the B. saith Beza speaking so plainely for the singularity of preheminence of one B. in each Church that T. C. who would perswade that in the seueral Churches there were more Bishops then one saith that euen in Iustines time there began to peepe out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospell as that the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was common to the Elders with the Ministers of the word was it seemeth appropriated vnto one And whereas this place of Iustine was alleadged to proue the Bishops superiority ouer the Presbyters for euen Beza confesseth hee was the President of the Presbyterie who afterwards was called a Bishop hee answereth if it should be granted that Iustines President had superioritie ouer the Ministers yet how fondly is it concluded that it is Lawfull because it was And as I
haue answered his allegation before out of Tertullian for lay-elders wherein is nothing that maketh against Bishops so haue I cited pregnant places in his vvritings giuing testimony not onely to the gouernment of BB. in his time but prouing a continued succession of them from the Apostles to his time It is plaine therefore that the refuter with the help of all his collectors is not able to produce any one example of an orthodoxall and Apostolicall Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times wherin the Episcopall gouernment was not receiued so that my argument standeth firme and sure in all the parts of it To my fourth reason concluding the perpetuity of the Episcopall gouernment in the ancient Churches from the succession of BB. deduced from the Apostles times vntill the Councill of Nice remayning as yet vpon authenticall records Eusebius euery where carefully setting downe this succession and Irenaeus and Tertullian prouing the deriuation of the orthodoxall doctrine from the Apostles to their time by the personall succession of BB. in the Churches teaching the same truth He obiecteth and saith the obiection is worth the answering that I deceiue them with the name he confesseth there was a succession of BB. but the first were not like the latter for though the latter were Diocesan Bishops yet the former were not Belike they were first Parish BB. and then titular Diocesan BB. and then ruling Diocesans then Lord Diocesans then Metropolitanes then Patriarches which being obiected vpon ridiculous grounds heretofore confuted I held scarse worth the mentioning in the Sermon It is apparant by this succession that within the compasse of euery Diocese there was onely one B. at a time there hauing bin no more in any Diocese at the end of the first or second hundred then were at the end of of foure hundred yeeres and therefore this succession doth euidently proue a perpetuitie of Diocesan BB. from the Apostles times downewards And thus the former part of my assumption is manifest Wherefore as I said in the Sermon this to a moderate Christian might seeme a sufficient commendation of the Episcopall function though no more could be said for it that in the best times of the primitiue Church it was borne of so many thousand godly and learned Bishops receiued in all true Churches approued of all the orthodoxall and learned Fathers allowed and commended of all the famous Councils The latter part that the Episcopall function was not first ordayned by generall Councils I proue by vndenyable euidence but this proofe the refuter had no mind to deale withall because it also proueâ—h the former part by such an argument as he could not tell how to answere that vvas this that the first generall Councill of Nice was so farre from first ordayning Bishops or Metropolitanes that it acknowledgeth Patriarches to haue beene long before that time in vse and confirmeth the ancient custome of subiecting diuers Prouinces to them For there were Diocesan Bishops before there were Metropolitanes actually and Metropolitanes were long before Patriarches and Patriarches had beene long in vse before the Councill of Nice and yet that Councill was held within two hundred and thirtie yeeres after the Apostle times Wherefore seeing the proposition of my syllogisme was so euidently true as that the refuter could not deny it viz. that gouernment which was generally and perpetually receiued in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution and seeing the assumption was proued by foure or fiue vnanswerable arguments that the gouernment by such Bishops as were described in the former part of the Sermon was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils therefore the conclusion is of necessarie and vndenyable truth that the gouernment of the Churches by such Bishops was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution After I had thus concluded affirmatiuely to proue my assertion I propounded another syllogisme concluding negatiuely against the pretended discipline therein intending to prouoke and challenge him that should take vpon him the refutation of my Sermon to bring some proofes for their gouernment in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ. The syllogisme was this That gouernment which no where was in vse in the first three hundred yeares is not of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of Lay-elders in euery parish was no where in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is not of Apostolicall institution The proposition is as certaine as the former the assumption I haue already proued in the former syllogisme For if the gouernment by Diocesan BB. was generally and perpetually receiued in those three hundred yeares after the Apostles then is it manifest that this gouernment which they speake of was no wherein vse But because it is infinite to proue such a negatiue by induction of particulars which might be disproued by any one instance by them which hold the affirmatiue therefore I left the proofe of the affirmatiue to the refuter Let vs see then how he answeareth forsooth by opposing the like syllogisme saying That gouernment which was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres is of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders in euery parish was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is of Apostolicall institution And then braggeth that his proofe for their discipline is as good as mine against it Wher the refuter doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause choosing rather to boast that their gouernment was generally and perpetually vsed then to giue any one instance to proue it what needed this generall assertion vnlesse it were to beguile the simple who are lead with shewes when one perticular instance would haue serued But that the reader may vnderstand that this my assumption was vndoubtedly true I will make the refuter this faire offer that if he can bring any one pregnant and approued example of a Christian Church gouerned by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders I will promise to suscribe to their discipline wherefore let not the reader be carried away with vaine shewes neither let him belieue that their pretended discipline was instituted by the Apostles vntill they be able to shew as they neuer will be that it was sometime and some where practised within three hundred yeeres say a thousand foure hundred if you will after the Apostles The II. CHAPTER Prouing the function of BB. to be of Apostolicall institution because it was vsed in those times without their dislike Serm. Sect. 4. pag.
61. Now I proceede to the second degree ascending to the Apostles times from whence in the second place I argue thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution c. ad pag. 65. WHere I take this proposition for granted namely of the aduersaries he saith I reckon without mine host yet confesseth it to be true according to their opinion who hold there may be but one gouernment in the Church and that instituted by the Apostles which is the generall opinion of the Disciplinarians confessed in effect by himselfe Pag. 130. Yea but I say afterward in fauour of the Disciplinarians therein clawing a Churle according to the homely prouerbe as appeareth by this refuter that though the gouernment by BB. is the best yet we doubt not but where this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better If therefore saith he there be diuers kindes of gouernment which may be admitted then might there be a gouernment in the Churches in the Apostles times not contradicted by them which yet was not of Apostolicall institution whereto I answere first that I did not say simply that other gouernments may be admitted besides that which was ordained by the Apostles but where that cannot be had But whiles the Apostles liued that which they ordayned might be had Againe if any in the Apostles times should of their owne heads haue altered the forme of gouernment established by them and consequently haue set vp a worse it cannot be thought that either the Apostles would haue allowed it or that all Churches would haue retayned that gouernment vvhich they had not receiued from the Apostles Besides it is incredible that in the Apostles times any forme of gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches but that which was ordayned by the Apostles and therefore the proposition is more then manifest Now followeth the assumption vvhereof are two parts the one that the gouernment by BB. was vsed euen in the Apostles times the other that it was not contradicted by them The former I proue by two arguments the one because the seauen Angels were in the Apostles times and they were BB. for the substance of their calling such as ours be and therefore such BB. were in the Apostles time Ere the refuter will answere to the matter of the assumption he propoundeth two things worthy his obseruation the one that I confine the number of the Angels to seauen which neither the text doth saith he nor himselfe euer did till now Did not I before obserue in the Sermon that there was but one Angell in each of the seauen Churches and doth not the text say that the seauen Starres are the Angels of the seauen Churches I haue spoken of this point before onely let the refuter call to mind this argument among the rest The text saith the Starres were seauen The text saith that the Angels be the Starres Therefore the text saith the Angels be seauen The other is that I shunne the terme Diocesan in which notwithstanding the whole question consisteth for no man doubteth that the gouernment was by BB. in the Apostles times seeing that both ministers and ruling Elders were called BB. doth he not speak against the light of his owne conscience when he saith I auoid the name Diocesan seeing in expresse termes I said they were for the substance of their calling such as ours be If I had onely said Diocesan he might haue excepted in behalfe of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians that they doubted not but that the Angels were superintendents of the City and countrey adioyning but all the question would they say is of the superiority whether they had a singular preheminence for terme of life a superiority in degree a maiority of power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction when as therefore I say that for the substance of their calling they were such BB. as ours are I doe say not onely that they were Diocesan but also that they were superiour to other ministers in degree c. But whence I pray you hath the refuter this confidence so boldly to affirme that their ruling Elders were called BB. Caluin and M. Trauers c. confesse that BB. signifie onely preaching Elders and are your Lay-elders now become BB the people may haue ioy of such guides that cease not to broach such fansies After he hath played a little vvith the assumption hee plainely denieth it what thinke you saith he M. D. bringeth to proue it Nothing saith the refuter but that which hath already beene answeared if that were true yet that nothing is more then the refuter will euer be able to disproue and that is this that the seauen Angels were BB. all doe confesse that they were such BB. as ours be for the substance of their calling I proued in the first foure points of the Sermon yea but saith he I haue proued that for the substance of their calling they were but ordinarie ministers let the reader therefore in Gods name iudge secundum allegata probata according to the euidence which hath beene brought on both sides and where he saith I quickely haue done with the scriptures because they indeed afford but slender shew c. I answere first that I had no reason to insist longer in this proofe vnlesse I would haue repeated the former part of the Sermon againe was it not sufficient to referre them to the former part where this point was professedly handled neither is he ignorant but that in demonstration of the latter part of the assumption I bring other proofes out of the scripture But faine he would disgrace our cause with the reader as though we had no proofes in scripture which ill becommeth him that hath not one sillable in the scriptures or other monuments of antiquity to proue their Presbiterian discipline But it is vntrue that I bring nothing to proue the assumption but what was before answered For I bring two other arguments to proue that these seauen Angels were such BB. The former though this great analyser either did not or would not see it that two of these Angels were Polycarpus and Onesimus Polycarpus the B. of Smyrna and Onesimus the B. of Ephesus and what is said of two is to be vnderstood of the rest That Polycarpe was in these times the B. of Smyrna I proued by the testimonie of the Church of Smyrna testifying that he had beene the B. of the Catholicke Church in Smyrna And of Bullinger who noteth that Polycarpe had beene B. of Smyrna thirteene yeares before the reuelation was giuen and so continued for many yeares after Whereunto may be added those authenticall testimonies which after are alledged that he was made B. of Smyrna by S. Iohn That Onesimus was B. of Ephesus at this time I proue by the testimonie of
Ignatius who liued at the same time who in his Epistle to the Ephesians mentioneth their B. Onesimus The latter argument prouing that these seauen Angels were BB. is because from them all a succession of BB. was continued in those seauen Churches to the Councill of Nice and afterwards for to omit that the auncient BB. of these Churches are sometimes occasionally mentioned as Polycrates of Ephesus Thraseas of Smyrna Melito of Sardes c. it is euident that the Bishops of these Churches subscribed to diuerse of the ancient Councils as to the councill of Nice Menophantes B. of Ephesus Eutychius of Smyrna Artemidorus of Sardes Thomasion of Philadelphia Serras of Thyatira Nunechius of Laodicea to the Council of Chalcedon Stephanus of Ephesus Aethericus of Smyrna Eutropius of Pergamus Helladius of Thyatira Florentius of Sardes Megalus of Philadelphia Nunechius of Laodicea To this argument the Refuter answereth nothing in particular With these two arguments the refuter ioyneth that which I propounded Pag. 63. concerning the succession of Bishops in some Churches within the Apostles times being indcede the second argument whereby I proued the assumption that in the Apostles times were BB. To all these he answereth first ioyntly and then cauilleth with some of them seuerally His ioynt answere to them all I reserue vntill I come to that second argument The Epistle of Smyrna which himselfe heretofore alledged as authenticall being now alledged by me so hard is my hap is growne suspitious and why I pray you for the Refuter trauailed of a point of learning which he desired to be deliuered of Forsooth because it vseth the word Catholicke which is not to be found in any of the Epistles of Polycarpus or Ignatius nor seemeth to haue beene in vse vntill the end of the second age Clemens Alexandrinus I thinke is the ancientest in whom it can be found How many Epistles of Polycarpus this Refuter hath read I know not for my part I haue seene no more but his Epistle to the Philippians Indeede Suidas who noteth him to haue beene the Disciple of S. Iohn and the successor of Bucolus who was the first B. of Smyrna saith he wrote an Epistle to Dionysius the Areopagite and to other Churches which Epistles if the Refuter haue he should doe well to communicate them if not how can he tell that the word Catholicke was not vsed in them But to the point was not the Creed of the Apostles as ancient as this Epistle which writeth of the martyrdome of Polycarpe who was put to death in the seauenth of Aurelius Antonius about the yeare one hundred sixtie and nine and yet that mentioneth the Catholicke Church Againe vvas not this a high point of learning to suspect this Epistle to be counterfait because it vseth a word which hee confesseth is vsed by Clemens Alexandrinus who liued at the same time though wrote not perhaps more then twentie yeares after Where I proued that Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians or at least that testimonie which I cited concerning Onesimus their Bishop not to be counterfait because Eusâ—bius mentioneth that Epistle and those words he saith this argument is none of the sufficientest but I alwaies thought if Ignatius his Epistles were counterfaited that this happened to them since Eusebius time It sufficeth me that the testimonie which I alledged vvas not in Eusebius his time who liued vvithin two hundred yeares after Ignatius suspected as counterfait For if Eusebius and those in his time knew no cause to suspect that Epistle I know no reason besides his owne suspiciousnesse vvhy the Refuter should suspect it The second argument whereby I proue the former assumption is this that it is with great consent testified by Authors of best credit in the Church of God that in the Apostles times reckoning vntill the death of S. Iohn that is to the yeere of our Lord one hundred and one there were not onely BB. but also