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
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
Bishoppe by the consent of the antient Bishoppe who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church shall only retain that people vnto which he was ordained Finally in another Councell of Africke it was decreed that such people as neuer had B. of their own should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of euery prouince and of the primate and also by the consent of him vnder whose diocesse the said Church is placed Out of which canons we may obserue these things First that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie Secondly that euer from the beginning they haue belonged to the Bishop of the Citie Thirdly that those parts of dioceses which then had no Bishop of their owne neuer had Fourthly that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished or the circuits of them inlarged but contrariwise if there were cause the number was increased and the circuits or dioceses lessened Fifthly that when a new Bishopricke was to be erected it was erected in some Bishops diocesse but not without his leaue and liking and also approbation of the Primate and Prouinciall synod Sixthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected that part wherein it was erected was taken as before I noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the parts iointly possessed and as it were from the body of the rest Seuenthly that hee which was preferred to such a Bishopricke was not a parish Bishoppe For besides his owne Church hee had a diocesse Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to euery parish but to such populous parts of dioceses as might seeme worthy of a Bishop Eighthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected the Presbyter who obtained this honour was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe and so placed in a superiour degree of the Ministerie then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presbyâ—er onely of a parish To these canons wee might adde the decrees of Clemens and Anacletus ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes or small Cities lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfet and yet it is to bee confessed that the Epistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus and that which in this point either of them decreed agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles time to our age But to let them passe the Epistle of Leo the Great is without suspicion which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued that not in any places or townes Bishops should be consecrated nor where heretofore they haue not been seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are the care of Presbyters may suffice But episcopall gouernment is onely to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Cities lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God haue forbidden the height of priesthood should be giuen to villages and parishes or obscure and solitary townes and the episcopall honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee committed it selfe should grow vile or contemptible by the multitude thereof The canons whereof he speaketh that I may also come to them were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice as Hosius and Athanasius c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice at that time much oppugned by the Arians â—this councell I say determined that it is simply vnlawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small City vnto which euen one onely Presbyter doth suffice For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there lest the name authority of a Bishop grow into contempt But the Bishops of the prouince being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke let it haue a Bishop For that of Laodicea though it were but a prouinciall Synode yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the ancient Code of canons and were confirmed by the generall councell held in Trullo In that councill therefore it was decreed that Bishops ought not to bee placed in villages and countrey townes but visitors and that those which before that time had beene ordained might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop who is in the Citty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same hath Photius Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares agoe beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King which I doe the rather mention because whereas the Bishop of Merida by the commandement of their late King Bamba had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt contrary to the canons of the councels and practise of the Church decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there As for him that was ordained not by his owne ambition but by the Kings compulsion they grant to him this fauour to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing And in the end they make this generall decree If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places where a Bishop neuer was let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onely the decrees of the ancient Fathers but also the Apostolicall ordinances This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the countrey That which was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councils and decrees of godly Bishops was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised But the placing of Bishops in countrie parishes was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councels and decrees of godly Bishops as I haue shewed Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised It may be that my aduersary who is ready to catch at euerie syllable will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited obiect that
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
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
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
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
c. wherefore it is the duty of euery Catholicke Christian to beleeue none of these But it will be said doe you then hold euery one to be an heretique who is of Aërius iudgement in this point Whereunto I answeare first that although I hold them to be in an error yet I doe not judge them to be heretiques who do not with pertinacy defend their error And secondly I make great difference betweene errors in the articles of faith and fundamentall points of Religion such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian and such as is the error of those who deny our iustification by Christs righteousnes and in matters of Discipline for these though they be dangerous yet they are not damnable errors and it is no great disparagement to men otherwise learned and orthodoxall to haue been ouerseene in matters of Church gouernment so that they doe not for the same leaue the Church and make separation for such also be counted heretikes by the Councels 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretike or not In my iudgement he were best to say Errare possum I may erre as in this controuersie hitherto to hath done sed hâ—reticus esse nolo but I will â—e no heretike by obstinate defending of that wherein his conscience is conuicted Now to helpe the Refuter because I desire to giue the Reader satisfaction I will not conceale that somewheres I finde besides Ierome the testimonies of Chrysostome Augustine and Ambrose obiected as fauouring the opinion of Aërius but vnworthily Chrysostome is alleadged as if he should say There is in a manner no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Indeed Chrysostome vnderstanding by Episcapus 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops and Deacons maketh no mention there of Presbyters Whereunto he maketh answeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no great difference for they also haue receiued doctrine and gouernment of the Church and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops agree to them But doth it hence follow that in Chrysostomes judgement there was no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter doth not Chrysostome in the next words acknowledge that the Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in respect of ordination And as touching singularitie of preheminence doth not he teach that in one Citie or Church where are many Preâ—byters there ought to be one Bishop and so he â—old Sisiâ—â—ius the Nouatian Bishop at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though he ascribe gouernment of the Church to the Presbyters vnder the Bishop doth he not acknowledge the Bishop to be the gouernor of the Presbyters and when he was Bishop himselfe did he not exercise great authority ouer them But what saith Augustine Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter doth he not expound himselfe primus Presbyter h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos the first Presbyter that is the high Priest such a one therefore in Augustines judgement is the Bishop to Presbyters as the high priest was to the other priests for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Leuits and the Presbyters to the Priests Yea but Ambrose saith Of a Bishop and a Presbyter there is one order for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest but the Bishop is the first The words are not in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotali as it is quoted for there I find the contrarie for Ambrose saith There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop another of a Presbyter another of a Deacon And againe he signifieth that as Bishops do ordaine Presbyters and consecrate Deacons so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop But they are found in his commentarie on the first to Timothe cap. 3. Where asking the same question with Chrysostome why after the mention of the Bishop he presently addeth the ordination or order of Deacon because saith he of a Bishop and Presbyter there is one ordination or order for either of them is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that euery Bishop is a Presbyter but not euery Presbyter a Bishop for among the Presbyters the Bishop is the first Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter may else where be shewed in his writings In the Bishop saith he are all orders because he is primus Sacerâ—â—â—s hoc est Princeps est Sacerdâ—tum the first Priest that is the Prince of the Priests and in the place alleaged he signifieth that Timothe the Bishop was the first Presbyter at Ephesus And such presbyters I doe confesse our BB. to be So much of Aërâ—us concerning whom I haue often maruelled what some learned men doe mean to go about to salue the credit of such a frantique fellow as Epiphanius describeth him being also an absolute Arian and schismaticke or Separatist from the true Churches Now saith the refuter let vs take a view of his great army of antiquity the whole number of them is but fiue and 4. of them almost 200. yeares vnder age Marke here either the skill or conscience of this great Analyser The first argument which indeed is vnanswerable that he swalloweth And in stead of analysing and answearing the rest he cauils at the number and at their age I will therefore propound my arguments and withall answere his cauils And first for their number besides the fiue he speaketh of I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine deliuering not only their own opinions but the iudgement of the Church Epiphanius reporting that all Churches did reject and condemne Aërius and Augustine testifying that the Catholike Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion that as I said was my first argument My second argument is this Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees viz Bishops Presbyters Deacons answerable to the high Priest the Priests and Lâ—â—ites vnder the Law Therefore it giueth testimony to the superiority of BB. ouer other ministers in degree The antecedent I proue by the the testimony of the Councill of Sardica of Optatus of Ignatius and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils in which as I said nothing is more vsuall then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees That clause if it had pleased the refuter to haue taken notice of it might haue preuented his cauill concerning either the number or the age of my witnesses But he such is his conscience passing by it bâ—aggeth wiâ—h what face I know not that I haue no antiquitie which distinguisheth the ministrie into 3. degrees Here therefore 3. things are to be shewen which are so many arguments 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees 2. That it termeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees 3. That they compare them to the high Priest Priests and Leuits As touching the first
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
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
said that Iacob begat the twelue Patriarches meaning those whom God appointed to bee the first Fathers of the twelue Tribes will the refuter wrangle with him because when they were begotten they were not Fathers euen so BB. are said to beget Fathers because by ordination they beget such as by the institution of their calling and ordinance of God are to be spirituall Fathers And thus much of the assumption The proposition also he denieth finding great fault with me saying that it is a strange and fearefull thing that I hauing so worth he set out in my former Sermon the excellencie of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word doe now turne all topsey turâ—â—y and preferre making of ministers before begetting soules And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one childe vnto God is more pretious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church and of more comfort at the day of iudgement c. But be of good comfort this fault which he layeth to my charge is but as he saith in his poore vnderstanding For there be three things which shew the pouertie of his conceipt The first that he thinketh I do therefore preferre the ordaining of Ministers before preaching because I say that Bishops are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superioritie consisteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is excellencie imperie and power The magistrate is superior to the minister in imperie and ciuill authoritie but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellencie But the second thing doth much more shew the shallownesse of his conceipt he conceiueth of ministers as hauing alone the power of preaching and of Bishops as hauing onely the power of ordination whereas if he had but considered that the authoritie of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise because he may licence and he may vpon just occasion suspend this power in others though perhaps in personall gifts the Presbyter may excell the Bishop he could not but haue discerned the superioritie of Bishops without any disparagement to the ministerie of the word for that they being at least equall in respect of their function to other ministers in the power of preaching are superior in the power of ordaining The third that he conceiueth Epiphanius to haue made a comparison betweene preaching and ordaining which he doth not but betweene baptizing and ordaining How is it possible saith Epiphanius that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers begetting Fathers to the Church but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers doth by the lauer of regeneration that is baptisme beget children to the Church and not Fathers verily or teachers And you are to marke how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church And who can denie but that it is a matter of greater consequence the begetting of a Father to the Church then of a child But Epiphanius his meaning was that the Bishop hauing power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters as Paul had though he did not greatly vse it whereby they might beget children to the Church hath also the power of ordaining which Presbyters haue not whereby he begetteth spirituall Fathers to the Church And so much of Epiphanius Now I come to Ierome For the Refuter thinketh it verie strange that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination It seemeth that the Refuter conceiueth nothing aright I bring in Ierome in this place not as a patron of BB. but as one who pleading for the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons desiring to raise them as neare as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confesse that Bishops are superiour in ordination What doth a Bishop saith he excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not do To which the Refuter hauing no answere of his owne intreateth another to answere for him which done he craketh as if he had layed me on my backe The answere is that Ierome speaketh of his owne time No doubt for speaking in the present tense whereby he signifieth actum continuum he doth not exclude his owne time But doth he speake therefore of his owne time onely or doth he signifie that there was a time since there were first Bishops which he confesseth was in the time of the Apostles when the Bishops had not this power if this could be shewed then Ierome might be thought not to speake of the Apostles times Nay doth not Ierome speake as well de iure as de facto when he saith What doth a Bishop c. that is what hath a Bishop right to doe by the power of his order which a Presbyter hath not right to doe by the power of his order onely except ordination that I confesse to be aboue the Presbyters power Well and to what end doth Ierome speak this of his owne time That hauing shewed before out of the Scriptures and the practise of the Church at Antioch that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Out of the Scriptures Ierome prooueth that in those times when the Scriptures were written the name Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded because as the name Episcopus was giuen to Presbyters Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter to Apostles and Bishops as 1. Tim. 4.14 Where Ierome vnderstandeth as before by Presbyterium Episcopatus 1. Pet. 5.1 Ioan. Epist. 2. 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superiour to Deacons But hence it doth not follow that therefore the offices of a Bishop and Presbyter are confounded especially after the institution of a Bishop Doth Ierome thinke that euerie Presbyter is equall in degree with Timothe because the office of Timothe in Ieromes vnderstanding is called Presbyterium or that they are equall with Peter and Iohn because they called themselues Presbyters His second argument to prooue the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons is because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters whereas contrariwise he that is chosen from among Deacons by Deacons is but an Archdeacon The former part he first illustrateth by the end which was to auoid Schisme and then prooueth it by the Practise of the Church of Alexandria In his setting downe the end he lets fall one word which if it be not fauourablie expounded will make him contradict himselfe and the truth For vpon the allegation of Saint Iohns second and third epistle he saith Quòd autem posteâ— vnus electus that one afterwards was chosen who should be set ouer the rest it
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
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
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
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
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
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.