a succession of BB. in diuerse Churches as at Rome Linus Anacletus Clemens Euaristus at Ierusalem Iames the iust and Simeon the sonne of Cleophas at Antioch Evodius and Ignatius at Alexandria S. Marke Anianus Abilius Cerdo hereto he saith that he hath formerly shewen that if not all yet the most of these witnesses doe affirme that those BB. were ordinary ministers without any such supreame power he ought to say if he would leaue his calumniating superiority in the power of ordination and iurisdiction But this is one of his vsuall bragges vttered with what conscience I know not for what one of these hath he or what one among all the ancient Writers can he bring to make good his assertion Now the answere which he maketh to these arguments ioyntly is that the seauen Angels and these Bishops whereof there were as I said successions in the Apostles times were Bishops indeed no meruaile for so were the lay Elders but not Diocesan for what though long after the Apostles times they were so doth it follow thereupon that therefore they were so in their times If euer there had beene within the compasse of a Diocesse more Bishops then one at once since the Apostles times or if it could be truly alledged that the circuit of the Bishops charge was enlarged from a Parish to a Diocesse then were there some colour for this exception but these conceipts I haue disproued heretofore and therefore doubt not most confidently to conclude that if the successors of these seauen Bishops or of the others whom I named as hauing beene Bishops in the Apostles times were in the end of three hundred yeares Diocesan Bishops then were their first antecessors such Neither is his example of the Duke of Venice to the purpose vnlesse hee could proue that the latter Bishops within the first three hundred yeares had vsurped or vsed as they were Diocesans a greater and larger authoritie then had belonged to their Predecessors The latter part of the assumption remaineth to be proued where I said that the Bishops were not contradicted by the Apostles but approued by them Hee obiecteth that this proofe is needlesse seeing the Bishops were such as he fansieth but till he can disproue the former part of my Sermon and of this Treatise hee must giue the Reader leaue to thinke they were such as they haue beene manifestly proued to be but this needlesse accusation being commonly vsed by the Refuter against such passages of my Sermon as are most materiall maketh me conceiue there is somewhat in this point that hee could wish had beene spared or at least whereabout he meaneth to spare his answere That this passage was not needlesse but very materiall appeareth hereby For if I had onely said that BB. had beene in the Apostles times and therefore were of their institution it might haue beene obiected that there were abuses crept into the Churches in the Apostles time whereof notwithstanding the Apostles were not Authors wherefore in this place
I shew that Bishops not onely were in the Apostles times but also were approued by them That they were in respect of their function approued I proue by the examples of the 7. Angels approued by S. Iohn or rather by our Sauiour Christ of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle because the Epistle was sent by him commended by S Paul as his compatner both in his function and in affliction and the Philippians commanded to haue in honour such Iames the Iust B. of Ierusalem approued of all Archippus the B. of Colossa approued of Paul Antipas who had beene B. of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost To none of these hath the Refuter any thing to say but to Epaphroditus whom he would not therefore haue thought to haue beene a Diocesan B. because Paul calleth him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow workâ—-man nor that the Apostle meant to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship for Epaphroditus was none c. Though that word doth not proue it neither was it alledged to that end but as one of the titles of commendation giuen to Epaphroditus yet the word Apostle which I alledged doth proue it neither should the Refuter haue balked that to lay hold vpon another vnlesse it were to deceiue the simple It is therefore to be noted that as the twelue Patriarches of Christs Church which were sent into the whole world some going one way some another were called the Apostles of Christ and not the Apostles of any Church in particular excepting Iames who was the Apostle of the Iewes so those Apostolicall men who were set ouer particular Churches as the Bishops thereof were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle But of this more hereafter Before I ended this point I thought it needfull to meet with that obiection which ordinarily is made out of Ierome by them who vnderstand him as if he had said that Bishops were not ordayned in the Apostles times But I shew both by the place it selfe which they alledge and by conference of other places in Ierome that hee plainely confesseth BB. to haue been ordayned in the Apostles times Ierome therfore confesseth in the place which is vsually obiected that when factions began to arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. it was decreed in the whole world and therefore by the Apostles for who should in the Apostles times make such a generall decree but the Apostles yea and Ierome himselfe calleth the Episcopall function a tradition Apostolicall that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places For he confesseth that Iames the Iust shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of Ierusalem and continued B. there thirtie yeares euen vntill his death In the same Catalogue it is confessed that Simon succeeded the said Iames in the Bishopricke and that Timothie was B. of Ephâ—sus and Titus of Creet and Polycarpe of Smyrna in S. Iohns time that Linus Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome Hee confesseth also that at Alexandria euer since S. Marke there had beene BB. chosen successiuely that S. Marke was the first B. of the Church at Alexandria and that Anianus succeeded him After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times It is most plaine therefore that Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue beene in the Apostles time Now let vs see what tricke the Refuter hath to auoide such plaine euidence Forsooth because these testimonies were as he saith not knowing indeed nor greatly caring what he affirmeth brought in by me out of order and some of them come to be handled againe he will answere generally and briefly that the Bishops Ierome speaketh of were not Diocesan Lords but such as himselfe describeth where hee sheweth the custome of the Church of Alexandria c. Whether they were called Lords or not it is not greatly materiall seeing they were called the Angels and the Apostles of the Churches which are titles of greater honour neither doth it appertaine to the substance of their calling in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to haue beene such as ours are And such doth Ierome describe them in the place which the Refuter meaneth For hee plainly noteth the Bishop to haue beene but one in a whole Church or Diocese to whom the care of the whole Church did belong superiour also to the Presbyters in degree c. The Refuter hauing answered my second argument in such sort as you haue heard taketh his turne to reply and that thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was of Apostollicall institution The gouernment by common consent of Elders was vsed euen in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches and not contradicted by them Therefore the gouernment by the common consent of Elders was of Apostolicall institution The Proposition saith he is sure on our side though it was not of his See â—ee homo homini quantum praestat that which is weake in my hand is strong in this The truth it selfe belike is so partiall as that it is true onely in his mouth For the strengthening of the assumption saith hee besides that which before I answered Sect. 3. which was besides the testimonie of Cyprian and Ierome before answered an allegation of some new Writers who are parties in the cause I will adde the testimonies of B. Whitgift D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe and D. Downame himselfe all speaking to the truth thereof He should haue done well to haue cited these testimonies so would it haue appeared that we spake according to the truth but not according to his meaning which is vntrue But I answere to his assumption and first to the former part of it by distinction If by Elders he meaneth the onely gouerning Elders as well as Ministers as hee doth or else he saith little for the pretended discipline I answere that the Church was neuer gouerned by the common Counsell of such Aldermen neither did Cyprian and Ierome testifie it nor D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe or D. Downame confesse it If by Elders he meane onely Ministers as Ierome did when he said at the first the Churches before factions did arise were gouerned by the common counsell of Elders two things may be questioned first whether this gouernment of theirs were vnsubordinate according to the new discipline and secondly whether the Apostles did intend that the Churches should be
so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
the first Bishop of Ierusalem and setteth downe the same succession of the Bishops from Iames vnto Hilarion noting the yeeres of the seuerall Emperours reigne vnto which they continued Bishops The same concerning Iames is witnessed by Chrysostome by Ambrose on the Epistle to the Galathians Paul saw Iames at Ierusalem because there he had beene ordayned B. of the Apostles By Dorotheus by Augustine and to omit all other testimonies of particular men by the generall Councill of Constantinople affirming that Iames who according to the flesh was brother of Christ our Lord was the first to whom the throne of the Church of Ierusalem was entrusted § 4. These testimonies for a matter of story me thinks should suffice let vs then see what the refuter obiecteth First that which he obiected against the consequence is more direct against the antecedent that is that if the Apostles ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem then they gaue him the Episcopal power but they gaue him no power which the Lord had not before inuested in his person as an Apostle therefore they did not ordayne him B. I answere by distinction the power of order if I may so terme it Iames had before as those who are Bishops sine titulo but the power of iurisdiction was committed to him when he was designed Bishop of Ierusalem and had the Church of Iewry in particular assigned to him For though our Sauiour Christ bad the Apostles to goe into all the world yet his meaning was not that euery one should trauerse the whole world For if euery one had been to trauell ouer all the world great inconuenience disorder and confusion would haue followed thereof Therefore the Apostles who by our Sauiour were indefinitely appointed to goe into all the world by the direction of the holy Ghost before their dispersion from Ierusalem deuided the world among themselues in such sort that one being assigned to one part another to another euery man walked vvithin his owne compasse and according to his owne Canon or rule and did not vsually build vpon the foundation of another nor enter one into anothers labours Now as they were carefull to prouide for other parts of the world so vvould they not all forsake Iewry and Ierusalem but assigne one of their company to take charge thereof Who though he wer an Apostle yet being assigned to the peculiar Church of one nation might not vnfitly be called as he was indeed the B. thereof And hence it is that although the Apostles vvere commanded to goe into all the world yet Iames stayed at Ierusalem vntill his death Secondly he taketh exception against the euidence which I brought first because it is not testified in the Acts of the Apostles that they made Iames B of Ierusalem As though the Apostles did nothing but what is recorded in the Actes and as though vve should deny credit to the ancientest writers and such as be of best credit reporting vvith one consent a matter of fact not registred in the Acts. But though the act of making him B. be not set downe in the Acts yet the story so speaketh of his continuance at Ierusalem of his assistance of Presbyters of his presidency in that Councill vvhere Peter and Paul were present that it may appeare their testimonie is true and agreable to the scriptures who haue reported him to be B. there The next exception is that I produce none of the Apostles Disciples to testifie it And what one of them whose writings are extant could I alledge vvhom you vvould not reiect as counterfeit Clemens the Disciple of the Apostles not only vvriteth an Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffinus calling him the Bishop of Bishops gouerning the holy Church of the Hebrewes in Ierusalem but also in his booke of recognitions translated likewise by the same Ruffinus and dedicated to Iames the brother of our Lord calleth him vsually the B. yea the cheife of Bishops which titles how the Pope can disgest I know not But suppose that none of the disciples of the Apostles in those few writings of theirs which be extant had giuen testimony to this matter were not the testimony of Hegesippus and Clemens who both liued in the very next age to the Apostles sufficient It is not to be doubted but that Iames his being B. of Ierusalem was a thing as notorious and as certainely knowne among Christians in those times as there is no doubt made among vs now that D. Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury in King Henry the eights time In the third place he would seeke to descredit all Historyes in generall because the most learned B. of Ely in a Sermon preached when he was of Chichester truely noteth what might be obiected against historians of latter times But Eusebius is free as I suppose from that imputation and much more Hegesippus and Clemens in whom also that cauill of his hath no place that they spake of Bishops which had beene before according to the condition of them in their times For such was the estate of Ierusalem and of the Iewes in their times as that the condition of the Bishops there was rather impayred then increased Neither were they nor any other whom I cited so simple but that they knew as well as the refuter that Iames was an Apostle neither did they know any reason which the refuter would seeme to know why his being an Apostle should hinder his being the Apostle or Angell of that Church For so were the Bishops at the first called Fourthly and lastly he giueth all my witnesses the lye saying playnely that Iames was not Bishop of Ierusalem neither could be so that their testimonie is not onely false but impossible But how is this proued forsooth because two or three late writers worthy men I confesse D. Whitakers Bishop Iewell D. Raynolds doe deny that he was Bishop there If they all had denyed â—t as they did not yet without any disparagement to them the affirmation of so many ancient writers in a matter of fact agreeable also with the scriptures proued by the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem remayning yet in diuers good authors vpon record besides other euidence may ouerweigh their denyall But what if they all did not deny it to D. Raynolds I know not what to say the refuter onely maketh a shew with his name neither alledging his words nor quoting the place He citeth Bishop Iewels defence of the Apology pag 300. telling Harding out of Clemens Epist. 1. that Iames was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches where is no such matter Indeed in the 300. page of his reply vnto Harding in the fourth article I find the first Epistle of Clement alledged but Bishop Iewel misalledged and falsified For hauing maintayned against Harding that he was not able to proue the Pope to haue beene called in ancient times the vniuersall B. he sheweth that
as much in effect yea and in expresse termes had been giuen to others as to the B. of Alexandria called by some the iudge of the whole world to the B. of Constantinople called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch to Iames the B. of Ierusalem Heare B. Iewels words Clement vnto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae vbique Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem and besides all the Churches that be founded euery where by Gods prouidence These be all his words sauing that hee saith if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome he would not thus haue passed it ouer in silence Which if you compare with the refuters allegation you may well wonder at his dealing Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches is not his saying but Clements if it be truely printed in the copies which B. Iewel did follow Neither would it follow of those words alledged as they are that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches The B. of Constantinople though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone and that was his peculiar Diocese So if Clement had meant that Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him and thereof he had his denomination The Pope himselfe though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop yet is he specially Bishop of Rome and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane of which he is Bishop Howbeit in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus Sed ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbique sunt By which copy if it be true Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches but Clements Epistle is directed not onely to Iames but to all Churches c. Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue that he neither was nor might be B. of Ierusalem I promise you this maketh a faire shew if it be true But this also is a manifest vntruth For the arguments that he vseth are to proue that Peter was not Bishop of Rome Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre me But this also is vntrue For six of these eight are such as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument taken from Peters long absence from Rome after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be applyed to Iames who was resident at Ierusalem as the Actes besides other witnesses testifie Nor the fourth that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch as of Rome But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul as Irenaeus teacheth But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem but he But after he was dead Simon was chosen to be his successor Nor the sixt that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome note this to haue beene the end not to be B. there but to oppose Simon Magus But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church which during his life had no other B. Nor the seauenth that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he haue professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles neither would he haue conuenanted with Paul that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles but himselfe and Iames and Iohn of the Circumcision For Iames as he is said to haue beene B. of Ierusalem so hee professeth himselfe to haue beene the Apostle of the Iewes For besides that he writeth his Epistle to the Iewes he and Peter and Iohn gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem it is more then probable that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts he is noted as President or chiefe in that Councill and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn Nor the eight for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome say Paul was also meaning that they were both founders of the Church but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem mention him alone Neither was he founder of that Church but Christ himselfe who was the minister of Circumcision But it will be said the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem That commeth now to be tryed The first reason is this Bishops haue certaine Churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission goe into all the world hee assigned no Prouinces nor parts of the world to any Notwithstanding before they were to goe abroad he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem till they had receiued the holy Ghost who should direct them what to doe and we may be assured that he did not direct them to goe confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world some to another Howbeit when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured they were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops And this is true of Peter and of the most of the Apostles But herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned Neither did he trauaile as the rest from one Country to another being not confined to any one Prouince though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place where they rested exercising no doubt a patriarchall authority as it were in that circuit where they had trauailed and planted Churches Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus and others in other places That
assumption therefore which is true of the rest of the Apostles is not true of Iames and were to be denied if the Syllogisme were thus framed BB. had certaine Churches assigned to them Iames had not a certaine Church assigned to him Therefore he was not B. This assumption I haue disproued And therefore though that argument may seeme to conclude sufficiently against Peters being B. of Rome it concludeth not against Iames his being B. of Ierusalem And besides betweene Iames and the rest this difference may be noted that whereas they hauing planted Churches when they saw their time committed the same to certaine BB. so Peter and others of the Apostles committed Antioch to Evodius Peter and Paul committed Rome to Linus Paul committed Ephesus to Timothie Creet to Titus Iohn committed Smyrna to Polycarpus and diuers other Churches in Asia to other Bishops as Eusebius reporteth yet Iames abiding all his time at Ierusalem committed that Church to no other though when he was dead the Apostles committed it to Simon whom they ordayned his successour The second reason applied to Iames. If Iames were B. then by the same reason other of the Apostles were BB. But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly Therefore not Iames. Why I should not grant this consequence I haue shewed sufficient reason in setting downe the difference betweene Iames and the rest of the Apostles Therefore that reason also howsoeuer it may take place as touching Peter in whom no such difference from the rest of the Apostles can be truly noted yet it holdeth not against Iames his being B. of Ierusalem If the Refuter or any other be not as yet perswaded of this point to satisfie him in the maine point that the Apostles appointed and ordained Bishops I will be content to suppose that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem because it might be supposed and granted without any great preiudice to the cause seeing it is manifest that the same ancient Authors who testifie that the Apostles appointed Iames B. of Ierusalem doe also witnesse that after his death the Apostles who were then remayning ordayned Simon the sonne of Cleophas to be B. there as hereafter shall be shewed After I had proued that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I endeuoured to confute the opinion of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians who doe hold as before hath been shewed that Bishops were not superiour to other Ministers in degree neither had superioritie for terme of life but for a short time And to this end obiected the same conceipts that by this instance of Iames they might plainly be refuted Hereunto the Refuter replyeth that I deuise those obiections to make my selfe worke when as indeed they be the two maine points wherein Beza differeth from vs. But saith he who euer conceiued any such thought of the Apostle Iames I am sure there is not a syllable nor a letter of him at all in the place he quoteth out of Beza the more wrong he doth him c. All this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of one letter in the margent c being put for p. For in the 23. page of that book in the end of the third chapter he hath this saying though I grant that Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the Church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour either to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers Which saying as it seemeth I should not neede to haue confuted if all the Disciplinarians were of our Refuters minde who censureth that speech as vntrue and vnreuerent But yet that he might let his Reader see that he is able to defend any thing against me he saith if a man would speake so vntruly and vnreuerently he might easily maintayne it against the answere that M. D. bringeth They must remember saith he that he was an Apostle and his honour and degree by his Bishopricke not impaired As if the question were not of him as a B. not as an Apostle His superiority in degree proceeded from his Apostleship and yet as a B. he might be superiour in order onely This tricke of fast and loose was not worth the shewing vnlesse it could haue beene done more cleanely To returne these trickes of fast and loose to such a shifting Sophister as I haue proued the Refuter to be it is plaine that Beza speaketh simply of Iames as the chiefe in the Church of Ierusalem as wel in respect of the Apostles as the Presbyters there And therefore considereth him as an Apostle as well as a B. And if he had intended any such distinction as the Refuter imagineth hee should haue conceiued that Iames his honour and degree by his Bishopricke was impaired and that the Apostles in choosing him to be B. of Ierusalem should rather haue depressed him then done him honour But they thought it a singular honour to be the Apostle or Bishop of that Church which Christ himselfe had founded And therefore as Clement noteth the chiefe of the Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn though Christ had vouchsafed to them greater honour then the rest yet would not arrogate to themselues that honour but preferred Iames the iust the brother of our Lord thereunto and when it was void againe by his death they made choise of Simon the sonne of Cleophas for the same cause because he also was the Lords kinsman The graue censure of the Refuter is that Clements speech is vnsauourie and the respect carnall which Hegesippus and Eusebius alledge Thus is hee able as it were with a breath to blowe away these worthy Authors Hegesippus Clemens and Eusebius they are not able to stand before him But why vnsauourie when the Apostles were to be dispersed into diuers parts of the world was it not a speciall honour for one amongst them without that trauaile wandring wherto the rest were subiect to be set ouer the mother Church of Christendome which Christ himselfe had founded to be the Apostle of that people which had sundry prerogatiues aboue all other Nations and in respect of that place to haue a precedence before the other Apostles as Iames had Act. 15. Gal. 2 And why carnall were not they bound in respect of that loue and reuerence which they did owe to our Sauiour Christ to preferre his neere kinsmen according to the flesh being at the least equall with others It is certaine that Iames for his admirable piety was wonderfully honoured not onely among Christians but also among the vnbeleeuing Iewes as might easily be shewed in so much that Iosephus imputeth the destruction of Ierusalem to his death as to a principall cause But saith he if it had beene arrogancie in them why not in him That which had beene arrogancie in them to haue arrogated to themselues was no arrogancie in him to vndertake being imposed vpon him Yea but if it were so great a priuiledge why might it not haue aduanced him
the Apostles would put off the matter till there was no remedie and I cannot much blame them if it be true which D. Bilson saith that they were to keepe the power of imposition of hands to themselues vnlesse they would loose their Apostleship It is more meruaile therefore that they would ordaine any Bishops at all as long as they liued then that they would deferre the doing of it so long as they could Which words as they contayne a meere cauill at my words not worth the answering so a meere belying of that reuerend B. who saith that the Apostles could not loose that viz. the power of imposing hands and deliuering vnto Sathan which the Fathers call Episcopall power vnlesse they lost the Apostleship withall Secondly hee obiecteth want of proofes What proofe bringeth he that the Apostles ordayned such Bishops in other Churches neither one text of Scripture nor any testimonie out of the ancient Writers onely authoritate praetoria hee telleth vs Pythagoras like they did so c. Here in complayning of the want of proofes he giueth sufficient proofe of a bad conscience In this section I did but in generall hauing noted the difference of the time declare what course the Apostles tooke first in deferring the choise of Bishops and afterwards in appointing them The proofes doe follow in the sections following shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops That imputation of speaking Pythagoras like hee hath often layd vpon me and yet not so oft as vniustly who haue in this Sermon and in this Treatise deliuered nothing almost without plentifull proofe or sufficient authority Thirdly hee carpeth at the names wherewith I said the first Bishoppes were called asking what is all this to the matter Would he prooue they were Diocesan Bishops because they were called by these names what a notorious cauiller is this may nothing be spoken but by way of proofe may nothing be said by declaration or explanation or preuention I knew it was obiected that Bishops are not mentioned in the scriptures the name Episcopus Bishop being giuen to Prebyters and therefore that is not like they were ordayned by the Apostles of vvhom no mention is in the Scriptures For preuention of this obiection or assoyling this doubt I declared first that the Bishops in the writings of the Apostles are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes their rulers sometimes their Apostles Yea but in my former Sermon I gaue all these names saue onely the name of Apostles to all ministers The former Sermon is of ministers in generall including the Bishops and diuers things there spoken of ministers in generall doe principally belong to Bishops All Pastors are rulers or rectors of their seuerall flockes but the Bishops are rulers both of them and their flocke All ministers are called Angelâ— but the Bishop alone is the Angell of each Church or Diocese c. But by what authority saith he is the title of Apostle appropriated to BB he would haue said communicated to them with the twelue For I know no man so foolish as to appropriate it to the Bishops This reason I rendred why they be called the Apostles of the Churches because they succeeded the Apostles in the gouernment of the particular Churches whereof I gaue instance Phil. 2.25 where Epaphroditus who was the B. or Pastor of Philippi is therefore called their Apostle Therefore saith he Who saith so Ambrose Ierome Theodoret Caluin Thomas Aquinas if we will beleiue D. D. but if we will looke vpon the bookes themselues not one of them saith so Caluin Aquinas and some other indeed as Lyra interlineall glosse Lombard Anselme c. are of minde that Apostle there signifieth teacher and no more Caluin saith thus The name of Apostle here as in many other places is taken generally for proquolibet Euangelista for any Euangelist But by their Euangelist he vnderstandeth their Pastor and so calleth him diuers times vsing that word vpon that occasion sixe or seauen times in that place Paul sendeth to them Epaphroditus ne Pastore carerent qui recte compositum statum tueretur least they should want their Pastor who might maintaine their well ordered state On these words verse 26. He had a longing desire towards you all and was pensiue because you had heard that he was sicke Caluin noteth a signe of a true Pastor that when he was farre distant from them notwithstanding was affected with the care and desire of his flocke and when he vnderstood that his sheepe sorrowed for his sake was pensiue for their sorrow In like manner the godly carefulnesse of the Philippians for their Pastor is noted on the 27. where Paul signifieth what griefe he should haue conceiued if Epaphroditus had died Paul saith he was mooued with the losse of the Church which he saw would haue beene destituted optimo Pastore of a very good Pastor in so great want of good men On the twenty eight he saith Paul did the more carefully send him because he was sory that for his occasion he had beene withheld from the flocke committed to him On the twenty nineth he obserueth how desirous Paul is that good Pastors may be much esteemed c. let the reader therefore iudge whether Epaphroditus were not in Caluins iudgement the Pastor of the Philippians By the Apostle saith Ambrose he was made their Apostle that is Bishop as Ambrose expoundeth the word in other places Apostoli Episcopi sunt the Apostles are Bishops But according to the refuters sence he had beene an Apostle not of Pauls making but of their owne Ierome writing on those words my fellow Souldiour and your Apostle fellow Souldiour saith he by reason of his honour because he also had receiued the office of being an Apostle among them And on those words haue in honour such not onely him saith hee qui vester est Doctor who is your Doctor by vvhich vvord in Ieromes time Bishop most commonly was signified c. Theodoret saith thus hee called him Apostle because to him the charge of them was committed Wherefore it is manifest that those which in the beginning of the Epistle were called Bishops were vnder him as hauing the place of Presbyters And from this place as afterwards I noted Theodoret gathereth that at the first they whom now wee call Bishops were called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Thomas Aquinas hee calleth him brother saith he by reason of his faith fellow worker in the labour of preaching fellow souldier because they had suffered tribulation together your Apostle that is Doctor Hic fuit Episcopus Philippensium Hee was the Bishop of the Philippians And so saith Bullinger Philippensium Episcopus erat With what face therefore could the Refuter denie that any one of these Authors did say that hee was therefore called the Apostle of the Philippians because hee vvas their Bishop and Pastor And so are they to be
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