c to pag. 5. own case That these 2. things are offered to our consideration saith the refuter wee denie not but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into hee should by his Text haue taught vs the meaning of these 2. points and not quite contrarie as hee goes about by these two points to teach vs the meaning of his Text. To whom I will not giue that answere which Festus did to Paul that too much learning hath made him madde for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath which is furor breuis which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section hath made him so to forget himselfe that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to explane his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text and to shew what manner of BB are here meant by the Angels of the Churches for the explicatioÌ„ wherof what could more fitly be propounded then the consideration of these 2. things viz what manner of Churches they were whereof they were the Angels or BB and what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling and from it inferre the vse Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text or vrging the vse therevpon inferred there had bene reason I should prooue them as afterwards I doe by the Text already explicated But when I am about to explicate the Text propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text and the Text that which is explicated And if the Text be that which is explicated who could bee so senselesse as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text or to finde fault that by the handling of them the Text is explaned But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline whereof I spake but too mildely as you may see hee chargeth mee with bitter inueighing scornefull vpbraiding ouerflowing of the gall with spitting out vnsauoury reproaches making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section and much adoe he had not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon with whome it better fitteth let the Reader iudge Proud haughtie and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie hee is afraide for mee that I care not to loose much of my peace within that all I here speake is Night worke proceeding from great distemper of the braine c. Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled was hee guiltie to himselfe of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions that hee thus flingeth and kicketh when they are so gentlie touched Who knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions for the tryall whereof the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made which are there magnified as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vs and the Papists that if in them the BB. ioyning as they pretend with the Papists haue the truth then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome by our separating therefrom and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismaticall that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome Who I say knowing this could with more mildnesse haue spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties For where hee saith that almost all of them haue bene alwayes generallie maintained and practised by all soundly reformed Churches hee seemeth either not to care what hee speaketh or by soundly reformed Churches to meane none but Brownists or such like Betweene whom and these vnchristian and immodest challengers there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres These remaining after a sort in the peece the other beeing by open Schisme cut off Which againe they haue manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie This being the summe of their suite that they may be tollerated Schismatickes But to let passe their new-coyned positions excepting those that concerne this cause with the Libellers bitter wranglings and vaine ianglings There are two things in answere to this Section which I may not let passe the one is his defence of the challengers the other a great aduantage taken against a word which as hee saith I dropt by the way His defence is against that calumnious outcrie as hee calleth it in the ende of the Section where I brieflie note that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish by the same they may as well denie the King who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions as being the Gouernour of them all in Great Brittaine and Irelâ—nd is further from being a member of one onely parish then anie Bishop in this Kingdome Hee answereth that the challengers hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe But tell mee doe they hold it to bee a true Church that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church Or if they doe Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie to bee an entire familie by themselues But it is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men seeing it is fiue times repeated in print once in their late petition with great amplifications once in the Abortiue booke with this note in the margent sic tu beas amicos Thrice in this Booke with great triumphes and insultations not onely in the treatise it selfe but also euery where in the margent demanding with scorne in this place Is this your kindnesse to your friends in the second sic tu beas amicos in the third quid facias odio sic vbi amore noces The Reader must needes expect some great matter seeing these hilles thus to swell The words whereat they take aduantage were these Least they might seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling in euerie parish who should haue not onely supreame but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall they adioyne to him that
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
points which I purposed to handle for the proofe of either And first for the former which is the explication of my Text viz that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours bee I endeuoured to prooue it both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing the presbyterian discipline wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation that the question beeing whether the Churches were gouerned by presbyteries as they say consisting for the greater part of Lay-men or by BB as wee holde the disproofe of their presbyteries might bee a proofe for our Bishops and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was as well extensiuè against our newe disciplinarians viz that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops as intensiuè against the Elder and more learned disciplinarians that BB. were superiour to other Ministers not onely in order but in degree also c. And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling this is proposed to bee proued that the fanction of Byshops is of Apostolicall and diuine institution and this as in the ende of the Section is signified was the thing chiefely intended by mee These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies which the greatest part doth not so well conceiue and remember but for more easinesse was content to make a bare enumeration of them And this is the frame of that which hee calleth the bodie of my Sermon the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame For hauing first of the fiue points which I propound referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution as he calleth it where I enquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were and the last to the latter which respecteth the qualitie of their function in the next words as if presently he had forgotten himselfe after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vpon The mansion saith hee that hee buildeth is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships vnder the roofe whereof their Honours may dwell safely as in a Sanctuary without danger of the aduersarie and much delight Looke we vpon the bare frame as it standeth without glasing painting c it is of this forme The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches Therefore the function of the Byshops of the Church of England is lawfull and good The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe pag 2. and 55. where hee saith that the office and function of Bishops heere meant by Angels is in this Text approoued as lawfull and commended as excellent That is is lawfull and good hauing diuine both Institution being Angels and approbation being starres The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus The Bishops of the 7. Churches for the substance of their calling were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are The which hee saith by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue and that in the foure first points of the fiue for to them he there referreth vs for that purpose pag. 61. Wee are therefore in the next place to see out of which of those foure points it is concluded and how Which to my vnderstanding must be out of the second third and 4. points after this manner The function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches In lieue of the proposition of this Syllogisme wee haue the prosyllogisme or proofe of it in the 2.3 and 4. points before named c. Beholde to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordinarie all this stirre had bene needlesse But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing as wilfull in dissoluing the same The end of his double dealing appeareth in the sequele to haue bene double For first whereas there are of the fiue points which I propounded two of principall vse seruing directly the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops both which hee could wish that I had spared hee would faine make his Reader belieue that of these two the former is impertinent and the latter superfluous or as else-where hee speaketh the former bootlesse the other needlesse 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points hee bringeth them to his frame as it were to the racke first finding fault that they doe not directly prooue that which hee would haue them and then by torture making them to say what hee pleaseth that he may the more easily contradict them To countenance these sophisticall shifts he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge and hauing hammered it well hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogisme with the proofs thereof Vsing this syllogisme for the parts of my Sermō as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer and retching out those which seeme to come short But let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together some such Syllogisme as this may be framed But in Analysing we must respect not what we can deuise or collect but what the writer did intend and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were the other as a doctrine collected out of the text concerning the qualitie of their function viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good This which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text pag. 2. and
as a conclusion to be proued in the last part pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition but the conclusion of the Syllogisme which himselfe frameth he would against sense make the Reader belieue was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogisme As for the proposition which he assigneth to me I did not expresse but tooke it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text which may be collected after this manner Bishops are such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches therefore their function is lawfull and good Of which collection if any man should make doubt the consequence would be proued by the addition of the proposition The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches is lawfull and good c. Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me so if he had drawne the same into two distinct Syllogismes concluding the same question and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principall branches thereof to seeme heterogeneall or superfluous he had not much missed of my proiect The former Syllogisme as I haue said might be this The calling of such as are here meant by the Angels is lawfull and good Diocesan BB. are such as are here meant by the Angels therefore the calling of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good The proposition I tooke for granted and therefore did not expresse it The assumption is the same with the former assertion and is proued by the foure first points The conclusion I did not expresse being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of the text The latter Syllogisme is this That calling which is of appostolicall and diuine institution is lawfull and good The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical diuine institution Therefore it is lawfull and good of this Syllogisme the assumption is the same with the fift point here propounded So that of the fiue points which I propounded not any one is either impertinent or superfluous the foure former seruing to proue the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogisme the fift and last being the assumption of the second Syllogisme As for the second Syllogisme which he assigneth to me I vtterly disclaime it because as no one part thereof is propounded by me so both the premisses are false and contrarie to my meaning For neither to the Angels of the Churches nor to the Bishops doe I ascribe that sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which he speaketh of as after shall appeare But that his Analysis of my Sermon was meerely forced against the light of his owne conscience appeareth first by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised seeing by his Analysis of the fiue parts the first seemeth impertinent the last superfluous the three in the middes not prouing that for which as he saith they are brought For could he perswade himselfe that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon when he saw two parts of the fiue could not be brought to his frame and the other three not to be sutable vnto it Secondly by the distribution of my Sermon and the transitions which I vse wholy disagreeing from his Analysis Thirdly by the Analysis propounded here by my selfe and by the defence of the seuerall parts here ensuing wherein I shall by the helpe of God manifestly proue that neither the first of the fiue was impertinent nor the last superfluous nor the other three concluding besides the purpose But now we are to intreate of them seuerally hauing first giuen you to vnderstand that he diuideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into fiue parts euery part into diuerse sections as namely the first which concerneth the Eldership into eight sections in all which the summe of that which I maintaine is this that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 8. And first I am to shew that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers A sufficient proofe whereof may be this c to obtrude vpon vs in the end of the 8. pag. AS touching this first point the refuter endeuoureth two things First as hee saith he wardeth and repelleth my blowes and then that we may see what a man he is of his hands he sheweth that he also can strike if need be His former act is a reproofe of my treatise the latter a proofe of his owne assertion And first in grosse he reiecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent and after descendeth to the particulars For the first Reason would saith he that M. D. had shewed vs how this first point pertaineth to the proofe of the matter in question Whatsoeuer he conceiue of it I discerne not what affinitie it can haue with any member of his former assumption c. I might answere that common sense would that what he seem done he should conceiue and acknowledge to be done And charitie would which selfe loue would not that if he discerned not the affinitie of this point with his pretended assumption he should rather haue suspected his owne Analysis to be forced then haue blamed me for his owne want of iudgement But that he may discerne this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question I would but intreat him to take notice what is in question betweene vs. The question discussed in the Sermon is twofold The first de facto whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by Presbyteries of such Elders as they spake of The second de iure whether the Church may lawfully be gouerned by Bishops as we hold or must needs be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme The first questiō is handled in the former part of the Sermon the second in the latter The question debated in the former part of the Sermon I say againe is this whether the primitiue Churches were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops such as for the substance of their calling ours be or by such Presbyteries as the Presbyterians stand for And those either parishionall consisting of the Parish-Bishop and a company of lay or onely gouerning Elders as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians doe boldly though ignorantly affirme or Presbyteries in the cities consisting of the president and other Presbyters whereof some are Ministers but the greater some lay or onely gouerning Elders as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians doe teach In this question as the refuter will confesse vnlesse he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logicke this disiunction is implyed either the Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops as we say or by such Presbyteries as they speake of And this disiunction though it be not absolutely necessarie yet is it necessarie ex hypothesi and so presupposed on both sides For this being the