owne confession was common to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons as if he should haue said I grant that which here you doe proue but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were Diocesses and the Bishops Diocesan like to ours for the substance of their office I proued before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or prouing it that I presuppose it as sufficiently proued before But this is the poore shift which the refuter vsually flyeth vnto when he hath nothing to answere He perswaded himselfe such was his iudgement that in the question of parishes and Diocesses he had the vpper hand and therefore when he is foiled in any of the points following he flyeth to that as his refuge yea but though this be so as you say yet the Church was not a Diocese nor the Bishop a Diocesan But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the cheife Cities of Macedonia to haue beene a parish Church may be gathered by that which before hath beene said of the like Cities Where he saith I goe about to deceiue the reader with the like equiuocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong But he and his consorts deceiue the readers when they would perswade them that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded namely vntill Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters that therefore the offices were confounded For here I shew that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who euer since the Apostles times haue beene called Bishops were then called the Agels and the Apostles of the Churches to whom as I noted before out of Theodoret those who were then called Episcopi that is Presbyters were subiect For as I said in the Sermon whiles the Episcopall power was in the Apostles and Apostolicke men those who had that power were called Apostles and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places of Scripture vnderstandeth Bishops and to the like purpose Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos praepositos dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Gouernours For as Theodoret hath well obserued on 1 Tim. 3. In times past saith he they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles But in processe of time they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gaue to them who had beene called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Titus of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians Which testimony if it be conferred with some before cited out of Ierome the truth concerning this matter will appeare to be this Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolicke men for such were the first Bishops the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches other Ministers being then called Presbyteri Episcopi indifferently but when the first Bishops being dead their successours were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which Ierome noteth to haue been done at Alexandria euer since the death of S. Marke and was done in all other places where were no Euangelists or Apostolicall men remayning then they left the name Apostle and for difference sake called him the Bishop Wherefore as I said in the Sermon it was not long that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter For Ignatius who was a B. aboue thirtie yeares in the Apostles time after that Evodius had beene B. of Antioch aboue twenty yeares before him appropriateth the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Bishop and vsually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergie as the Church euer since the Apostles hath distinguished them by these three names Bishop Presbyter and Deacon Yea but we may gather out of Theodorets testimonie saith the Refuter that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop is without any sufficient warrant For seeing Ignatius liued in the Apostles times and died within sixe yeares after S. Iohn and Theodoret saith that in processe of time the name of B. was imposed it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it No man includeth the processe of time within the compasse of sixe yeares any man will thinke The processe of time wherof Theodoret speaketh was as appeareth by conference of him with Ierome in the Apostles time At the first towards the beginning of the Apostles time the Gouernours of the Churches were called Apostles but in processe of time when the first Bishops who had beene Apostles or Apostolicall men were dead and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times then they began to be called Episcopi Bishops And that this was so appeareth not onely by Ignatius who continually vseth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergie Presbyters as the second and Deacons as the third but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon I haue the longer insisted on this point because it is of great consequence For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded Secondly that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superiour to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi And lastly that such Bishops as were superiour to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in the Apostles writings The IIII. CHAPTER Shewing the Places where and the Persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB but chiefly that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to shew the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. and first out of the scriptures c. to all ordayned there pag. 75. IN this section and the two next following I proue that Timothie and Titus were by S. Paul ordayned Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet and maintaine the same assertion against their obiections Afterwards I shew out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquitie that other BB. of other places were ordayned by the Apostles This saith the Refuter is the last supply to maintaine the former antecedent by shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops If this faile he is vndone As who should say that all which hitherto hath beene said hath by him beene very learnedly and sufficiently refuted When as in truth hee hath not beene able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto with soundnesse of reason or euidence of truth And the like assurance I haue of that which followeth Now that Timothie and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops I proue by a two-fold reason which I ioyned together is thus to be
dissolued the former standing thus If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet then is it true that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason because it is presupposed in the Epistles that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority both in respect of Ordination and Iurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Against which consequence this onely thing can be obiected that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists which afterwards is answered To this argument the Refuter answereth not The second he frameth thus If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle enformeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Timothie and Titus were Bishops But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent First he taketh exception against the proposition saying though it make a goodly shew yet was it confuted long agoe by M. Cartwright Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disproue the consequence First for the consequence it selfe I auouch thus much that from that antecedent I might not onely haue inferred that particular that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops but in generall that the function of Bishops whose authority and office is described and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie and Titus in these Epistles hath warrant in the word of God and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders out of the Scriptures I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline Of T. C. answere to that consequence I haue taken speciall notice heretofore and did greatly wonder that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement who tooke that answere for good payment or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vs to so sleight and friuolous an euasion For whereas D. Whitgift argueth thus That Timothie was Bishop the whole course of the Epistles written vnto him declareth wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function T. C. answereth that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon or a widdowe an olde man or an olde woman seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties Yea rather that hee was a Deacon considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being giuen to wine and not being a young Christian could haue no place in Timothies instruction Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace can the Refuter be so ignorant or without iudgement as to thinke that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles did meane onely the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle if that had beene his argument hee had argued thus Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers and likewise Deacons Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister or likewise a Deacon Is it not plaine that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers or of his Episcopall function chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction vnto which heads the precepts directions in those Epistles are to be referred for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women olde and young hee directeth Timothie and in like manner Titus what to preach When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers and Deacons and Widowes he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne and Widowes to admit And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said that in those Epistles diuers precepts pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B It is not hard to shew him more then one as lay thy hands hastily on no man Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. These are perpetuall directions which were not common eyther to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition Now let vs heare what the Refuter can say The Proposition saith hee is grounded vpon a false supposition and what is that that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters Is this the Supposition whereon the Proposition is grounded Alas good man you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme which your selfe framed But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition I will propound my Argument in another forme Whosoeuer describing vnto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ doth plainely describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of BB hee doth presuppose them to be BB the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vnto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ doth plainly describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of BB. Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet This Proposition because I know not what can be obiected against it T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine I will once againe take for granted The assumption I proue by those particulars wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of Ordination Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and also of Iurisdiction they being the censurers of other Ministers
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
cheife burden must lye vpon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae which hath bin before examined Beza making mention of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular gouernment giueth him this stile Democraticus quidam fanaticus shewing that these who plead that cause are lead with a phantasticall fanaticall spirit For is it not a phrensy to vrge the peoples supremacy in Church-gouernment is there any shew in scripture or in reason that the sheepe should rule their Shepheard or the flocke their Pastor But for the confutation of them I referre them to other Disciplinarians from whom they had their first grounds seing by this fancy they seeke to ouerturne as well those Churches where the Geneua discipline is established as ours The third dreame is that the lawes of Church-gouernment prescribed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were prouided for the democraticall state of the Church So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily you must vnderstand the speech directed not to Timothie to vvhom the Epistle was written but to the people that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead to be hasty in laying hands on a new And vvhen hee saith doe not thou receiue an accusation c. it must be vnderstood of the people and Presbyterie After two or three admonitions doe thou auoid an hereticke or excommunicate him that is thou people What of Creet belike the whole Iland of Creet was a Parish too The next fancy is that the popular state of the seuerall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty and after into a Monarchie But it is as cleare as the light that the seuerall Churches were at the first gouerned by the Apostles or Apostolicall men seuerally and that either perpetually as by Iames Marke c. or but for a time as by Peter Paul c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches they committed them to other Apostolicall men such as Timothie Titus Evodius Simon the sonne of Cleophas Linus Clemens c. communicating vnto them the same authority both for the worke of the ministery and for the power of ordination and iurisdiction which themselues had in those seuerall Churches and what authoritie each of them had their successors in the seuerall Churches had the same Neither haue our BB. at this day greater authority in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus and other the first Bishops had Who was to ordaine ministers in Creet and to gouerne that Church did not Paul commit these things to Titus without mentioning either of Presbytery or people are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-gouernment directed onely to Titus for Creet to Timothie for Ephesus and doth not this euidently shew that howsoeuer they might vse either the presence and consent of the people or the Counsell and aduise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in common-wealthes yet the sway of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment was in them It is therefore most plaine that in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it is presupposed that they had Episcopall authority and that the rules and directions giuen to them are precedents for Bishops and patternes vnto them for the exercise of their Episcopall function And this I proue againe in my Sermon by another argument which the refuter hath framed thus Those things which were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops But those Epistles were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world Therefore they were written to informe Diocesan BB. The assumption for with that the refuter beginneth I proued by testimony and by reason And first by the testimony of Paul straightly charging Timothie that the commandements and directions which he gaue him should be kept inuiolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ therfore by such as should haue the like authority to the end Hereof Caluin saith thus nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit Vnder the name of the commandement he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothie And againe omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothie refero I doe wholy referre it to the ministerie of Timothie For Paul wrot to this end to giue direction to Timothie how he should behaue himselfe in the Church which is the house of the liuing God Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to obserue inuiolable vntill the comming of Christ which could not be performed in the person of Timothie who was not to continue to the end but in a succession of them who should haue the like authority vntill the end T. C. and other Disciplinarians hauing fancied that the Apostles had giuen direction in that Epistle for onely-gouerning Elders hereupon conclude that they are to be continued vntill the comming of Christ So that they can conclude vpon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle but they cannot or will not see how the continuance of that office which Timothie did beare for the execution whereof all these directions are giuen is concluded vpon the same ground The second testimonie was of Ambrose writing on those vvords of Paul saying that Paul is so circumspect not because he doubted of Timothie his care but in regard of his successors that they after the example of Timothie might continue the well ordering of the Church The reason whereby I proued that Paul giueth direction not to Timothie and Titus onely as to extraordinary persons but to them and their successors vntill the end of the world was because the authority which was committed to them for the execution whereof the Apostle giueth his directions is perpetually necessary without the which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus The effect of the refuters answere is that he could be content to graunt this assumption were it not that he is resolued to deny the conclusion which followeth thereupon For first hee granteth Pauls purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothie and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office And that this authoritie was not nor was to be in the hands of any one particular man but the right of it was in the whole congregation the execution in the Presbytery So that the power of ordination and iurisdiction might be continued without Bishops c. It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption which the refuter granteth that what Paul did write to Timothie Titus he wrote not to
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed some question did arise whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
be doubted but that each of these had Bishops to their successours euen in the Apostles times as before hath beene shewed and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange that Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this two things are obiected first that Timothie and Titus may seeme not to haue beene appointed BB. of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were remoued to other places c. to other in Creet pag. 78. The first obiection is thus framed by the Refuter Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet but were remoued to other places Therefore Timothie and Titus were not ordayned Bishops of Ephesus and Creet I answere by distinction For if by continuing they vnderstand as the words seeme to import a perpetuall residence without remouing or trauelling thence vpon any occasion then I denie the consequence or proposition which is vnderstood For by no law either of God or man are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures but that vpon speciall and extraordinarie occasion they may either for their owne necessitie or for the greater or more publicke good of the Church trauaile or remoue to other places It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident vpon their charge If by continuing be meant ordinarie residence then I denie the antecedent and doe contrariwise affirme that although vpon speciall and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places as his or the Churches necessity required yet these were the places of their ordinary residence And that I proue because they both liued and died there That they continued or had their ordinary abode there in their life time I proue by testimony of Scripture and other euidence For if Paul required Timothie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus and appointed Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue to redresse vvhat vvas vvanting in Creet then vvere they to continue or haue their ordinarie residence there But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The Refuter denieth the consequence to be of any force vnlesse first it could be proued that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a perpetuall abiding in a place without departing from it all a mans life vvhich needeth not seeing ordinarie residence which is meant by that terme which is required in BB. ordinarie Pastors may be without such perpetuall abiding Secondly except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vnderstood also for the whole terme of life But it sufficeth that it signifieth to continue in redressing as the Geneua translation also readeth For thereby is meant as I said that hee was not left there for a brunt but that he should as things were defectiue or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue to redresse them and still keepe that Church in reparation For though the Church were new as the Refuter obiecteth to signifie that it should not need any reparation yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subiect to death and the places of them which dyed were to be supplied and the Church subiect to personall corruptions both for doctrine discipline manners which would need reformation And whereas their opinion who imagine that Timothie was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time when Paul went into Macedony Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothie I shew that in all the iourneyes of Paul into Macedony mentioned in the Acts Timothie did accompany him And therefore that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome with which the Acts of the Apostles end not mentioning any of his trauels and other occurrents which afterwards happened for the space of nine or tenne yeares The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be knowne but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time and other monuments of antiquity The which passage though the Refuter hath passed by in silence I thought good to put the Reader in minde of that he may acknowledge many things to haue beene done by the Apostles which are registred in other records of anitquity though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles which endeth vvith those things which happened aboue fourty yeares before the death of S. Iohn Now the Acts of the Apostles which were performed after S. Lukes history thereof were in part recorded by Hegesippus and Clemens and other auncient Authors which testifie that Paul ordayned Timothie B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet and that he and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places Whose testimonies whosoeuer doe refuse to beleiue doe themselues deserue no credit To those allegations therefore out of Paul I added the credible testimony of diuers Authors viz. Dorotheus in synopsi Hieron siue Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito Isidorus de vita morte sanctorum Num. 87. 88. Vincent lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part 1. tit 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report that Timothie and Titus as they liued so also dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet The Refuter answereth he may well credit the report of these Authors and yet not grant that therefore they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Indeed if I had argued thus as the Refuter would haue the Reader thinke Timothie and Titus dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Therefore they were BB. there it had beene a loose consequence But he wrangleth besides the pupose It was obiected that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops of those places because they did not continue there I proue that they held their ordinary residence there not onely because S. Paul required them both to continue there but other Authors also testified that they both liued and died there The Refuter answereth and would haue the Reader content himselfe with this answere that howsoeuer indeed it is true that they continued there yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Yea but saith he it would be obserued that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Creet if they did not continue there but were remoued to other places Now that they were remoued himselfe confesseth c. If I had confessed that they were remoued and also that if they were remoued they were not Bishops Then I should haue granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme which hee said before that I denyed and also the consequence But indeed I denyed the consequence in that sence which the Refuter conceiueth and yet granted that though they were sometimes remoued yet they kept ordinary residence the one at Ephesus the other in Creet And therefore their trauelling or remouing vpon extraordinary occasions doth not hinder their being BB. Doe you indeed grant that sometimes they were remoued marry that will I proue saith the
Refuter out of 2 Tim. 4.9 11.12.21 c. and therevpon inferre they were not Bishops But neither are all his proofes good neither is his inference sound He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him For first thither the Apostle sent Tychicus As if he had said whether Paul sent Tychicus there Timothie was not Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them that one place could-not hold them both Secondly because from the place where he was Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome with him to bring the cloake the books parchments which he left at Troas As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas did not argue that he was at Ephesus which is in the same peninsula rather then else where But that he was at Ephesus may be gathered hereby because the Apostle willeth him to salute Aquila and Priscilla whom he left at Ephesus Act. 18.19 the houshold of Onesiphorus which also was there 2 Tim. 4.19 with 1.16 Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome Now heare his inferences Titus was sent from Candy to Rome and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia therfore he was not B. of Candy Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him therefore hee was not B. there c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome therefore he was not B. of Ephesus These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles and to the generall consent of antiquity which testifieth that they were Bishops Whereas therefore he asketh who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops I say it is intollerable boldnesse and arrogancie to auouch the contrarie And such is that presumptuous speech that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops it had beene a matter neither of good report for them nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places For so long as ordinarily they were resident their absence at some times vpon vrgent and weighty occasions was neither of ill report nor bad example Besides when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus and sent for Timothie from Ephesus he sent the one to supply the absence of the other as Caluin also hath obserued Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. The other thing which they obiect is that they were Euangelists but that doth not hinder c. to the midst of page 81. The second obiection saith the Refuter lyeth thus Timothie and Titus were Euangelists Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet This consequence I denied because their being Euangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches and furnished with Episcopall power they became Bishops Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things First that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches without which they could not be Bishops And this hee proueth by two reasons For first if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches then should he haue confounded the offices which as himselfe saith 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 God had distinguished Secondly hee should haue depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin These are nice points which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand neither did they conceiue but that Euangelists might without any disparagement to them be assigned to seuerall Churches and so become Bishops For if they held that the Apostles themselues being assigned to certaine Churches as Iames was to Ierusalem were BB. much more Euangelists But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vpon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to haue had we will briefly consider what that Euangelisticall function was and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops An Euangelist therefore was he which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ whether by preaching or also by writing In the latter sence there are foure onely called Euangelists Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn who though they all preached yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists In the former sence the word is taken either generally to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell or specially signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell being not affixed to any certaine place And these seeme to haue beene of two sorts For either they were immediatly called of Christ and by him sent to preach the Gospell as the 72. Disciples or they were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their iourneyes and assistants in the Ministery Of the former sort was Philippe who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist Act. 21.8 Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes and were not assigned to any certaine place That which the Fathers say of the 7◠Disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery may of this latter sort much more be verified who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers being not tyed to any one place For neither had they the power of ordination neither as Zanchy saith did they gouerne the Churches now one then another as the other Euangelists and Prophets did Wee see what the office of Euangelists was Now let vs see whether it hindered men from being Bishops For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ yet might they when they ended their trauailes and betooke them to certaine Churches haue beene Bishops thereof For Marke the Euangelist after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria became B. thereof in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times much lesse doth their being of the latter sort For though the Apostle di◠distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4 yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists and in the latter he speaketh of those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists and perhaps also the 72 whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
saith he did they take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches in which by right it is seated but with the Churches ordayned ministers and redressed such things as were amisse though perhaps that right of laying on hands might sometimes be performed by them alone c. What is all this to the assumption which if he would deny and make this denyall good he should haue said and proued it that the function and authoritie which they exercised in Ephesus and Creet was to end with their persons and admitted no succession or was not to be continued in their successors But he roues and raues as men vse to doe which being at a non-plus would faine seeme to answere somewhat And that which he answereth besides that it is impertinent is partly also vntrue For when he saith that Timotie and Titus did not take the power of ordination and iurisdiction from the Churches c. First he would insinuate that Bishops doe as though herein there were some difference betweene Bishops and them vvhen as indeed neither Bishops nor they doe take that authority from the Church but they and all other first BB. receiued their authority from the Apostles and deriued the same to their lawfull successors Secondly he saith that the power of ordination and iurisdiction by right is seated in the whole Church or congregation which is not true of any particular congregation but in case of necessity wherein both the succession of their owne clergy failing and the help of others vvanting the right is deuolued to the whole body of the Church But let this goe among other his Brownisticall or rather Anabaptistiall nouelties I proceed to the proofe of my assumption which hee hath layd forth thus That function and authority which is ordinarie and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors But the function and authority that they had as being assigned to certaine Churches is ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches Therefore the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches was not to end with the persons of Timothie and Titus but to be continued in their successors The assumption is thus to be explaned the function which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to certaine Churches was ordinary and the authority which they did exercise consisting chiefly in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was perpetually necessary This assumption the refuter would seeme to deny and yet granteth that the power of ordination and iurisdiction is perpetually necessary onely he denieth it to be necessary that there should be in euery Church an Euangelist to exercise that authority So that of the two points in the assumption the latter hee granteth that the authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary the other that the function which they had being assigned to those Churches was ordinary hee toucheth not but denieth that which I did not affirme to wit that it was necessary there should be an Euangelist alwayes in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction Did I affirme this or rather did I not teach the contrary when I said that the function whereby they did exercise that power of ordination and iurisdiction was not an extraordinary function as the Euangelisticall but ordinary as the Episcopall Now that the function which Timothie and Titus had being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was an ordinary function the very same which the Bishops that succeeded them and all other BB. both in and since the Apostles times haue exercised it is most certaine for though in them who cheifly are called Euangelists there were diuers things extraordinary besides their limitation to no certaine place as their immediate calling from Christ their extraordinary gifts of the Spirit as of reuelation and of working miracles as appeareth by Steuen and Philippe yet in Timothie and Titus and others who were called Euangelists because they were the companions of the Apostles in their iourneyes and assistants in their worke of the ministery there was nothing extraordinarie but their not limitation to any certaine Churches For their calling to the ministery was ordinary and their gifts though great yet attayned and increased by ordinary meanes When as therefore they were assigned to certaine Churches as the Pastors and gouernours thereof whereunto they were ordayned by imposition of hands and by that ordination were furnished with power of ordination and Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction their function was the same ordinary function which their successors and all other Bishops did exercise But as the refuter said it was not necessary that there should alwayes be an Euangelist in euery Church to exercise the power of ordination and iurisdiction so perhaps some more iudicious will alledge that though the power of ordination and iurisdiction be perpetually necessary yet it is not necessary that this power should alwayes be wholy in some one in euery Church as it was in Timothie or Titus Neither did I say it was but that the power or authority which they exercised was perpetually necessary and the function whereby they did exercise it was ordinary being the very same function which other Bishops both then and euer since haue administred And therefore the refuter doth greatly wrong me when hee saith that I make this Episcopall power perpetually necessary and chargeth me with contradicting my selfe in another place where I acknowledge that where the Episcopall gouernment may not be had there others may be admitted For the clearing therefore of the whole controuersie and plaine manifestation of that which I hold therein we will make vse of a distinction which the learned vse concerning matters of gouernment In all gouernments therefore there are these things to be considered potâ—stas ordo formae vel modus titulus siue applicatio potestatis ad personam vsus First the power to be exercised in gouernment then the order whereby the inferiours both to be gouerned gouerning are subordinate to the superiours after the forme and the manner of gouernment as whether it be a Monarchy where the power is in one or an Aristocraty wher it is in few or a Democraty where it is in the multitude and how each gouernment is ordered the title as whether the gouernours are put in and intituled to their power and authority by succession or by election or institution and after how they vse and exercise their authority c. Of these the two first that there should be power of gouernment and order therein in the people gouerned are essentiall perpetual as the immutable ordinances of God The other many wayes are accidentall variable But yet if question be made what forme of gouernment in the commonwealth is the best hath the best