question whether the Church were gouerned by Bishops or such Presbyteries it is granted on both sides and agreed vpon betwixt vs that it was gouerned either by the one or by the other and that one and but one of these assertions is true For if both parts of the question or disiunction were true it were but a foolish question as the Phylosopher saith And that this is the question betweene vs the refuter hath truely witnessed in respect of the parts of the disiunction though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion where he saith the question betweene vs is whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops The question indeed de facto for the time past is whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speake of The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come is whether the Church may or should be gouerned by Bishops as we say or must be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme This therefore being the question whether by our Bishops or their Presbyteries and this question implying a necessarie disiunction who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proofe for our Bishops The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus Either the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops or by such Presbyteries as they stand for But not by such Presbyteries as they stand for Therefore by Diocesan Bishops The proposition is implyed in the very question betweene vs and the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie The assumption is that first point of the fiue which now we haue in hand The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proued viz. that the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent Now that the Church was not gouerned by such Presbyteries as they speake of I proued in this passage Because howsoeuer with great vehemencie the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only gouerning Elders hath beene by them vrged and obtruded vpon vs yet they are not able to proue that euer there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers For the question which now we haue in hand being whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitiue Church as were not Ministers forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffes not onely holding the affirmatiue that there were such but vehemently vrging that still there ought to be such we contrariwise the respondents and defendants holding the negatiue to wit that neither there were such nor now need to be the Reader therefore is to vnderstand that this burden of prouing lieth vpon them which hold and vrge the affirmatiue that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders and that in vs it is a sufficient proofe of the negatiue if we can maintaine that they are not able to proue the affirmatiue And whereas all their proofes may be reduced to two heads for either they be such testimonies where the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is named or where at the least the function it selfe is as they suppose meant to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrarie assertions The one that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter doth alwayes signifie a Minister the other that there is no one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning the lay or onely gouerning Elder The former of them being affirmatiue I doe briefly confirme by three reasons the latter being such a negatiue as cannot otherwise be proued for the induction of the particulars were infinite I doe therefore maintaine it against the principall instances of the aduersaries And this is the summe of this passage Now I come to his cauils with the particulars The two assertions which I did euen now mention opposed to the two heads of their proofes the refuter casteth into one Syllogisme and hauing so done wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition and also with the manner of setting them downe The Syllogisme is this If in the writings of the Apostles the ancient fathers and councils the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person doth euermore signifie a Minister or Priest and there cannot any one pregnant testimonie be alledged out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any Lay-annuall-onely-gouerning-Presbyters then were there no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts the former whereof he reiecteth as superfluous because the latter is as firme and full without it And yet hauing reiected the former he saith the consequence is infirme and weake But if the former be therefore superfluous because the latter is firme and full without it by this reason it shall not be lawfull for a man to bring two arguments for one thing the one concluding the question without the other Yea but these two are ioyned in one proposition and therefore either must afford necessarie helpe to the other or the one is superfluous Blame him then that ioyned them and disdaine thâ—t sophisticall shifts of the refuter deuised to make himselfe worke Yea but if they be not ioyned the former wil be weake and of no strength for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth euermore signifie a Minister vnlesse I added onely For though it alway signifie a Minister yet it may also signifie him that is no Minister But in mine vnderstanding if it alwaies signifie a Minister it neuer signifieth him that is not a Minister Neither will it serue their turne that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and gouerning-Elders vnlesse they can shew that as alwaies it signifieth a Minister so in some place an onely-gouerning Elder also and they must remember that in this cause of Elders they are the opponents and therefore they must proue that the places which they alledge for their Lay-presbyters not onely may but of necessitie must be vnderstood of them or else in vaine doe they vrge and obtrude them vpon vs. And surely we must needs esteeme it a very partiall genus and such as yet was neuer heard of that is alwaies predicated of the one species and neuer of the other If animal did alwaies signifie a man and were neuer predicated of any other thing but man we should hardly thinke it were the genus but the selfe same species and conuertible with it as indeed Presbyter is with Minister and therefore not the genus of it and that I proued when I said it alwaies signifieth a Minister because in english it is priest and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus and noteth such a person as must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach But let him adde onely if that would please him
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
the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them For vntill Saul God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands chiefly in prescribing them lawes and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time But when the people would needs haue a king after the manner of other nations the Lord saith to Samuel they haue not reiected thee but me haue they reiected that I should not reignâ— ouer them And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the earâ—hly King in comparison of the Celestiall that describing vnto them the fashion of their future king he telleth them that whereas before God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onely they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure which would not proue very pleasant to them as he sheweth by many particulars § Sect. 8. As touching the third branch he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse It followeth not saith he there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them But say I where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men as alwaies it hath done according to the practise of Geneua and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline it cannot be auoided but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders especially if they according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians may be perpetuall But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no it is not materiall seeing they were ioyntly propounded and seeing from them vnited a necessary consequence dependeth Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence and to breede matter of cauil was a sophisticall if not a leaud trick The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare if we consider his dealing with the assumption for he that hauing seuered the branches of the proposition exacted from euery one seuerally a necessary consequence in the assumption he will haue them all taken together For before he taketh the assumption in pieces meaning to cauill with euery part seuerally he vseth this Caution Prouided alwaies and be it remembred of the Reader that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false though the other two be neuer so true the whole assumption is in law of true reason vtterly void and of none effect But if in the proposition I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally the assuming of any one part will conclude the question As thus If I must be forced to maintaine this consequence If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop then would hee noâ— complaine of the want of Lay-Elders it wil be sufficient to assume thus but he was a Diocesan Bishop to coÌ„clude that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders It is true that it is required in my assumption as I propound it that euery branch must be true but the reasoÌ„ hereof is because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence For if they be seuerally propounded in the proposition they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience But come we to the assumption with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus Ambrose saith M. D. was a Diocesâ—n Bishop Was he so indeed Had he not onely supreme but 〈◊〉 authoritie as our BB haue ouer I know not how many hundreds of Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall Was he an absolute Pop linâ— indeed What a shame is this that he who eueÌ„ now charged so mâ—ny learned men to haue done Ambrose wrong should now be found the man â—uilty of that trespas Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling to preach the word administer the sacrameÌ„ts in his owne Church c. Can a man of a sincere conscience professing as themselues terme it the cause of sinceritie be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant or rather can a man that taketh vpon him the defence of this controuersie as a chiefe champion of the pretended discipline and one I doubt not of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops to dispute with them in these causes be ignorant that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least and can he thus denie it and keepe his conscience sincere well though the taske be all one as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London or rather the Archbishop of Yorke is a Diocesan Bishop yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it and pretendeth some reason of his denyall I will first proue that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B and for the greatnes of his authoritie and largenes of his iurisdiction comparable with ours and in the second place I will answere his reasons First therfore you are to be aduertised that Mediolanum Millaine whereof Ambrose was Bishop not onely is a Metropolis or seate of a Metropolitan but was both in and before Ambrose his time Strabo saith it was a Metropolis wherein the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it also is a mother citie of Italy It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses prouinces was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnder the Romane Empire Ambrose himself was a man of consular dignitie in Rome and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine Where keeping his residence it fell out that Auxentius the Bishop being dead and the Emperour Valentinian hauing assembled as the manner was for the choise of a Metropolitan the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates you shall compare gold with lead As for the people the Episcopall function hath not onely obtained to be preferred before them but also is enioyned by Euangelicall precepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them for they as the sheepe of Christ are committed to BB. as to rulers who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them c. Againe these things I haue spoken saith he to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops For his
minister should be iudged in causes Ecclesiasticall by the consistory of the Emperour because it consisted of Lay-men and would hee allow a B. or minister should be iudged yea deposed and depriued by a parishionall consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men doth he commend the good Emperour that said he was vnable to iudge among Bishops and would hee allow of priuate men vnlearned and vnacquainted with gouernement as competent Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall And thus much of my denyall of their exposition of Ambrose made good by sufficient proofe CHAP. VIII The proofe of their Exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasâ—os which I alleadged why the Counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Serm. Sect. 7. Pag. 14. But let vs examine the force of their Argument Ambrose saith there were Elders in the Church as well as in the Synagogue Therefore say they there were Elders It followeth not c to learned Presbyters in the middle of pag. 16. THeir Argument is heere such as in this question of Lay-Elders perpetuallie they vse in all their proofes of Scriptures and Fathers that is from the genus to the species yea to a fancied or fained species affirmatiuely As if they should say hee is a Magistrate therefore a Constable an ancient Cittizen therefore an Alderman or rather thus It is a man therefore the man in the moone I see a shippe therefore it is Argo Like the wise man of Athens who standing in Pyraeo on the key there saide euery shippe he saw was his Sauing that he was somewhat wiser because he had a shippe at the Sea These mens shippe doth swimme in their owne braines So strong is their fancie as wee shall heare that when either Christ saith Tell the Church that is as themselues expound it the rulers of the Church they strongly conclude therefore tell Lay-Elders or Luke that Paul and Barnabas ordayned Presbyters ergo Lay-Elders or Iames is any sicke let him send for the Presbyters ergo for Lay-Elders or Paul hee that ruleth Marke how he speaketh of a ruler therefore of a Lay-Elder God hath appointed gouernements therefore of Lay-Elders or Ignatius be subiect to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ ergò to Lay-Elders or Tertullianus Certaine approued Seniors be presidents c ergo Lay Elders or Ierome wee haue a Senate of Presbyters Ergo of Lay-Elders And that no man should liue in feare of the great stroakes which this great champion hath threatned let him vnderstand that these be all the strokes that he will strike when his turne of striking commeth To this argument and all the rest I answere by denying the consequence which is so badde as the refuter is loath to Father it and yet neither in this nor in any other of their testimonies they haue or can make no better Well saith he Whatsoeuer the argument is the answere is well worse meaning as it seemeth the reason of the answere which was this for euen the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests as well as of the people My reason may thus be explained If not onely the Church had Seniors that were ministers whose aduise was neglected in Ambrose his time but euen also the Sinagogue meaning Israell or the state of the Iewes had Seniors of the Priests then it followeth not that the Seniors of whom Ambrose speaketh were Lay-Elders But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it Therefore the consequent The consequent of the proposition is necessarie for an argument from the genus to the species doth not hold affirmatiuely Genus saith Fabius ad probandum speciem minimuÌ„ valet plurimum ad refellendum the generall is of no force to proue the speciall affirmatiuely though it bee of great force to disproue it if you argue from it negatiuely As for example it followeth noâ— because it is a tree that therefore it is a plane tree It is not necessary saith the Philosopher that what is affirmed of the genus should also be affirmed of the species As touching the assumption the former part viz that the Church had seniors which were ministers I tooke for granted because either all those places of Scriptures and Fathers as I say or at least some as my aduersarie will confesse where Presbyters be named Ministers are vnderstood The second part I proue out of Ierem 19.1 where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some not onely of the Seniors of the people but also of the Seniors of the Priests that is men of authoritie as well of the Ecclesiasticall state as of ciuill Which words though the refuter vnderstand as I doe as prouing not that the Iewes had an Eccclesiasticall Senate consisting partly of the Priests and partly of the Elders of the people for of such a presbyterie though there be much talke yet there is no proofe but that in the Iewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests as Seniors of the people notwithstanding the seely Philosopher would faine make the Reader belieue that I confesse which most confidently I doe denie that in the Church of the Iewes there was an Ecclesiasticall Eldership consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people and therevpon would inferre that this testimonie maketh mee Because forsooth Ambrose acknowledgeth that there was such an Eldership in the Church as had beene among the Iewes But among the Iewes there was as hee saith I confesse an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Priests and Elders of the people therefore Ambrose acknowledgeth such a Presbyterie to haue bene in the Church consisting of Ministers and Lay-Elders First for Ambrose hee doth not speake of Eldership either among Iewes or Christians but sheweth that because both the Iewes and Christians had Seniors this is an Argument that age is honorable seeing that ancient men were of authoritie both among the Iewes who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiasticall as ciuil state and also among Christians Now to inferre from hence that either the Iewes or Christians had an Ecclesiasticall senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders is a vaine collection For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the Iewes they might haue as indeed they had a Senate consisting of Priests and Leuites and chiefe of the people but that was not an Ecclesiasticall Senate as hereafter shall be shewed but their chiefe Counsell of state â—f by Synagogue you vnderstaÌ„d only the ecclesiasticall state of the Iews in that ther were no other seniors but of the Clergie of Israel And as for my confession I protest that I meant nothing lesse then that the Church of the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Seniors of the Priests and Elders of the people For I know it to be an idle conceit hauing no other warrant but the probabile est of a new writer a chiefe party in this cause But hereof more in my answer to his allegation out of Matth 18. Besides can any man that
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 〈◊〉
answere that the reason which I vsed concludeth most strongly against the refuters exposition who by Doctorum will needs vnderstand parish Bishops Who if they should take the whole burden vpon them of Church-gouernement and deciding causes Ecclesiasticall without the aide or assistance of the Elders could not therefore be accused of idlenes for I hope the refuter will not say that they also had Chancellers or Comissaries vnder them to whom they might put off those cumbersome imployments It remaineth now that I should proceed to the causes which I rendred why the Councell of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was so much neglected by Bishops But that my aduersary after his accustomed maner will needs take occasion to shew his owne ignorance by taking vp a speech which as he saith I let drop by the way concerning Deanes and Chapters of our Cathedrall Churches as being a resemblance or remainder of the Presbyteries which were in the Primitiue Church For such is his reading that he doubteth not to deny that in Ambrose his times there were any Cathedrall Churches or that our Deanes and Chapters are so much as resemblances of the Presbyteries of those times For Cathedrall Churches you are to vnderstand that although in euery Diocesse there were many parish churches both in country and citie yet there was one chiefe church in the citie which was the Bishops Cathedra or seat wherein the Bishop most vsually performed the duties of the Episcopall and pastorall function whereunto a peculiar Clergie belonged consisting of Presbyters Deacons and other inferiour orders and whereto Episcopium the Bishops house was neare adioyning This church in those times was called sometimes Cathedra sc. Episcopi as Concil Carthag where it was decreed that no Bishop relicta cathedra leauing his Cathedrall Church should remoue his seate or See to any church in his Diocesse the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise BB are forbidden to neglect any of those places which beloÌ„g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Matrix Matrix Cathedra as Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Episcopus qui matricom tenet Conc. Carth. graec c. 24 siue Affric c. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in the mother Churches that is to say the Cathedrall the Bishop shal be negligent c sometimes Ciuitatensis ecclesia sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Councell of Neocaessaria Such a Church was that in Millaine whereunto Ambrose his house adioyned for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that house of salutation where Ambrose sate when Theodosius came to him to be absolued was not as T. C. imagined Ambrose his owne house before he was Bishop for it was intra septa Ecclesiae within the bounds of the Church Paulinus testifieth that Ambrose gaue away all when he was made Bishop and left himselfe nothing which here he might call his owne In that Church Ambrose vsually preached to that Church the Emperour himselfe resorted In the chancell whereof when Theodosius the Emperour would haue remained to receiue the communion Ambrose sent him word by his Archdeacon that that place was peculiar to the clergie which belonged to this Church consisting of the Arch-Presbyter and the other Presbyters of the Archdeacon and other Deacons and other inferior orders of the Clergie For albeit the name Decanus was not perhaps as yet in vse yet the office was and the Deane signified by other names For sometimes he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe or ruler of the Presbyters euen as Ambrose his Archdeacon in the place euen now cited is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a one was Chrysostome in Antioch a long time Eulogius at Edessa sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Peter was the Protopresbyter in the Church at Alexandria And Arsacius who succeeded Chrysostome in the Bishopricke of Constantinople the Protopresbyter there In latine most vsually Archipresbyter as histor tripat lib. 10. c. 10. and in the fourth Councell of Carthage where it was decreed that the Bishop should take care of widowes Orphans strangers not by himselfe but by his Archpresbyter or by his Archdeacon Ierome shewing that in each societie there is some one ruler saith singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi singuli Archipresbyteri singuli Archdiaconi the Churches haue each of them one Bishop one Archpresbyter on Archdeacon In processe of time they were called decani Archipresbyteri a pluribus decani nuncupantur Archpresbyters of the most are called Deanes Neither were there onely Archpresbyters and Deanes of Cathedrall Churches which were called Archipresbyteri vrbani ciuitatenses of whom all these former testimonies are to be vnderstood but also rurall Deanes called sometimes Archipresbyteri decani as in the Councell of Towers and sometimes decani firsti Archipresbyteri parochiarum in the Councell of Agatha The chapter was wont to be called Presbyterium Placuit Presbyterium contrahi we thought good the Presbyterie should be gathered together saith Cornelius to Cyprian And Syricius the Bishop of Râ—me in an Epistle to Ambrose facto Presbyterio the Presbyterie being assembled somtimes seâ—atus caetus Presbyterorum the senate or assembly of Presbyters The Presbyters or Seniors themselues were called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ciuitatenses Presbyteri the Presbyters of the citie seniores by Tertullian and Ambrose in the place alleaged The ancient Councell of Ancyra hauing pronounced it vnlawfull for the Chorepiscopi or countrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither yet is it lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie whereby it may in part appeare what was the estimation of the Presbyters of the citie in comparison of the countrie Bishops But as the Archipresbyteri in latter times were called decani so these Presbyters of the citie were in processe of time called Canonici prebendarij and the company of them which had beene called Presbyterium was termed capitulum in english Chapter Caluin saith Presbyteri vrbani versi sunt in canonicos the Presbyters of the citie are turned into Canons or prebendaries And it is to be noted saith Duarenus that in euery citie there was a certaine College of these Presbyters which the Bishop gouerned such as is at this day canonicorum collegium the college of Canons who seeme to haue succeeded into their place and this companie of Presbyters Ierome calleth the senate of the church By all which it is more then euident that as in the ancient times they had Cathedrall churches as well as we and those endowed with great reuenewes as it is easie to proue so the Deanes and chapters of our Cathedrall Churches are the remainder of their Presbyteries our Deanes being those who were called Archpresbyters our Prebendaries those which were called Presbyteri vrbani our chapters those which they called Presbyteries Neither doth that hinder which our
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
the best proofes as they are vrged by T. C. M. Caluin Beza and Dudley Fenner First therefore concerning Mat. 18.17 T. C. argueth thus By Church is meant either all the people or the Pastor alone or the Pastor with the ancients and Elders but neither the people nor Pastor alone therefore the Pastor with the ancients and Elders The disiunction is grounded vpon a supposition of the newfound parish discipline that there were no other Ecclesiasticall gouernours but parishionall which I shall hereafter by Gods helpe proue to be absurd In the meane time for the confutation of this disiunction it shall suffice to note that which all disciplinarians confesse that our Sauiour Christ speaketh according to the manner of those times either bidding them tell the assembly that is the Synedrion of the Iewes or at least that the partie offending is to be delated to the like assembly authorized for hearing of causes in the Church of Christ. Wherefore T. C. and our new disciplinarians must first proue these two things first that there was an Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie in euery Synagogue and secondly that what they had in euery Synagogue we ought to haue in euery parish before they may vrge the like in imitation of them to be erected in euery parish among vs. But they are so farre from prouing the latter of these assertions that they faile in the former T. C. professeth he cannot proue it out of the old testament but that it may be concluded out of the new he hopeth the Reader will iudge considering that the policie of the Church now was in this point taken from the Iewes Church As if he should say forasmuch as the Church which imitated the Iewes had in euery parish a Presbyterie which indeed is most notoriously false it is to be supposed that the Church of the Iewes had in euery Synagogue the like Where by a circular disputation the question which we denie is brought to proue his argument whereby notwithstanding he would seeme to proue the question For aide therefore he bringeth the custome of the moderne Iewes who if they had any such custome were no fit presedents for vs to follow But indeed they though they haue their Rabbi in euery Snagogue yet an Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie they neuer had for ought that I can find And whereas he and after him the author of the Counterpoison alleage Ierome to proue that they had their Elders in Euery Synagogue which should aswell admonish the polluted to abstaine from the assemblies as to reproue the Sabbath-breakers I cannot sufficiently wonder at the allegation for Ierome mentioneth that custome of the Iewes which he speaketh of as one of the worst of the Pharisaicall traditions which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which one saith he I will mētion to the shame of the whole nation and which I will not mention for modestie sake therfore we may be sure neither Christ transmitted nor Ierome commended it to the Church Secondly the gouernours of their Synogogues which Ierome speaketh of were such as were to iudge of cleane and vncleane a dutie peculiar to the Priests Neither doth he speake of admonishing the polluted from comming to the assemblie but onely of iudging betweene cleane and vncleane And thirdly that which T. C. addeth concerning the Sabbath is by Ierome mentioned as another tradition of the Pharisies hauing no affinitie with the former Yea but the new testament speaketh of them in diuerse places calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Synagogues The archisynagogi were such as now they call their Rabbies as being the Scribes and Pharisies who were their Teachers sitting in the chaire of Moses as Sigonius witnesseth Bertram likewise saith those who at the first were called Prophets and afterwards Scribes and Doctors of the law at the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi for those who were in the Temple were called scribae templi and of these in the greater Synagogues there were more then one Beza also seemeth to haue beene of the same minde Howbeit both he and Bertram who dedicateth his booke vnto him doe thinke that in the Synagogue of the cities these Rulers had Elders ioyned with them But it may be you expect their proofes Heare therefore the very foundation of the Presbyterie to wit that what was the order of the Church of the Iewes Christ translated and recommended to his Church But in the Church of the Iewes there were Elders ioyned to the Teachers to make vp an Ecclesiasticall Senate How the proposition will be made good I know not The assumption is proued thus There were Leuites in the Synagogues saith Beza in whose hands the spirituall administration was there being ioyned to them vt probabile est as it is probable some Citizens of note Hence is mention of the Archisynagogi who ruled the assemblies Those saith Bertram who had beene called Prophets and after Scribes as the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi vnde verisimile est whence it is likely that those Archisynagogi did moderate the order of Seniors who were to enquire into mēs māners for the Synagogues also had their Ministers Luc. 4.20 So that belike the Minister or attendant to whom Christ gaue the book was one of these Seniors or ex illustrib ciuibus as Beza speaketh Well what was their office Horum proculdubio partes fuerunt their office no doubt was not to admit to the Synagogue them whom the Synedrion of Ierusalem had excluded from the Synagogues And what their office hath bene since in the Church you heard it proued before by Satis opinor constat I thinke it is euident enough So that the very foundation whereon the presbyterie of Lay-Elders which with such vehemencie and violence hath bene vrged as the vndoubted ordinance of Christ is grounded is no better then the probable conjectures of some new writers who are parties in the cause probable I say in their owne conceipts For else there is not so much as probabilitie in their Assertions And so much of M. Cartwrights collection out of Matth 18.17 and what else is said of others in fauour of the presbyters in the Synagogues of the cities Now let vs see what Caluin Beza and others collect out of that place of Mathew When Christ biddeth them tell the Church Forasmuch as there was no Christian church established wherevnto they might repaire it were absurde to vnderstand Christ as propounding the iudgement of the Church which yet was not Therefore dubium non est it is not to be doubted but that Christ spake of such an assembly as was then in vse alluding to the order of the olde Church wherein after their returne from Babylon a select Councell was established which they called Sinhedrim in Greek Synedrion whervnto the censure of Doctrine and manners was committed Which Synedrion besides some Priests and Leuites consisted of the Elders of the people And although the
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
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