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised an order or eutaxy it is the perpetual immutable ordinance of God the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society as the wise man saith tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour notwithstanding there were other things in them which being perpetually necessary for the being and well being of the Church were from them to be communicated or deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen in the Apostles times For what authority Evodius had at Antioch the same after him had Ignatius and what Linus had at Rome the same had Anacletus Clemens Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
that Paul admonisheth his Disciple praelatum gregi being the Prelate of a flocke saying attend reading vntill I come 12. Isidor saith that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus 13. Polycrates saith that Timothie trauailing with Paul to Ephesus was made the first B. there by him in the raigne of Nero. 14. Theophylact vnderstandeth by Pastors and Doctors Eph. 4. those to whose care the Church was committed that is to say BB. such as Timothie and Titus And for that cause he saith that Paul wrote to them two Againe Titus being ordayned Bishop is set ouer the great Island Creet 15. Oecumenius on those words I requested thee to remaine in Ephesus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here hee had ordayned him B. And againe in Tim. 5. he speaketh of ordinations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he wrote to a B. And of Titus he saith that Paul left him to ordaine BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing first made him a B. And of both on those words Pastors and Doctors he saith Paul meaneth such as to whose trust the Churches were committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 BB. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as Timothie and Titus 16. Nicephorus saith that after Paul was first dismissed from Rome he wrote his former Epistle to Timothie whom he had ordayned before B. of Ephesus And another Epistle hee wrote vnto Titus whom hauing before ordayned B. of Creet he had left there To these I might adde the testimonies of diuers new writers but I will mention onely a few whose iudgements the Disciplinarians will not easily reiect First therefore Caluin in diuers places on the Epistles to Timothie doth note that he was the Pastor of the Church at Ephesus The authors of the Centuryes say it is euident that Paul appointed Timothie the Pastor to the Church of Ephesus D. Fulke saith among the Clergie for order and seemely gouernment there was alwayes one principall to whom by long vse of the Church the name of B. or superintendent hath beene applyed which roome Titus exercised in Creta Timothie in Ephesus and others in other places c. Finally Beza himselfe noteth that Timothie was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Iustine calleth him that is Antistes or President in the Presbytery at Ephesus that is to say according to Bezaes language a Bishop To the testimonies which I produced the refuter answereth three things first in effect this that though the Fathers call them BB. yet properly they were not Bishops which bare denyall of his if it be weighed with the testimonies of the ancient which I named will proue as light as vanity it selfe Secondly that the consent of the Fathers is not so generall as I would make men beleiue seeing both Ambrose and Ignatius doe make Timothie a Deacon And for proofe thereof he referreth vs to T.C. whose words are these all ancient writers are not of that iudgement for not to speak of Ambrose which calleth Timothie a Deacon where he opposeth a Deacon to a Bishop Ignatius an ancient writer saith that hee was a Deacon that where diuiding the ministeries of the Church into Bishops and Deacons c. doth openly oppose a Deacon to a Bishop little reason had T.C. to speake of Ambrose and therefore might well say not to speake of him For these are Ambrose his words with the BB. and Deacons that is with Paul and Timothie qui vtique Episcopi erant who verily were Bishops he also signified the Deacons which ministred vnto him For he writeth vnto the people For if he had written to the Bishops and Deacons he would haue written to their persons and it had beene fit that he should haue written to the Bishop of the place not to two or three as hee did to Titus and to Timothie Ignatius his words be these What be the Deacons but the imitators of the Euangelicall powers ministring vnto him that is the Bishop as the Angels doe to God a pure and blamelesse ministerie as holy Steuen to Iames the blessed and Timothie and Linus to Paul Anacletus and Clemens to Peter Distinguish the times and the answere is easie Timothie was such an Euangelist as first ministred to Paul as a Deacon afterwards was ordayned Presbyter as Ambrose saith and lastly a Bishop which is as the same Ambrose saith primus Presbyter But doth his seruing vnder Paul as a Deacon proue that afterwards he was not a Bishop nay rather his being a Deacon and afterwards a Presbyter doth proue he was not such an Euangelist as the Refuter imagineth And by as good reason he might proue that neither Linus nor Anacletus nor Clemens were Bishops of Rome because they had serued vnder Peter and Paul as Deacons Here is all that our Refuter can either by himselfe or with T. C. helpe obiect out of antiquity against Timothie his being a Bishop His third answere is that the Scripture calleth him an Euangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 and therefore he was no B. which is the same with the second obiection already answered I hope therefore I may be bold with the Readers consent to conclude that Timothie and Titus were ordayned BB. by the Apostle Paul the one of Ephesus the other of Creet Serm. sect 10. pag. 81. To these mentioned in in the Scriptures we adde others out of other the most auncient records of the Church wherof some were made BB. by Peter Paul some by Iohn the Euangelist and other the Apostles c. to pag. 87. l. 1. In this section I brought diuers most plaine and pregnant euidences to proue that the Apostles ordayned BB noting the Places where and the Persons whom they ordayned The which because the Refuter passeth ouer as it were in silence I will breifly recite that it may appeare to the Reader that the Refuter had cause to be silent because the euidence of truth did put him to silence First I shewed out of Eusebius that about the yeare fortie fiue Euodius was made Bishop of Antioch by the Apostles Peter and Paul as Ignatius who succeeded him in the Apostles times doth witnesse Secondly that Peter and Paul ordayned Linus Bishop of Rome about the yeare 56 whom Anacletus succeeded and after him Clemens testified by Irenaeus and Eusebius Thirdly that by the appointment of Peter Marke was the first B. of Alexandria whom Anianus succeeded in that Bishopricke after him Abilius and then Cerdo all in the Apostles times testified by Nicephorus Gregory Eusebius Ierome and Dorotheus Fourthly that after the death of Iames the iust Simon the sonne of Cleophas was by the Apostles which then were remayning made Bishop of Ierusalem testified by Hegesippus and Eusebius Fiftly that Iohn the Apostle ordayned Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna testified by Irenaeus Eusebius Tertullian and Ierome Sixtly that Iohn after his returne from exile ordayned BB. in diuers places testified by Clemens
Alexandrinus and Eusebius Finally that the Apostles committed the Church which is in euery place to Bishops whom they ordayned leauing them their successours testified by Irenaeus and Tertullian who saith that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. Iohn and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter so the rest of the Churches can shew quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoliâ—i seminis traduces habent what Bishops they haue ordayned by the Apostles the deriuers of the Apostolicall seed To all this he hath nothing to answere but that which heretofore hath beene fully refuted that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations c. saâ—ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion who said that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles But not onely Irenaeus and Tertullian haue auouched so much but diuers others of the Fathers as Cyprian Ierome and Augustine Cyprian saith praepositi that is Bishops Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed And Ierome saith omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles And againe he saith Episcopâ—s Apostolis succedere And Theodoret calleth the gouernment of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise Basill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the presidency of Apostles who haue deliuered to Bishops as Irenaeus saith their owne place of gouernment in the seuerall Churches And this is that which both Ierome and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalme pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij haue deliuered that insteed of the Apostles Bishops were ordayned gouernours of the Church in all parts of the world Which point is duely to be considered For hereby it is manifest that the Bishops haue receiued and deriued their authority from the Apostles whose successors they are not onely in respect of doctrine as all other true ministers but also in the gouernment of the seuerall Churches And when the Disciplinarians can shew the like warrant for their Presbyteryes especially of Lay-elders or our refuter and his good friends the Brownists for the cheife authority of the people we will harken to them Once it is euident that Christ committed the authority and gouernment of his Church to his Apostles who were to deriue the same to others Wherefore who haue any ordinary right they haue receiued the same from the Apostles So Timothie and Titus receiued their authority from Paul Linus from Peter and Paul Policarpus from Iohn c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles from whom by a perpetuall succession it hath beene deriued to the Bishops which are at this day But where is any euidence of the like deriuation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders I know not Thus haue I made good my former proofes that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The V. CHAPTER Answering the allegations out of Ierome Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath beene said to proue that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution the authoritie of Ierome is obiected c. to page 89. AGainst the testimonies of men saith the refuter what is fitter to be obiected then the authority of such a man as of set purpose disputing the question determineth the contrary to that which was so commonly anouched Which speech if it be duely examined iust exception may be taken against euery branch thereof For first hee would insinuate that nothing hath beene brought to iustifie the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men when besides the testimonies of men I haue brought good euidence of sound reason and besides that better proofe out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopall function then euer was or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline Againe it were fitter and to better purpose against the testimonies of men if I had produced no other proofe to haue brought either testimonies of scripture or sound reasons or for want of them the testimonie of so many and so approued authors to counterpoise the weight of their authorities who haue beene alledged on the contrary part But scriptures failing reasons wanting testimonies of other Fathers being to seeke Ierome alone must be faine to beare the whole burden of this cause For though some latter writers may be alledged to the like purpose yet all is but Ierome Whose not onely iudgement they follow but reteyne his words Neither doth Ierome so oft dispute this question or determine the contrary as the refuter in his shallow conceipt imagineth Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary against that which was commonly auouched both by himselfe and others his determination deliuered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight as what he hath deliuered not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heat of contention but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatically or historically For Ierome was but a Presbyter and there were two things in his time which might prouoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalfe of his degree then doth exactly agree with the truth The one was that the Bishops of those times did too much depresse the Presbyters For they might not onely in their presence not preach nor baptize nor administer the Communion but also in some places they might not preach at all nor any where baptize vnlesse they fetched their Chrisme from the Bishop against which practises of the Bishops Ierome in some places of his works doth inueigh But that which troubled him most was that the Deacons in his time especially at Rome because they had more wealth as the fashion of the world is thought themselues better men then the Presbyters For the confutation of whom he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters aboue the Deacons as much as he can and may seeme to match them more then truth would permit with the Bishops For which the onely ground which he hath is this because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded Which God knoweth is a weak ground and easily out of his owne writings ouerturned But let vs examine the particulars First it is alledged out of Ierome that vntill factions did arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters but when they began to draw Disciples after them namely such as themselues had baptised it was agreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of the Church should belong and that the seede of schismes might be taken away Whereunto I answered first that this speech in respect of the Church of Ierusalem is vntrue which was first gouerned by the Apostles in common and after committed to Iames in particular before we read of any Presbyters
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne testimony But before I come to the sifting thereof there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
authority and consent of the Apostles This generall decree was made in the Apostles times Therefore not without their authority and consent The assumption I proue thus This generall decree in the whole world was made either in the Apostles times or neare their times But not neare their times for there could no such generall decree be made without a generall Councill And there was no generall councill before the councill of Nice before which councill there were not onely Diocesan and Metropolitane Bishops but also Patriarches The Refuter answereth that Ieromes words deceiue mee For though Ierome saith it was decreed yet he doth not meane that it was decreed but that it came from custome and that paulatim by little and little The Refuters answere therefore maketh Ierome to contradict himselfe whose speeches notwithstanding are thus reconciled For that which hee there calleth custome in another place hee termeth an Apostolicall tradition and the Apostolicall tradition is that vniuersall decree which hee speaketh of And vvhere Ierome saith by little and little that the rootes of discension might be plucked vp the whole care was committed to one that is to be vnderstood thus that although it were agreed vpon at once and decreed to be put in practise in the vvhole vvorld yet it vvas not practised at once in the whole world but first in one Church as at Ierusalem after in Antioch then in Rome after in Alexandria in all which Churches not onely the first Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but their successours also and that by the testimonie of Ierome himselfe as followeth in the next proofe For hauing thus shewed in generall both the time and place out of Ierome when and where Bishops were ordayned that is to say in the Apostles times in the whole world and consequently that they were ordayned by the Apostles in the next place I declare more particularly out of Ierome that by the Apostles Bishops were first ordayned noting also the persons whom and the places where and the time when they ordayned Bishops Doth not Ierome plainely testifie that Iames was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem before their departure thence that when hee had gouerned that Church 30. yeares Simon his brother or kinsman succeeded him in the Bishopricke who liuing vntill he was 120. yeares old was crucified vnder Traiane Doth not he witnesse that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch in the Apostles times that Marke was the first Bishop of Alexandria and that he dying at Alexandria in the eight of Nero that is foure or fiue yeares before the death of Peter and Paul Anianus succâ—eded him Doth he not say that Clâ—mens was the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter For saith he Linus was the second Anacletus the third all in the Apostles times Doth hee not expresly testifie that Polycarpus was S. Iohns Disciple and by him ordayned Bishop of Smyrna and is it not testified in the same Catalogue that Timothie was of blessed Paul ordayned B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Hereunto the Refuter maketh an answere like himselfe that hee hath often told me that Iames Marke and Timothie neither were nor might be Bishops And I haue often tolde him of his poore shifts whereof this is one For the question being here not whether these men simply were Bishops or not but whether Ierome saith so or no I hauing alledged plaine testimonies of Ierome auerring that they were Bishops he in steed of maintayning his assertion which was that Ierome testifieth Bishops not to haue beene ordayned vntill after the Apostles times giueth Ierome the lye but answereth not to the point For if Ierome testifie that these men were Bishops in the Apostles times how is not he ashamed to say that in Ieromes opinion there were no Bishops in the Apostles times And where he saith that Polycarpe and the like no doubt would say of Linus and Clemens and Ignatius c. was the ordinarie Pastor of that one congregation at Smyrna and no Diocesan Bishop which euasion I haue heretofore auoided I desire this answere may be compared with the next which he maketh concerning the end The end saith Ierome was to auoid Schisme and acknowledgeth that for the same end they are to be retayned professing that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the Bishop to whom if a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all be not yeelded there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as Priests The Refuter answereth that some say the remedy was almost worse then the disease But first what is this to the purpose that the Refuter had rather there should be a Schisme in euery Parish then a Bishop of the Diocese it was Ieromes iudgement that I opposed to their allegation out of Ierome And if Ierome testifie that in the Apostles times Bishops vvere ordayned to auoyd Schisme and that this was a necessarie remedie insomuch that he doubteth not to say that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it it was as much as in this place either I intended or could by the aduersarie be required Secondly where Ierome saith that Bishops were ordayned for auoyding of Schisme hee meaneth such Schisme as the Presbyters vvhom hee calleth Sacerdotes Priests would make if there were not one in euery Church set ouer them to vvhom the care of that vvhole Church should belong Novv applie the Refuters answere concerning Polycarpus which is his ordinarie answere that the first BB. were but ordinarie Pastors of one congregation such as wee call Rectors or Pastors of seuerall parishes Were such ordained to auoide schisme among priests or were not such the priests whose schisme was to be auoided by setting one B. in euery diocese ouer them or could the refuter thinke that the ordaining of such ordinarie pastors was a remedie worse then the disease is it not therefore cleare that the Bishops whom Ierome acknowledgeth to haue beene in the Apostles times were not ordinarie Pastors of seuerall congregations or parishes equall to other Presbyters but one in euery diocese set in a superiour degree aboue the rest to preserue them in vnitie and to keepe them from schisme Thirdly where to the iudgement of Ierome he opposeth the testimonie of others who say the remedie was almost worse then the disease because this superioritie of BB. did breed the Papacy this sheweth that great and sound Dâ—uines sometimes let fall especiallie when they write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnsound speeches grounded on weake proofes For how is it prouâ—â— that the superioritie of Bishops did breed the supremacie of the Pope Because as at the first one Presbyter was before the rest and made a Bishop so afterwards one B. was preferred aboue the rest so this custome bred the Pope and his Monarchy By which reason all superioritie should be condemned as the originall of the Popes supremacie For might not a man
as well say that as one Presbyter in euery parish is superiour to the rest according to their conceipt so one Pastor which is the Bishop in euerie diocese is superiour to the other Pastors c. But indeed the superioritie of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or originall that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof Yea so farre vvas it from breeding the oecumenicall B. of the whole world that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the maine parts of the world nor yet the superioritie of the Metropolitanes in the seuerall prouinces For the superioritie of Metropolitanes did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing and force of necessitie vrging men to that course but as I rather thinke from the institution of the Apostles after whose times the first originall of them cannot be shewen For although actually they were not Primates till in the seuerall dioceses of the prouince Bishops were ordained yet the euent plainely sheweth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother citie should be the chiefe in the prouince And you haue heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitane B. of Syria and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitane B of Creet and Irenaeus the B. of Lyons was the Metropolitane of the churches in France And although not long after the Patriarches were acknowledged and in the councill of Nice established in a godly policie as Caluin Beza and Zanchius confesse yet neither did the superioritie of Bishops breede them nor they the Papacy The true originall of the superioritie of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches in their circuites was the patterne of ciuill gouernment in the Romane Empire diuided into certaine precinâ—ts which the Church did follow Whereas therefore to each citie the countrey adioyning was subiect the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities committing to their charge not only the citie but countrey subiect to it which wee call a Diocese wherein from the beginning there was neuer more lawfully then one B. and whereas in euery prouince wherein were many Cities there was one Metropolis or mother citie where the ruler of that prouince was seated in like manner so soone as Bishops were placed in the seuerall cities they acknowledged the B. of their mother citie their primate and chiefe B. of the Prouince And as the whole Empire was diuided among certaine gouernours who were called praefecti praetorio whereof one was placed in Rome hauing the gouernment of Italy Affricke and part of Illyricum A second in Alexandria hauing the rule of Egypt Lybia Pentapolis c. A third at Antioch ruling Syria and other countreyes of the East A fourth in France gouerning France Germanie Spaine and Britaine so the diuers prouinces subiect to the praefecti praetorio at least the three former were subiected to the Bishops of the same sees who afterwards were called Patriarches whose Patriarchal authoritie was ratified in the Councill of Nice to wit that according to the auncient custome the B. of Rome should haue the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon that is as I suppose of the prouinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture that the B. of Alexandria should haue the gouernment of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countreyes in the East After Constantinople was built and made the seat of the Empire diuers countreyes were subiect to the prefecture and consequently to the Bishopricke thereof Neither as I said did the superioritie of Patriarches though perhaps larger then was absolutely needfull because the Ecclesiasticall causes of euery prouince might be sufficiently determined in the prouincial Synodes notwithstanding I say it did not breede the Popes supremacie Which did arise from another occasion which was this The Bishop of Constantinople considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogatiue which they had because they were seates of praefecti praetorio and Rome because it had beene the seate not onely of the praefectus but of the Emperour himselfe though at that time in respect of ciuill gouernment it were subiect to the Exarch of Rauenna for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superioritie and with all remembring that Constantinople vvas the seate of the Empire contended therefore that as the Emperour who had his seate at Constantinople was the Monarch of the world so himselfe might be acknowledged the vniuersall B. or oecumenicall Patriarch The which ambition though it were condemned by Gregorie the B. of Rome as Antichristian for there is no vniuersall B. or head of the whole Church but Christ yet his successor Boniface the third did imitate and exceede Alledging that Rome whereof hee was Bishop was the ancient seate of the Empire and that the Emperour though hee remained at Constantinople yet hee was the Romane Emperour At length with much a doe and contention obtained of the Emperour Phocas not only that he should be called an Oecumenicall Patriarch for that title the B. of Constantinople hauing once vsurped enioyed it as well as hee and doth retayne it to this day but that his See should be head of all Churches And this was the true originall of the Popes supremacie Serm sect 12. pag. 89. Secondly they vrge Ieromes inference in that place Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsell therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still The refuter denyeth this inference to be Ieromes or that any hath vrged such an inference from him When indeed the inference plainely is Ieromes and is that which among all their obiections is to best purpose obiected by the Disciplinarians Ierome had said before that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Diuell some saying I am of Paul c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters c. Of those speeches when hee had made a briefe recitall haecpropterea c. he maketh an inference to this effect that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first therefore both Presbyters should know themselues to be subiect to the B. and BB superiour to the Presbyters by the custome of the Church c. And for as much as at the first the churches were gouerned by the common councell of the Presbyters as vnder the Apostles that therefore the B. being set ouer the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them but should in communi EcclesiaÌ„ regere rule the church in common imitating Moses who when hee had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone chose seauenty with whom he might iudge the people Which obiection being better then any the refuter hath made in this booke I will not let it passe without some
answere For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters but that the vse of them was voluntarie after the example of Moses as Ierome saith and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition as Cyprian by name did follow their example resoluing to doe nothing of moment without their counsell and aduise seeking therein the good and peace of the Church And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops vntill as I said the Presbyters aduise and assistance to themselues seeming troublesome and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse grew out of vse whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed And so much may suffice to haue answered an obiection which the refuter doth not acknowledge I proceede therefore to the third which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke Presbyters and Bishops were all one therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition To this obiection I returned two answeres the first that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one it may be vndertooke of the names vvhich hee proueth by many testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles And in this sense it is true that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church as before I haue noted out of Theodoret And in the same sense Augustine is to be vnderstood vvhen hee saith according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium The refuter comming to examine this answere saith I denyed the Antecedent vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent in that sense vvhich I giue in the answere denyed the consequence That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition but by the custome of the Church yet that hindreth not but the function may be of Apostolicall institution Seeing they vvhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles sometimes the Angels of the churches So that when the names were confounded the offices were not But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it As though it needed excuse vvhen I brought iust defence of it vvhich hee is not able to answere For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one but by the proofes vvhich he bringeth for it but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles and that the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places For if hee would haue concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded his consequences would be very weake The second defence of my answere vvas this that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices But not of the offices therefore of the names If you shall vnderstand Ierome as affirming that the offices were confounded and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition in that sense that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution you shall make Ierome not onely to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie but also to be contrarie to himselfe but this latter is absurd so is the former To the former reason the refuter answereth not but bringeth a reason or two such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere Can any man be so sotttish saith he as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names not offices or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction You see how bragge our refuter is when hee seemeth to haue gotten neuer so little aduantage To his former question I answere that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour yet Ierome might and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters so Presbyters vvere called Bishops Yea but saith he in the second question Ierome would not reason so simply Whereto I answere that not onely learned men but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho haue obtained a greater name For as the Philosophers say names are the resemblances and imitations of the things Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new and I confesse worthy Diuines who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one not in name onely but in office also Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced and namely the second But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish whereby wee are charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie and to be contrarie to himselfe if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares eyther hath beene or can be alledged to that purpose of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent For first that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct haue I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes out of Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian and other auncient writers that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles haue I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian Hegesippus and Clemens cited by Eusebius and can it seeme doubtfull to any that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth And as for Ierome vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired then those vvhich I brought to proue that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles And that Ierome neuer thought that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded it