to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then onely it signifieth the citie and suburbs and excepting where some addition restraineth the word paroecia or ecclesia to the signification of a parish as ecclesia or paroecia cui presbyter praest so in the plurall if they be referred to one diocesse they signifie parishes or some parts of the diocesse though with this difference that dioceses doe note Parishes onely in the Country but ecclesia and paroecia commonly as well those in the Citie as in the country but referred to whole Nations or larger parts of the world they signifie dioceses But I will speake of them seuerally beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia the rather because our Refuter and others of his feather finding in Eusebius the Churches of Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch c. to bee termed paroeciae straightwaies conclude that they were such Churches as we call parishes Which if they write as they thinke is a very vnlearned collection For whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is diuersly vsed sometimes with reference to a Bishoppe sometimes with relation to a Presbyter in the signification of a parish it is neuer vsed as the whole Church subiect to the Bishoppe but in that sense is either referred to one Presbyter as his proper charge or if it be referred to the Bishoppe it doth signifie but one parish among many belonging to his Bishopricke But most vsually and almost alwaies in antient Writers yea and many times both in those of the middle and also of the latter age it is taken either for the whole diocesse or for the citie and suburbs whereto as the Bishops see the rest of the diocesse doth appertaine And because my aduersary shall not say I speake without booke I will bring pregnant testimonies to make good my assertion First therefore whereas one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles forbiddeth a Bishop to leaue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne charge and to leape into another and whâ—reas Eusebius the author of the ecclesiasticall history being the Metropolitan Bishop of Caesarea and much importuned to remoue to Antioch which at that time was the seat of the third patriarch refused that offer Constantine the great doth greatly commend him for keeping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolikâ— canon Which canon the Council of Nice hath reference vnto when it saith that Bishops remouing from one City to another or as wee speake from one See to another did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the Canon The meaning therefore of the Canon forbidding a Bishop to remoue from one paroecia to another was to forbidde him to remoue from one Diocesse to another The councill of Antioch speaking to the same purpose retayneth the same words forbidding a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee translated from one paroecia to another Where it were absurd to vnderstand the councell as speaking of a parish because this councell being latter then the councell of Nice it is euident that at that time there were not onely Bishops of Dioceses and Metropolitanes ouer Prouinces but also patriarches diuiding among them the Christian world And to the same purpose the councill of Sardica noting the breach of these canons among other vnlawfull practises of the Arians expresseth it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translations from lesse Cities to greater paroecias that is dioceses or Bishoprickes In the same Councell it is decreed that if any Bishoppe will ordaine in any degree of the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of another paroecia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minister belonging to another Bishop without the consent of his owne Bishop the ordination shall be voide The councels of Ancyra and Antioch speaking of Bishops the one not receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or diocesse the other not accepting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the paroecia or bishopricke vnto which he was ordained most plainely by paroecia vnderstand the charge of a Diocesan Bishop Epiphanius excusing himself to Iohn the Bishop of Ierusalem who was offended with him for that he had as was supposed ordained a Presbyter in his diocesse answereth among other things that diuers Bishops had ordained in his diocesse without his offence Yea he had exhorted Philo Theoprobus two Bishops that in the Churches of Cyprus which were neer to them ad mea autem paroeciae videbaÌ„tur ecclesiaÌ„ pertinere eo quod grandis esset et lat a prouincia ordinareÌ„t presbyteros et Christs ecclesiae prouiderent but seemed faith he to belong to the Church of my paroecia that is Bishopricke they would because it was a great and large prouince ordaine Presbyters and prouide for the Church of Christ. Where it is testified that the Churches throughout a large Prouince were but part of his paroecia that is diocesse But I will descend to latter times wherein it was prouided that a Bishop of another City should not contrary to the canons inuade parochiam cuiuslibet episcopi the paroeciae mening diocesse of any other Bishop The third Councell of Toledo hath these words Si quid episcopi ecclesiis ad suaÌ„ parochiam pertinentibus dederint c. If Bishops shall giue any thing to Churches belonging to their paroecia that is Bishopricke Gregory the Great when he would signifie that the antient canons commanded that prouinciall synods should be held twice a yeere saith they had taken order de habendis per parochias concilijs The synod held in England An. 673. decreed that no Bishop should inuade the paroecia of another and that Bishops and other clergy men being strangers may not exercise any priestly function without the leaue of the Bishop in cuius paroecia in whose diocesse they are knowne to remaine In the Councell of Arles it was ordained that once a yeere euery Bishop should goe about parochiam suam that is his diocesse The Councell of Mentz appoint that euery Bishoppe in sua parochia that is in his owne diocesse should make diligent inquirie whether there were any Presbyters or Deacons therein that belonged to another Bishop that they might be returned to him In the Councell of Rhoan the Bishop is forbidden principalem cathedram sâ—ae parochia negligere to neglect the Cathedrall Church or chiefe seat of his paroecia that is Bishoprick To conclude the Councel held at Wormes forbiddeth Bishops quâ— parochias non habent which haue no charge of their owne to exercise their function or to ordaine in alterius parochia in the paroecia of another Bishop without the appointment of the Bishop in â—uius parochia in whose diocesse they be Whereby it doth euidently appeare that the word paroecia being attributed to a Bishop as his whole charge or circuit of his episcopall iurisdiction doth signifie a diocesse consisting of many parishes And that in Eusebius it is so to bee vnderstood it is most manifest
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
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 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
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
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
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
you had said all the congregations of Christians both in citie and country were but one vnlesse there were more then one I promise you you haue digged well and haue hedged your ditch with a strong enclosure But why had you not the like hedge or wall rather for the citie vnlesse there were distinct Churches in the citie for then all had been cockesure This hedge for the townes and this wall for the citie would haue sufficiently fenced the antecedent But then the consequence had been ridiculous and as it is now propounded with this inclosure in the antecedent is altogether as weake as it was before For to what purpose are the townes added if the parishes be excepted And by this inclosure the antecedent it selfe is bewraied of falshood For if there were in the citie and country more distinct Churches or parishes as here is supposed and these all subordinate to one as I haue manifestly proued before then all these will make a diocesse I say therefore againe that though their antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied Serm. sect 5. pag. 19. But the Antecedent is not onely false but also vnreasonable and vncredible c. 20. lines to one day The reason whereby I disprooue the Antecedent is by the Refuter framed after his fashion and propounded at large It shall suffice to turne his proposition into an Enthymeme thus The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great hee should haue said greater then could ordinarily meet in one assembly the times such for persecution as would not permit them ordinarily to meet in great multitudes and the places of their meeting priuate and vncapeable of any great multitude I say such multitudes Therefore in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in any great Citie and the townes about which he should haue added did make more then one particular congregation ordinarily assembling in one place Did not I tell you that hee would forget to adde to the Cities the Townes about them which hee did adde to his Antecedent to make the former consequence good but dares not adde it now for feare of marring all But what doth he answere to it as it is First hee cauilleth and meerely cauilleth with the consequence obiecting such things as hee is perswaded in his owne conscience neither were in the primitiue Church nor ought to haue been Themselues doe teach that parishes ought to bee so well compact and trussed together as that all of the same Church may conueniently and ordinarily meet together and also that where the multitude is greater then that all can well meete together they ought to diuide themselues into diuers congregations And now he telleth vs of great parishes either in the suburbs of London or in some parts of the land which were at their setting out nothing so populous as now they are both which sorts being so mightily increased in respect of the number of their parishioners himselfe I dare say is of opinion that they ought to bee diuided And therefore ought not but that hee meant to cauill to haue supposed the practise of the primitiue Church which hee and his consorts doe alwaies vrge as a precedent for imitation to bee sutable to those instances which though hee giueth yet hee and all his partners doe vtterly mislike as swaruing from the practise of the primitiue Churches And where he saith M. D. doth mistake the matter whiles hee thinketh that wee hold that all and euerie of the Christians in the great Cities did or could alwaies meete in the same place hee vtterly mistaketh me in so conceiuing though I am not ignorant they hold very strange things but this J conceiue you to hold that each visible Church was and still ought to bee a particular ordinary constant congregation of Christians which not onely may conueniently but also must necessarily if they bee not by sufficient causes hindered assemble together ordinarily to praier and to the ministery of the word and Sacraments And I say that in respect of the number or rather innumerable company of Christians which T. C. himselfe thinketh to haue been greater in those times then now in respect of the times wherein they liued raging with persecution and in regard of the places vncapeable of such multitudes it is vncredible yea impossible that all the Christians in the greatest cities and countries about them should make but one particular congregation ordinarily and constantly meeting in one place Neither doth that further his cause which hee professeth to be their assertion that the Christians which dwelt in and about any great Citie and were called the Church of the Citie were members of one body for not onely they but also those that dwelt in the remotest parts of the Country though distinguished into many particular congregations did not hold themselues to bee entire bodies by themselues vnlesse they were schismatickes or heretikes but all members of the same outward body and visible Church whereof the mother Church in the citie was the chiefe or head by which they were denominated and also distinguished as now they are from other Churches Hauing thus cauilled with the consequence hee proceedeth to the antecedent which is the assumption of his syllogisme denying euery particular branch thereof And first for the number hee would examine my proofes but what should hee speake of proofes when all I say is but vpon imagination Verily for ought I see my imaginations are better reasons then your strongest proofes And that here appeareth where you weaken my imagination J will not say falsifie it by propounding it after your maner But could a man professing sincerity so cast off all shame as to affirm that all I say is but vpon imagination when of that which I say there are foure proofes set downe in the Sermon first by comparison of the lesse to the greater secondly an instance of Rome thirdly the testimony of Cornelius fourthly the testimony of Tertullian The first he propundeth thus If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes after Christ was very great then was it great in such cities But the former is true Therefore the latter It is your fashion to make my consequences not to exceed the proportion of your owne imagined ability in answering them My reason standeth thus If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem was verie great within a few weekes after the ascension of Christ then in all likelihood the number of Christians in greater cities hauing the like though not alwaies so great meanes was within two hundred yeeres increased so much as to exceed the proportion of one particular assembly ordinarily meeting in one place But the former is true for at the Feast of Pentecost 3000. were conuerted in one day and shortly after their number was growne to 5000. which afterwards daily and mightily increased therefore the latter In my argument as you see comparison is made not onely betweene Ierusalem and
other greater Cities but chiefly which was omitted by the Refuter betweene the short time of a few weekes and the continuance of 200. yeeres Jf at Ierusalem within a few weekes the Christians were become many thousands how may wee thinke they were increased before the end of 200. yeeres in Rome Alexandria Ephesus Antioch and such like Cities So that I doubt not but the consequence is strong enough containing an argument from the lesse to the greater though I prooue none of those foure things which hee would haue prooued as first that all which were conuerted in Ierusalem at that time remained members of that Church Which maketh not against the consequence but rather for it seeing those which remained not in Ierusalem were by persecution dispersed to other Cities to helpe forward the plough of Christ there Secondly that all the great Cities had the like meanes to that of Ierusalem which needeth not to be proued seeing the meanes which had beene vsed and the miracles which had beene wrought at Ierusalem were also effectuall in other places and are at this day besides the like meanes of their owne Thirdlie though the meanes were alike that yet the effects were answerable which also needeth not to be prooued seeing wee know by the report of the best Writers how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time Fourthly that there was neuer any apostasie in any of those Churches with which Paul in his conceit doth seeme to charge them of Asia 2. Tim. 1.15 Which exception also is friuolous seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities Rome Alexandria and Antioch but euen these seuen of Asia were famous in those times for the profession of the faith Thus you see how he seeketh all the corners of his wit to finde if it were possible some starting hole whereby to escape the force of this consequence But these points are not worth the standing on Only whereas now hee chargeth the second time all them of Asia with apostasie from the faith because S. Paul saith that all who are in Asia had forsaken him hee must be admonished to reforme his iudgement For first Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia but onely of all those Asians of note who had beene in Rome since his imprisonment of which number saith hee are Phygellus and Hermogenes Neither doth hee speake of an apostasie from the faith but of their forsaking him in his affliction as the Disciples had shrunke from our Sauiour Christ for else when hee saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle In my first Apologie no man stood with me but all â—id forsake me wee might in like manner collect that all were Apostares from the faith But what kinde of desertion Paul meaneth whereinto those of Asia did fall it appeareth by the contrary practise of Onesiphorus whom he commendeth in the same place who often refreshed Paul and was not ashamed of his chaine but when he was at Rome hee was so farre from shrinking from Paul that hee most diligently sought him out and found him The others of Asia of whom hee complaineth when they were in Rome shrunke from him as being ashamed or afraid of his chaine Thus Chrysostome expoundeth it that Paul when hee was apprehended was forsaken of his friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is likely there were many then in Rome from the parts of Asia but none saith hee stood to mee no man would know me all were estranged from me Theophylact likewise When Paul was apprehended of Nero hee was forsaken of all the faithfull in Asia who from Asia had gone to Rome with him Oâ—cumenius in like manner When Paul was apprehended of Nero his friends of Asia did forsake him for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul or otherwise faithfull men but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 withdrew themselues and as we say drew their neckes out of the collar after Nero had laid hold on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those in Asia that is those of Asia It is likely saith Theodoret that some of those which in Asia had beleeued were at Rome but auoided the companie of Paul for feare of Nero. As for the assumption viz. that the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes was great it maketh nothing saith he for him or against vs. Which is a strange speech seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred and which being granted their assertion cannot be true But heere againe hee telleth vs of the great parishes about London saying that they of Ierusalem did all meet together as well as they Which is spoken against reason and against sense for first it was not intended that they of Ierusalem should meet as those of London which be of one parish after their multitude was increased Secondly neither might they being vnder persecution meet in great multitudes as those of London which through Gods goodnes enioy peace and liberty Thirdly neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes But where I said it was not intended when their multitude should bee great that they of Ierusalem should assemble together as they who are of one parish about London that needeth some explanation The parishes about London and euery where from the beginning are each of them one among many seuered from the rest with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinarie set congregation hauing one Presbyter and not a presbyterie much lesse a Bishop assigned to them whereas contrariwise the Church of Ierusalem whereunto Iames was appointed Bishop assisted with a presbyterie of Ministers was neuer intended to be one parish among many but to bee a mother Church which should by Gods blessing beget others to bee seuered from it in particular assemblies and yet to remaine subordinate and subiect vnto it as children to the mother It was neuer meant neither in Ierusalem nor in any other Citie that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set ouer no more but one particular congregation or that as more congregations should bee constituted euerie one should haue a Bishop and a presbyterie But they were prouided for the people of God that either then were in the Citie and Countrey or after should bee which as it increased was to be diuided into seuerall Congregations whereunto Presbyters seuerally were to bee assigned all being members of one bodie subiected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church which was as it were the head of that bodie The Refuter not contented thus to haue cauilled with my argument doth also threaten as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands to turne the poem of it such is his crueltie to the very heart of my cause But his minaces are but words and his words but winde for this is all he can say or doe If the Christians
in Ierusalem were not so many but that still they continued one parishionall assemblis meeting together in one place then the Christians of other Cities might be and did so in like sort But the antecedents is crue therefore the consequent Of the consequence hee saith no reasonableman can make any doubt and so taketh it for granted wanting reason to prooue it Me thinkes there is great reason why I should not onely doubt of it but plainely denie it for when he saith At Ierusalem they were not so many c. hee should haue said when and that still they continued c. hee should haue said how long that being compared with other Cities at the same time and of the like continuance the reason of his consequence might appeare There bee three reasons to be giuen why the Church at Ierusalem should not bee at the end of one hundred or two hundred yeeres so great as in other Cities First the persecution begunne with the martyrdome of Steuen and continued vntill the destruction of Ierusalem vpon the beginning of which persecution all the faithfull in Ierusalem except the Apostles were dispersed into other parts Secondly â—he reiection of the Iewes for the generality of them when the Gentiles were to be called 3. The destruction of Ierusalem by Titus about the yeare 72. and finall extirpation of the Iewes out of Ierusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the yeare 137. who called it Aelia after his owne name prohibiting any â—ew to come any more within that City So that if it were true that the number of the Christians in Ierusalem within the first 200. yeares had neuer exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly yet hereof it would not follow that the number of Christians in other Cities should for 200. yeares continue so smal No reasonable man therefore would looke to haue that consequence granted him The Assumption also is false The Church of Ierusalem whereof Iames was Bishop neuer was a Parish so far was it froÌ„ continuing so still But as the people both in the City and Country were vnder one high Priest so was it intended that all the Christians both in the City and countâ—y should be vnder the Bishop of Jerusalem and so continued vntill the destruction thereof Afterwardes because that City being destroied Caesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of Iewry it came to passe the church following the common-wealth that the Bishop of Caesarea was the Metropolitan The Bishop of Ierusalem hauing the Bishopricke of the City the places adioining Howbeit in processe of time the Christians honouring the place granted the prerogatiue of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of Ierusalem or Aelia reseruing to Caesarea the Metropolis her owne dignity Nether is it probable that the Church at Ierusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 as quickly it did continued with great increase vntil the death of SteueÌ„ did ordinarily meete all in one place We reade of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Paules Crosse or at the Spittle but their ordinarie as it were parishionall meetings were by coÌ„panies in more priuate places Nay I say further that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles who neuer were intended to be members either all or any of them of one parish with the Disciples Act. 6.1 or of some of them with the Presbyters and whole assembly Act. 15.22.26 which places are by the refuter alleadged were not parishionall but rather Synodicall As for those other places in the Acts some of them are ignorantly some absurdly alleadged In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places viz. the two first verses 6. 44. In the first it is said that when the day of Pentecost was come they were all with one accord in the same place All that is all the Apostles whose mutuall society and conuersing together is noted So doe some old Manuscrpts reade saith Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Apostles For to them alone had Christ promised that they should bee baptized after a few dayes with the holy Ghost and to that purpose hee commaunded them to stay at Ierusalem expecting the performance of this promise Luke also sheweth who they were verse 14. saying that Peter stood with the eleuen and the people who wondred at them seem to inâ—inuate saying are not all these men of Galilee Is it not strange then that the conuersing of the Apostles together in one house should be alleadged as an example yea patterne of a parishionall assembly Or if by all were ment the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost how doth it proue either that they were a parishionall assembly wherein the 12. Patriarches of Christendome were met or that they continued for an 100. or 200. yeares so small a company as a parishionall assembly seeing within a few dayes yea the very same day they grew to bee many thousands In the 6. verse it is said that when this voice or rumor was spread in the streetes concerning the Apostles speaking with variety of tongues great multitudes of people flocked together not of Christians to make a parishionall assembly but of all sorts to behold this wonder whereat when some had wondred and some had scoffed by Peters sermon 3000. of them were conuerted In the 44. verse Luke saith that all they which belieued were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and had all things common and sold their possessions c. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth either signifie they conuersed together in one place and kept company one with another and so speaketh not of their assemblies for vers 46. hee speaketh of their meeting in the temple where they could not meet alone wherein nationall rather then parishionall meetings vsed to bee assembled or else it signifieth they were in one that is they were ioined together in heart and affection as it is said Act. 4.32 which sense Caluin preferreth There remaineth Act. 21.22 where the Presbyters of Ierusalem who were with Iames their Bishop when Paul came to him tell Paul that it cannot be auoided but the multitude would come together hearing that he was come Vnderstanding by the multitude either the multitude of the people of Ierusalem as well those which belieued not as those which did for they direct him to goe into the temple there to shew himselfe to be an obseruer of the law or the company of beleeuers onely who when they would flocke together to see him should find him in the temple conforming himselfe to the law of Moses But to the absurditie of alleadging these places this is added that none of them reach any thing neare the time which we speake of For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christs Ascension The 6. before the martyrdome of Steuen the 15. aboue 20. yeares the 21. about 15. years before the destruction
word all to bee taken collectiuè or distributiuè if in the former sense then his meaning should be that all Christians in the world whether they dwelt in cities or countreys did on the Lords day meet in one place which is absurd If the latter then he meaneth all them distributiuely who whether they liued in the cities or countries belonged to one congregation As if one of vs speaking of the custome of our times should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Sunday so called there is a comming together of all into one place who doe dwell in the cities or the countries that is all in euery place that belong to the same congregations And that it is so to be vnderstood it appeareth by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities propounded in the plurall nuÌ„ber For his meaning neuer was that the people of diuers cities did meet ordinarily together the note of disiuÌ„ction â— or added to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuntry doth signifie that those of the country did not al meet with theÌ„ of the City for then he would haue said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that al did meet in their seuerall congregations whether they liued in the cities or couÌ„tries His other testimony is of Platina affirming that Dionysius about 160. yeares after Euaristus did first diuide and set out parishes and therefore hee referreth him Damasus to Onuphrius to be reconciled But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head who shameth not so oft to falsifie the authors which hee quoteth This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius that he being made B. straightwaies diuided the Churches and coemiteries which were the places of christian meetings in the city of Rome to the presbyters but he saith not that he first did it neither was it his mening for he had said the same before of Euaristus Abroad also saith he in the country he distributed parishes dioceses so couÌ„try parishes are called to the end that euery one should be content with his bounds limits Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself if it be himself in his epistle to Seueruâ— the B. of Corduba For wheras Seuerus had asked his directioÌ„ what course was to be takeÌ„ coÌ„cerning parish churches throghout the prouince of Corduba he wisheth him to follow that which he had lately done in the church of Rome ecclesias vero singulas singulis presbyteris dedimus seueral Churches we assigned to seueral presbyters diuided to theÌ„ the churches coemiteries ordained that euery one shold haue his proper right in such sort as that none may inuade the lands bounds or right of another parish but that euery one should be content with his owne boundes and so keepe his church and people committed to him that before the tribunall of the eternall Iudge he may giue an account of all committed to him and may receiue glorie and not iudgement for his deeds Now these reports are easily reconciled with the afore cited testimony of Damasus For as Onuphrius also hath obserued Euaristus first diuided the parishes to the presbyters the nuÌ„ber wherof by Hyginus not loÌ„g after was augmeÌ„ted an 138 After whoÌ„ nothing was altered vntill the time of Dionysius an 260. who increased the nuÌ„ber of the parishes which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus about the yeare 305 c. Besides thogh Euaristus first diuided the parishes in Rome yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the couÌ„try parishes Which distinction if it wil salue their credits who haue said that Dionysius first diuided parishes I wil not be against it His 2. answere is that if Euaristus did any such thing he diuided the titles to only gouerning elders c. A likely matter For the titles were the sacrae aedes the places of metings vnto Gods worship in which the Presbyters or as Dionysius calleth theÌ„ sacerdotes the Priests were ordained to feed the people coÌ„mitted to them with the ministery of the word sacraments and goe before them in the worship of God But of lay elders I haue sufficiently spoken before if any thing wil suffice to perswade men that there neuer were any such in the church of God My 3. proof is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome who as he saith there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome 108 others of the clergy 1500. poor people maintained al of them by the contributioÌ„ of christians so he calleth the Christian people in Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great innumerable people Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishionall assembly only was there 1500. poor christians besides 154 of the clergy together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregatioÌ„ was an innumerable people the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place This testimony saith our refuter is quite besides the purpose a fift part meaning 50. yeres beyond the time we speak of The limitatioÌ„ of the time wherto they haue coÌ„fined the primitiue church was deuised for a poor shift because they knew there was not the like euidence for the 2. century as for the 3. Otherwise what reasoÌ„ can be reÌ„dred why there should be diuers parishes vnder one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200 especially seing they which of purpose haue written of these things do professe that there was no differeÌ„ce in the nuÌ„ber of the parishes in that time 10. years after What reson can be giueÌ„ why the christian people which was innumerable in the yeare 250. should haue been in the yeere 200. the people of one particular parish especially seeing good authors before the year 200 doe acknowledge as much as if they had said that then they were innumerable To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian whom J needed not if we wil beleeue the refuter to haue cited seeing saith he he speaketh vnlimitedly of the christiaÌ„s in the Romane Empire saith nothing herein that wâ—e deny nor ought for M.D. profit By his good leaue therefore I will recite the words For after that hee had professed that christians then contrary to the iudgement and practise of the Papists now thought it vnlawfull for them to auenge themselues on their persecutors he saith For if we should shew our selues to be open enemies not secret auengers should we want either number or strength we are aliants froÌ„ you et vestra omnia implenimus and we haue filled al places that are yours cities Islands Castles towns assemblies c. only your temples we leaue vnto you If we should but depart away from you the losse of so many citizens would amaze you Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudineÌ„ nostraÌ„ at the solitarines which our abseÌ„ce would make you would seek the reliques of a dead city wherein you might rule more enemies then citizens wold remain
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
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.