retayning the gouernment of Diocesan Bishops hee vseth these words Who would haue thought to haue heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another gouernment good and lawfull pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of diuine institution then as being ordayned by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sinceritie as themselues call it is maintained Now that Bishops were ordayned of God I proue by this argument as the refuter hath framed it If God ordayned Timothie Archippus and the Angels of the seauen Churches Bishops then were Bishops ordained by God But God ordained them Bishops Therefore Bishops were ordained by God As touching Timothie I argued thus By whom was he ordained Bishop By Paul I confesse as the instrument but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination For he was made B. by prophecie 1 Tim. 4. How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is by Prophecie saith Chrysostome by the holy Ghost Paul stirring him vp putteth him in minde who elected and ordained him as if hee had said God hath chosen thee hee hath committed his Church vnto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou wert made Bishop not by humane suffrage but by Prophecie that is by Diuine reuelation saith Theodoret that is spiritu sancto iubente by the commandement of the holy Ghost saith Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made and not at randome Whereunto you may adde the testimonie of Caluin Per Prophetiam quomodo quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur Neque enim delectus tantuacute m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio To this argument the refuter answereth nothing but that which I haue plainely and fully confuted before that Timothie was not a Bishop though Caluin as you see confesseth that Timothie by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors For if hee were a Pastor it is not to be doubted but he was a Bishop That Archippus was ordayned Bishop of God I proue thus Because Col. 4.17 Paul vsing the same exhortation to him vvhich hee gaue to Timothie the Bishop of Ephesus namely that hee should fulfill his ministerie hee addeth which thou hast receiued in the Lord and therefore by Gods ordinance and as it vvere at his hands The refuter hauing framed the argument thus Hee that receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord was ordained a B. by the Lord. Archippus receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord Therefore hee was ordained Bishop by the Lord He denyeth the proposition because neither is all Episcopall ministerie proper to a Diocesan Bishop else the Apostle would not haue made a B and Presbyter all one neither is that office onely in the Lord. Of which reasons the latter is meerely impertinent and friuolous For who euer said or thought that the office of a Bishop onely is in the Lord neither is the former to any purpose seeing he knoweth that by Episcopall ministerie I vnderstand the function of a Diocesan Bishop and therefore should not haue denyed the proposition but haue distinguished of the assumption saying that hee did not receiue the Episcopall ministerie meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop For proofe whereof it sufficeth to mee that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth Bishop of Collosae which was a Citie seeing I haue manifestly proued before that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops As touching the Angels I argue thus Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church and were signified by the seauen starres which were in Christs right hand had Diuine both institution and approbation The Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seauen churches and were signified by the seauen starres which vvere in Christs right hand Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine both institution and approbation The proposition I proued because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God and starres vvhose both preheminence of dignitie is noted in this life for the starres are the crowne of the Church and also prerogatiue of glorie which they shall haue in the world to come And finally they who are signified by the seauen starres in the right hand of Christ are such as Christ doth both approue and protect The assumption I went not about to proue now because it was proued at large in the former part of the Sermon And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose is that they were not Diocesan Bishops For that which he addeth besides is but the vttering of his spleene and emptying his gall against Bishops to whom he cannot abide such is his malice that the titles of Angels and starres which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giueth to the Bishops of the seauen Churches and which himselfe acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers should be applyed to Bishops It is true that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preheminence they be attributed to Bishops For as I haue said before when in a Church where are many Ministers who are all tearmed Angels the Bishop onely is called the Angel of the Church this title doth note his singular preheminence And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were starres the seauen Bishops onely of those Churches are signified by the seauen starres vvhich Christ held in his right hand Now if these seauen Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I haue manifestly proued them and all the Bishops of the auncient Churches to haue beene then must the refuter be content to endure both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches and the starres which Christ held in his right hand and consequently also that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Diuine institution And thus passing by his rayling as not worth the mentioning I proceede to the conclusion of my Sermon The VII CHAPTER Defending the conclusion of the Sermon and shewing that the chiefe Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopall gouernment The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus hauing proued this doctrine arising out of the Text that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution it remaineth that we should from thence gather some vses to our selues both for the informing of our iudgement and reforming of our liues c. to now let vs pag. 97. THe vse which serueth for rectifying the iudgement is contained in this section and it is first propounded and afterwards maintained against two obiections The vse is this that
18. Matt 16.19 Iohn 20.23 Vers 19.20 In Matt 18 17. in Marc 5.22 Matth 16.19 Ioh 20.23 § Sect. 5. The assumption confuted in Math 18.17 Lib 2. part 2 pag 41. Exod 28. Numb 11. De presbyt excomm pag 103. Lib 2. part 2. pag 40. Exod 4.29 See Beza de Presbyt excomm pag 101. 2 King 6.32 Ezek 8.1 Nehem 8.2 § Sect 6. 2. Chron 19.8 10 11. Num 11.16 Ezek 8.11 Sigon li. 6. c. 7 ex Talmud Lib. 6 c 4 ex Ier 19 1 Lib 4 Antiq 8. De presbyt excom pag 104 Leuit 10 10 Cap. 11. 2. Chron. 26.17 Pag. 103.104 § Sect. 7. Shoterim See 1. Chron 234. Deut. 17.9.10 In Pentateuch in deut 17 9. Also see Deu. 19 17. SigoÌ„ de rep Hebr. lib. 6. c. 7. Antiq. lib. 9. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synedrion fuisse 71. cui precrat Sacerdos Summus The high Priest had authoâ—itie to call or assemble the counsell till the time of Antipater Herods Father but after wards not without the Lieuetenants leaue Sigon li. 6. c. 7. Iosep. l. 20. Cal. in Mat. 18. (a) Li. 4. c. 8. (b) Li. 6. c. 7. (c) Luk. 22.66 Esa. 1.26 Ezek 44.24 Contr. Appion lib. 2. § Sect. 8. Exod. 18. Deut. 1. 16. 2. Chron. 19. De presb excom pag. 102. 5.22 de presbyt 112. Pag. 103. Mat. 10.17 23 34. Act. 22 19. Cap. 13. § Sect. 9. Cap. 18. In Mat 18.17 In Num. 11.16 Sigon lib. 6. c. 7. ex Talmud Petr. Galatin Act. 6. 7. and 22.4.5.19.20 and 24.6 16.10.11 Deut. 17.12 § Sect. 10. Act. 14.23 T. C. lib. 1.174 Tit. 1.5 act 14.23 Tit. 1.5 De relig pag. 1 68. In Act. 14.23 In Act. 14.23 Lib. 2. part 2.35 36. Lib. 4. c. 3. § 8. Caluin in Tit. 1.5 Counterpois arg 6. for Elders § Sect. 11. 5.14 Counterpois argum 5. for Lay-Elder 1. Tim. 4. 1. Thess. 5.14 1. 5.12.14 Bez. in Iam. 5. Mar. 6.13 Zanch. de relig pag. 168. § Sect. 12. Rom. 12.8 Counterpoison arg 2. for Elders Rom 12.6 See D. Bâ—lson Pag. 137 138. Lib. 4. c. 4. Sect. 8. Inst. li. 4. c. â—◠§ Sect. 4. In Rom 12.8 The countterpois Beza de presbyt excoÌ„m 113. Coll. 3.16 Heb. 3.13 In Tit. 1. sect 2. contra Rhem. § Sect. 13. 1 Cor. 12.28 Bez. de presbyt ex coÌ„m 113. T. C. lib. 2. part 2.38 Counterpois Argum 3. for Elders Vers 27. Eph. 4.11 Chrysost. 1. Cor. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts. 20.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oecum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost in 1. Cor 12. 1. Cor 12.31 14.1.3 In 1. Cor. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ambros in 1. Cor 12. A-Apostolos ipsi Episcopi sunt Theodoretus EccleesiaruÌ„ administrationes per haec significauit Anselm Th Aquin Dyonisius Carthus N. Lyranus in 1. Cor 12. * Ad pag 5◠§ Sect. 2. The testimonies of Ignatius answered Lib 2. part 2.45 H.I. pag 67 Protestat out of Sc. 41. Ad Trallian Ad Trall Ah Smyrn Ad Tarsens Ad Philadelp Ad Smyrn Ad Trall Ad Smyrn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Maguel The Senate of the Apostles Ad Antioch (a) Ad Philadelph (b) Ibid. § Sect. 3. (c) The testimonie of Tertulli apolog Cap. 39. (d) T. C. and after him the counter poiâ— cite this testimonie thus If there be any that hath committed such a fault that he is to be put away from the pertaking of the prayer of the Church and from all holy matters or affaires there dâ— beare rule or be presidents certaine of the most approued ancients or Elders which haue obtained this honour not by money but by good report (e) Dc câ—rona militis Lib. 1. ad vxorem De Monogamia quem librum scripsit aduersus Ecclesiam Hierom. in Catalog Pag. 649. Pag. 650. Pag. 651. Li. 2. part 2 Pag. 41. § Sect. 4. The testimonie of Cyprian answered Demonstr c. 12. H. I. pag. 67. Lib. 2. part 2.42 Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 5. Li. 1. epist. 9. Sportulantes fratres Li. 4. epist. 5. Li. 1. epist. 9. 2. Tim. 2.4 Duaren de sacr eccl minist bâ—n lib. 1. c. 18. C. de sacro cccl. l. placet c. Lib. 3. epist. 14. 15. Lib. 3. epist. 22. Clero proximos Doctorem audientium Theod. Balsam in Conc. NeÌ„ocaess c. 5. Ancyr c. 20. Niceph li. 5. c. 4. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 20. Niceph. l. 5. c. 14. Hier. adeuagrium Li. 3. epist. 1. Pag. 11. Pag. 41. Perpet gouern Chap. 11. Ad pag. 52. Lib. 4. c. ult The second point of the 5. The 3. point Pag. 53. §. 2. How the word Ecclesia is taken in the Scriptures a Act. 19.32.39.40 Psal. 22.23 26.5.12 149.1 Nehem. 5.7 in the Greeke translation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 3. What is to be called a Church § 4. Visible Churches not parishes only H. I. pag. 6. Of the Iewes there may so oft as there is mention of their synagogues § 5. The acceptation of the words ecclesia c. in the antient Writers The acceptations of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia §. 6. Paroecia beâ—okening a Bishop's charge doth signifie a diocesse a Can. Apost 14. b Euseb. l. 3. de vit Constantini pag. 146. c Conc. Nic. c. 15. d Conc. Antioc c. 21. e Epist. synod Sardic apud Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. f Con. Sard. c. 15. g Conc. Ancyr c. â—8 Conc. Antioch c. 18. Martin Brac câ—aâ— Capiâ— synod gr c. 10. eâ— 12. h Epiph. epist. ad Ioan. Hierosol apud Hieronym t. 2. § 7. The like vse of the word in later times i Conc. Aruern tempore Pelag. c. 9. k Conc. ToletaÌ„ 3 tempore Pelag c. 3. l Lib. 7. epist. 110. m Apud BedaÌ„ in bâ—st Angl. l. 4 c. 5. can 2. .6 n Con. Arelat sub Carolo Mag c. 17. o Conc. Mogunt c. 31. p Conc. Rotho mag c. 6. q Vormâ—tienâ— c. 62. That in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia signifieth the Diocesse r Euseb. l. 6. c. 1. s L. 6. c. 8. t Lib. c. 26. u L. 6. c. 3â— Euseb li. 4. c. 15. l. 5. c. 23 The 2. signification of Paroecia betokening the city or chiefe seat of the Bishop x Can. apost 34 y In the CouÌ„cel of ChalcedoÌ„ Act. 11. the 16. 17. CanoÌ„s of the couÌ„cell of Antioch are out of the booke of the CanoÌ„s of CouÌ„cels quoted as the 96. 97. Canon which sheweth that the ancient book agreeth with the edition of Tilâ—us which reckoning the Apostles Canoâ—s by theÌ„selues alloweth 20. CanoÌ„s to the Councell of Nice 25. to that of Ancyra 15. to the Counc of Neocesaria 20. to the counc of Gangra all which arise to 80. Whereto if you adde the canons of the councill of Antioch the 16. of that councell will be the 96. the 17. the 97. z Conc. Antioch c. 9. § 9. The third
3. Epist. 9. § 2. That the Apostles ordayned Bishops The time when in respect of the Church at Ierusalem d Catal. scrip § 3. That Iames was B. of Ierusalem e Catalog scrip f Hist. l. 2. c. 1. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Ex hypotypos 6. i Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hieronym Catalog ex Hegesippi 5. hypomnem k An. 33. l lib. 3. c. 7. m lib. 7. c. 19. 32. n Vid. Ruff. transl l. 7. c. 15. o Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4. c. 5.22 l. 5. c. 11. l. 6. c. 10 c. l. 7. c. 32. p Epiph. haer 66. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r In Act. homil 3. 33. in initio s Ambr. in Gal. 1.19 t Dor. in synops u Aug. contr Crescon l. 2. c. 37. (w) In Trul. c. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The refuters exceptions y 2 Cor. 10.13.15.16 vide Chryso in 2 Cor. 10. gloss ordin Ad pag. 132. z Act. 15. 21. a Clem. Epist. 1. b Râ—â—â—gn lib. 1. § 5. His fourth obiection that Iames could not be B. of Ierusalem B. Iewel doth not deny Iames to haue been B. of Ierusalem d Tom. 1. Concil per Cragg Merlinum Iouerium § 6. Whether D. Whitak doth proue by 8. arguments that Iames neither was nor could be B. of Ierusalem not the 6. latter e de Pont. q. 3. s. 9. c. 3. R f Erasm. argum in Epist. Iacobi Iacobus quum erat Hierosolymitarum Episcopus scribit caeteris Iudaeis c. g lib. 3. c. 3. § 7. That the 2. first reasons doe not conclude that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem h Mar. 16.15 i Lib. 3. c. 23. k Cap. 4. §. 20. § 8. By this instance of Iames BB. proued to be superiour to other Ministers in degree Ad pag. 133. l He museth as he vseth m Degrad minist c. 3. pag. 23. n Euseb. l. 2. c. 1. o Euseb. l. 3. c. 11. l. 4 c. 22. ex Hegesippo Ad pag. 134. p Hier. Catal. in Iacobo in Epist. ad Gal. c. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. ex Hegesippo q Orig. contr Celsum l. 1. Euseb. l. 2. c. 23. Hier. catal in Iacobo r Act. 1.20 s Catal. script in Iacobo § 9. By this instance of Iames BB. proued to haue had their singular preheminence for terme of life t Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1. 2. Hieron Catal. Euseb. hist. Chron. u In Act. 21.18 § 10. When the Apostles ordayned BB. in other Churches vv Act. 14.23 c. x In Tit. 1. y 2 Thess. 3.14 1 Cor. 5. a Apoc. 1.2.3 b Heb. 13.17 c Can. 39. d Ad Trall § 11. The Refuter answereth by snatches Ad pag. 135. e Cap. 12. pag. 224. § 12. Whether Bishops are called the Apostles of the Churches g Caluin in Phil. 2.25 h Ambr. in Phil. 2. i Ambr in Eph. 4.11 1. Cor. 12.28 k Hier. in Phil. 2. l Theodor. in Phil. 2. m Theod. in 1 Tim. 3. n Th. Aquin. in Phil. 2. o In Phil. 2. p Chrysost. in Phil. 2. q In Phil. 2. § 13. The exposition that they vver called Apostles because they vvere the messengers of the churches refuted vvith the reasons thereof r In Phil. 2.25 § 14. The second reason answered Ad pag. 136. s Rom. 11.13 t Gal. 2.7.8 u Mat. 18.10 (vv) Ro. 16.7 x Act. 14.14 y Iohn 13.16 § 15. Ob. Though Epaphroditus were B. yet no Diocesan a Act. 16.12 Sedul in Phil. 1. Philippi Metropolis Macedoniae b in 2. Phil. 2.25 § 16. When how long BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches c Eph. 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 d l. 3. Epist. 9. e Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3. Ad pag. 137. § 2. T. C. answere refuted h Pag. 404. i Lib. 2. part 1. pag. 312. k. Tit. 2.1.15 §. 3. The refuters answere to the Proposition confuted l Vide supr l. 2. c. 3. m In Encomio Athanas. n Hom. 10. in 1 Tim. o In 1 Tim. 5. p Respons ad August ad 〈◊〉 § 4. His answere to the assumption Ad pag. 138. r Lib. 3. § 5. Schismaticall nouelties broached by the refuter § 6. His nouelties breifly refuted t de grad Ministr c. 23. pag. 155 § 7. Another argument prouing that these Epistles are patternes or precedents for Bishops His answere to the assumption a 1 Tim. 6.13.14 b in 1 Tim. 6.14 c 1 Tim. 3.15 d T.C. l. 1.177 l. 2. part 2. p. 55. e Ambr. in 1. Tim. 6.14 The proofe of the assumption His answere to the proofe of the assumption § 8. The proposition defended And that the successors of Timothie and Titus were BB. BB. of Ephesus the successors of Timothie a Euseb. l. 5. c. 25 Ad Pag. 140. b Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. c lib. 5. cap. 24. d cap. 25. The BB. of Gortyna the successours of Titus e Euseb. li. 4. c. 21. 23. 29 § 9. Obiection 1. that Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet h 1 Tim. 1.3 i Tit. 1.5 Ad. pag. 141. Ad pag. 142. Euseb. l. 2. c. 20. § 10. That Timothie and Titus liued and died the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Sedul in 2 Tim. 4.9 Ad pag. 143. § 1â— Obiect 2. That Timothie and Titus were Euangelists and therefore not Bishops What the Euangelisticall function was Wee may not think that the 70. after the death of Christ vanished away but that they were the principall Christians next to the Apostles And therfore as they were Euangelists so sometimes are called Apostles Calu. inst l. 4. c. 4. § 4. fortassis etiaÌ„ 70. discipuli quos secundo loco ab Apostolis Christus designabit fuerunt Euangelistae IdeÌ„ in 1 Cor. 15.7 per omnes Apostolos intelligit â—on solos 12. sed 70. discipulos etiam Sic Chrysost. et Theodorâ—t c. Zanch. in Eph. 4 § 12. That their being Euangelists did not hinder but that they might be BB. a Chrysost. Theophyl Oecum in Eph. 4. b â— Tim. 4.5 c 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 d Act. 8.14.17 e Hieronym Sedul in 2 Tim. 4. f In Ecclesiaste Ad pag. 144. Ecclesiaste § 13. Other arguments to proue that Timothie and Titus were Bishops § 14. Ad pag. 145. That their function was ordinary and their authority perpetually necessary § 15. Whether it be perpetually necessary that the Ecclesiasticall authority shold be in one Cant. 6.3.9 § 16. What forme of Church-gouenrment to be preferred before others In synops in Gaiâ— Actio 11 § 17. Testimonies of antiquity that Timothie and Titus were BB. Ad pag. 146. First the subscription to 2 Tim. to Tit. a Synops. sacr script b In Tit. 1. § â—8 The testimonies of the Fathers c Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. d Dionys. de diuin nom e In synops f Prefat in 1 Tim. 1. g In 1 Tim. 1. h In 1 Tim. 3. i Prefat in Epist. ad Tit. k Hier. in 1 Tim. 1.14 l