in his throne In which throne of Iames reserued as Eusebius saith till his time the BB. of Ierusalem hauing the honour of Patriarches did succeed As touching Alexandria it is euident by that which before hath been shewed that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae belonging to Alexandria and all in one and the same sense which plainely sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee doth not meane that which we call a parish Which wil then better appeare when I shall proue that from Saint Marks time there were more Churches or parishes there and yet but one Church and one Bishop But suppose it were granted him that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of an ordinary congregation yet this would not proue them to haue been parishes as hath been shewed Thus and thus weakely to vse his owne words the Disputer hauing prooued his cause notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag Now let any man iudge whether M.D. hath better proued that the Churches in those times were dioceses or I that they were parishes So say I let any man now iudge who is of iudgement and if there be any comparison betweene the plaine euidence which I haue brought and his slender proofes let me be taken for a man of no iudgement Yea but saith hee the worst is still behinde for his cause indeed but to mine aduantage For if there were not onely diocesan but also prouinciall Churches and that within the first two hundred yeeres then is it absurd to imagine that there were no Churches but parishional Neither did or doth the being of prouinciall Churches hinder dioceses or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceipts of this disputer and his fellow challengers of disputation First that euery visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority immediately deriued from Christ for the gouerâ—â—ent of it selfe in al causes ecclesiasticall Secondly that euery parish is or ought to be such a Church From the former of these this disputer seemeth to inferre that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the prouinciall Churches and BB that then the prouinciall be the onely Churches And by the same reason when the prouinces were subiect to the Patriarches none but patriarchall Chuches as that of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem were to be esteemed Churches But let vs heare the disputer Admit the Churches were then diocesan what is that to vs who haue none such in these daies if G.P. say true And how is this proued because he saith the BB. of either prouince in England are Suffraganes or rather Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes in their seuerall prouinces euen their deputies exercising ecclesiastical iurisdiction from and vnder them It shall not be amisse therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth In the meane time you should haue answered for your selues and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others But though you cannot confute him yet you can abuse him as by reuiling and scornefull termes in other places of your booke so here by notorious falsifying of his words For where doth he say that our Bishops bee but Suffraganes or Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes as you without shame or conscience doe belie him saith hee or meaneth he any more but this that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation wherby the iurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended that ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which he practiseth he doth exercise from and vnder the Archbishop as his deputy And what is this to our purpose Yea but If we may iudge saith our Disputer by the outward practise we haue onely two Churches and they are prouinciall the one of Canterbury the other of Yorke vnsubordinate either to other or to any other ecclesiasticall power and so entire Churches such as hee would haue euery parish to be Heere by the way let the Reader iudge with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft obiected against our Bishoppes that they be petite popes hauing sole and supreme authority seeing now himselfe confesseth that according to the order and discipline of our Church they are subiect to the Metropolitanes But to the point none of these things which hee obiecteth doe hinder the being of dioceses or diocesan Bishoppes no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffraganes For whereas the Bishoppes haue been by authors which haue written within these nine hundred yeeres called Suffraganes to the Archbishoppes they meane thereby comprouinciall Bishoppes who in the election of the Metropolitanes and in the prouinciall synods held by the Metropolitanes did giue their suffrages with them not that they bee such as commonly we call Suffraganes but are as absolute Bishoppes as haue been since the first appointment of Metropolitanes and they were actually acknowledged as they were at the first intended so soone as the diuers cities of one prouince had their Bishops In all which as there was consociation among themselues as being all of one body so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis or mother Citie as being their head Thus was it prouided in the canons which for their antiquity are called the Apostles canons that the Bishops of euery nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them and esteeme him as the head and that they should doe nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne iurisdiction without his consent And that euery one may doe those things alone which belong to his owne Church and the Countries which bee vnder it Neither may hee meaning the Primate doe any thing without the consent of all The same is repeated and explaned as yee heard before in the Councell of Antioch calling the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishoppe which gouerneth in the mother Citie appointing him to haue the care of the whole prouince because there is concourse of men who haue businesse from all parts of the country to the mother Citie And although they forbad Bishoppes to attempt any thing beyond their compasse without his consent according to the antient canon yet they say Euery Bishoppe hath power or authority of his owne diocesse to administer or gouerne the same according to his conscience and to haue prouident care of the whole Country subiect to his Citie and to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to dispose of all things with iudgement It is apparant then that the being of prouinciall Churches doth not hinder the diocesan nor the authority of Metropolitanes take away the iurisdiction of diocesan Bishops Neither is any Church in the world more agreeable to the forme and gouernment of the most antient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England For at the first Metropolitanes were not subordinate to any superiour Bishoppes but were as Balsaâ—â— saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads by themselues of their prouinces being Bishoppes of
yeeld there be prouinciall Churches then I must confesse there be no diocesan or if I will needes hold there be diocesan Churches then I ouerthrow the prouinciall So that what may soeuer we looke saith he I see nothing against vs but all for vs. Thus hath he brought himselfe into a fooles paradise where I leaue him to feed vpon his owne fancies and to solace himselfe with the conceit of his imagined conquest CHAP. VII Prouing the third point of the Sermon that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops Serm. sect 1. Now these Presbyteries in the Apostles times as the Presbyterians confesse had c. ad lin a fine 4. THe Refuter hath acquitted himselfe in his owne conceit so valiantly and victoriously in subuerting my former assertion concerning dioceses which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building that as he lookes for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces the foundation it selfe being so weake and tottering so he promiseth to himself assured successe in ouerthrowing the rest But if my building be founded as it were on a rocke against which his maine forces could not preuaile at al but like the waues and billowes of the sea though they beate against it with great noise returne backe with froth and fome as I hope it appeareth to euery indifferent and iudicious Reader then may I promise to my selfe the like successe in withstanding his future assaults And the better hope J doe conceiue hereof because he seemeth to confesse that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches were dioceses that then the other points will follow of their owne accord But that I haue so demonstrated that I neuer expect any sound answere thereto As for this point which now I haue in hand it is not onely demonstrated already in the proof of the former but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom My purpose therefore is to bee as briefe in propugning this truth as hee is in oppugning the same J will therefore omit his friuolous cauill which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding what he according to his forced Analysis would haue concluded because the Reader cannot but discerne that I directly conclude what before was propounded viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishoppes which I proue in the Sermon by degrees first seuerally before the diuision of parishes and after the distribution of them both in the city and in the country then iointly both before and after For hauing concluded the former point with these words that the Churches contained many particular congregations vnto all which there was but one Presbytery or Colledge of Presbyters assigned and hauing here signified that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians each Presbytery had a President which S. Iohn calleth the Angell of the Church and the Fathers a Bishop I proue from that which hath already been proued that the President of the Presbytery the Angell of the B. of the Church was not a parishionall but a diocesan Bishop But before I come to the proofe contained in this section I am to note how those last words of the former part which are very materiall are by this refuter passed ouer in silence For it would be knowne whether there were in Cities where were many congregations yea in whole dioceses any more Presbyteries or Colledges of Presbyters then that one belonging to the mother Church in the Citie If to shew either his ignorance or want of good conscience he shall say there were as indeed that is their assersion that in euery parish both in citie and country there ought to bee a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders let him giue but one approued instance to proue his assertion in the first foure hundred yeeres and I will yeeld that where was a parish Presbytery there was a parish Bishop If Calum and the reformers of other Churches according to the pretended discipline had been of that iudgement they would not haue appointed one onely Presbytery for many parishes If he shall confesse that in a whole circuit which wee call a diocesse there was but one colledge or senate of Presbyters consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the citie which is a most certaine and vndeniable truth then must he confesse his platforme of parish discipline to be a meere nouelty and an vndisgested fancy hauing no warrant of scriptures nor testimony of antiquity and contrary wise that there was but one Presbytery and one Bishop set ouer a whole diocesse Hee that catcheth at euery word yea at the least letter whereat hee hopeth to haue the least aduantage as at the terme pagani in this passage and at the little letters in the word Cretians would not swallow vp in silence such pregnant arguments if silence were not his best answere But though he would not see that argument yet in my propounding of the question here to bee concluded hee hath spied a syllogisme which I did not intend out of that which I propounded in axiomaticall disposition as taking it for granted But the Refuter maketh me reason thus The presidents of the Presbyteries were diocesan BB. The Angels of the seauen Churches were presidents of the Presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the seauen Churches were diocesan BB. Which is the hansomest syllogisme he hath bestowed on me as yet neither wil I refuse to maintaine any one part of it if he will be pleased to take notice of that which euen now was proued that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocesse So the proposition will be manifest that the presidents of Presbyteries which were prouided for whole dioceses whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might haue been added to the proposition out of my words The assumption I haue made good before by the confessions of Caluin and Beza But he beginneth with the assumption saying that he hath good cause to doubt of it and that I doe but threapen kindnesse on them when I talke of their Confessions For plentifull proofe whereof I referre you to that which before hath been alledged out of Caluin and Beza But what will not this Refuter quarrell with for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth that is to say parishes hauing euery one a Bishop and a Presbytery of gouerning Elders would any man doubt either that the Bishop was called the Angell of the Church or that he was president of the Presbytery Now to the proposition saith the Refuter for answere whereto in one word I say it is false let vs examine the proofe of it and then frameth a syllogisme the conclusion whereof is this therefore the Bishop who was set ouer a whole diocesse and who was President of the Presbytery allotted to a whole diocesse was vndoubtedly a diocesan Bishop Was this the proposition which he denied or was he so vnreasonable to deny it What
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
said in the councill of Carthage lifting vp their necks against their Bishoppes haue inflamed their desires but these attempts were esteemed vnlawfull and therefore as in councels they were prohibited so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed But hereof also I haue spokeÌ„ before Yea but saith hee this canon was not vniuersally obserued as may appeare by the oft renewing of it in other councils and the practise of the Churches to the contrary afterward Here J aske him first when this was done for will he prooue that the irregular and vnlawfull practises of vaineglorious people and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ were the lawfull and ordinary practises of the purest churches in the first two hundred yeeres Secondly whether it were lawfully done or not if yea then doth hee contradict the iudgement of approued councils the authority of orthodoxall Fathers the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ hauing nothing to oppose therto but vain surmises vnlikely likelihoods If not why are they alledged shal irregular vnlawful practises be commended as paterns for imitatioÌ„ But let vs heare his instances which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village called Coman If I say no how will hee proue it Eusebius is alledged lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approued men BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla one of Montanus his truls mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoticus of or from the village Comana whose mouth Themiso stopped noting the place not wherof he was Bishop but whence he came or where he was borne for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia saith Caesar Baronius ex vicâ— Comana in Armenia oriâ—ndus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia borne at the village Comana in Armenia Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius Apollonius reporteth the same story which Nicephorus also reciting vseth these words Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus wheÌ„ Maximilla begaÌ„ to prophecy at Pepuza a place which Montanus called Ierusalem indeuored to coÌ„uince her euil spirit but was hindred of those which were her fauourits meaning Themiso Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupoÌ„ Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter but thogh Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Peter cals himself being more then a Presbyter as BB. vsually cal one another Consacerdotes yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe And thus the village the little village Coman hath lost her Bishoppe For little the Refuter added of his owne to make his instance the greater The second Was not Mares he should haue said Maris Bishoppe of Solica Of Solica Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerke hath learned his letters no better for though the first letter be not vnlike an S. yet is it the D. vsed in that print as hee might haue learned of a Deacon in the same page But this sheweth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand not consulting with the author Theodoret saith that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha which hee saith was but a small towne vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I will speake of when I come to Nazianzum which also is termed so For saith Theodoret Eusebius beeing desirous to install Maris a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of vertues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Episcopall throne he came to Dolicha by which phrase it appeareth he did not ordaine him the Presbyter of a parish but such a Bishop as others were at least of that time being the fourth century after Christ So farre hath our refuter also ouershotte his marke For though Dolicha were but a small city or towne as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be yet that hindreth not but that it might haue a diocesse belonging thereto as wel as ours haue though perhaps not so great The third Asclepius of a small towne in Africke For this T. C. quoteth Ierome tom 1. catalog Gennadij vir illustr Gennadius indeed saith that he was vici non grandis episcopus But Ioannes de Trittenhem in his booke de scriptorib ecclesiast saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus so that although his seat was no great town yet his diocesse was that whole territory But when was this about the yeare 440. so farre doth my aduersary who complaineth of my ouershooting my marke when J alledged the councill of Sardica ouershoot me for when he wil scarse suffer me to shoot tenscore he as if he were shooting for the flight shoots 22 euen tweluescore beyond the marke I say vnto him it was not so froÌ„ the beginning But by councels of Africk held towards the end of the fourth century permitted namely that in part of the diocesse belonging to the B. of a city new Bishoprickes might be erected if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto it were agreed vpon by the prouinciall Synode But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way in granting popular requests against the canons of other receiued councels and ancient practise of the Church that Leo the great Bishop of Rome was faine to write vnto the Bishops of Africke to stay that excesse The fourth What was Nazianzum but a small towne where that famous Gregory the Diuine was B For which T. C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City what if Gregory the Diuine were not B. of Nazianzum Nazianzum though Socrates make mention of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meane city yet he calleth it a citie and though somwhere it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a little city or towne yet was it such a city that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitane BB. not that I thinke it had any other cities or Bishopricks subiect vnto it I will not stand to argue that question whether Gregory the Diuine were Bishop of Nazianzum For although diuers good Authors affirme it yet I beleeue Gregory himselfe who saith he was not B. but onely coadiutor to his Father there He was by his dear friend Basil the great made Bishop of Saâ—â—â—â— partly against his wil and afâ—er was made Bishop of Constantinople but leauing both the former being seized vpon by Anthimuâ— the Bishop of Tyana who placed another there the latter resigning it into the hands of the councill of Constantinople which preferred Nectarius to bee his successor hee returned vnto Nazianzum where finding the See void obtained of Helladius who was the Bishoppe of Caesarea after Basil that Eulalius might bee ordained Bishoppe there But I will not dispute this
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
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
of the sacred Ministery such as Presbyters and Deacons are with vs. And so much of my second argument The third is taken from the testimony of the great Councell of Chalcedon and may thus briefly be framed It is sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree not onely de facto but also de iure But what is this saith he to the Apostles times and the age following Indeed if the Councell had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto onely there had been some colour for this exception especially if he could haue proued an alteration in the state of Bishops and the aduancement of them to a higher degree to haue begun after the first two hundred yeeres But seeing no such matter can truly be alleaged and seeing also that famous Councell giueth testimony to the superiority of Bishops not only de facto but also de iure and that in such sort as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it cannot therefore bee denied but that this is a most pregnant testimony if it bee rightly alleged Let vs therefore coÌ„sider the occasion of those words which in the copie whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment and in some manuscript Greeke copies is the twenty nine canon of that Councell When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum for so I find him termed diuers times in the Acts of that Councell in Euagrâ—m in Photius and Balsamo and not of Tyre as in Tilius his Greeke edition it is corruptly printed when Eustathius J say had withdrawne diuers Bishopricks from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus deposing the Bishops whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained and bringing them downe to the degree of Presbyters complaint was made to the great Councell of Chalcedon and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes in these words Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius and degraded by Eustathius and after they had been Bishops commanded to be Presbyters what is the senteÌ„ce of this holy Synod Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiuâ— Bishops and Bonifaciuâ— Presbyter vicegerents of the Church of Rome answered To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it is sacrilege if any iust cause depose them from their Bishopricke neither ought they to retaine the place of Presbyters But if without any crime they haue beene remoued from their honour they shall returne againe to their episcopall dignity Anaâ—olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said These Bishops who are said to haue descended from the episcopall dignity vnto the order of Presbyters if for iust cause they are condemned neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters But if without any reasonable cause they haue been deiected to a lesse degree they are worthy if they be blamelesse to recouer againe the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopricke If you thinke that these were but the priuate opinions of these men heare the censure of the whole Councell All the reuerend Bishoppes cried Righteous is the iudgement of the Fathers wee all say the same things the Fathers haue decreed iustly let the sentence of the Archbishops hold My fourth argument is drawne from the testimony of Ierome whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight because he is the onely man almost among the fathers whom the Disciplinarians can alledge against the superiority of Bishops Ierome therefore saith that at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops euermore the presbyters hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in exceâ—siori gradu in an higher degree called him Bishop euen as an armie chooseth a Generall This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects The first because Ierome is vnder age Which is a very simple euasion For Ierome doth not onely testify what was in his time but also giueth plaine euidence that in the first two hundred yeeres euen from S. Marke vntill Heraclas Bishops were placed in a superior degree aboue Presbyters Secondly because Bëllarmine alleageth the sâ—me testimony to the same purpose whose allegation is answered by Châ—mier whose answer if I like not he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it To omit how odiously this is set downe I doe professe that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine wherein he consenteth with all antiquity then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius wherein he dissenting from all antiquity was by Epiphanius Philaster Augustine and all the Catholike Church in his time condemned for an heretike But let vs heare his answers First that Ierome proueth by the practise of the Church of Alexandria that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures to wit that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not Neither doth he call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist This answere might become our refuter better then Chamier For first it is vntrue that Ierome in these words proueth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not For doth hee not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree and doth hee not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him to the Chieftaine or Generall chosen of the Army Secondly he faileth in setting downe Ieromes purpose which was not to prooue there was no difference betwixt Bishoppes and Presbyters but to prooue that Presbyters were superior to Deacons That he proueth by many arguments First because the name Episcopus Bishop in the Scriptures is giuen to Presbyters Secondly because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters to which purpose he alleageth 1. Tim. 4.13 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1. And thirdly whereas it might be obiected the Bishops were set ouer Presbyters he confesseth it was done for auoiding of schisme but yet so as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time vntill Heraclaâ— and Dâ—â—â—ysius as a Generall by the Army or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons out of their owne company Whereby he would also insinuate that a Presbyter is so much better then a Deacon as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon Thirdly where he saith that Ierome doth not call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist and saith else where that he planted that Church It is plaine that in another place he confesseth Marke to haue been the first Bishop of Alexandria If Marke therefore were superiour in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra as no man wil deny then must the same be confessed of Anianus and the rest of his successors as Ierome plainely testifieth Secondly he answeareth That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselues continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time whom he therefore calleth Bishops to the end he might signifie that in their daies after one hundred and forty yeers were expired from Marks comming to
Alexandria that order was changed Then at the soonest saith the refuter began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creep in c. Which answere if his meaning be as our refuter conceiteth is vnsound For first where he saith the order was changed in Heraclas and Dionysius that is spoken but by ghesse because Ierome nameth them Vpon which coniecture T. C. and H. I. as you haue heard did build their two diuers fancies For Ieromes meaning was not to signifie that the superioritie of Bishops was altered but as I haue shewed that vntill Heraclas and Dionysius who were not Presbyters but Teachers of the schoole in Alexandria the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time did chuse one out of their owne number That which the Refuter addeth is absurd and against Ieromes plaine words Then at the soonest began M. D. superiority of Bishops to creepe in for the superiority I spake of is superiority in degree And Ierome saith that euer from Saint Marke and therefore euen in the Apostles times the BB. had been placed in a higher degree My fift argument is also from the authority of Ierome which yeeldeth a double proofe the former that the superiority of Bishops ouer Presbyters and Presbyters aboue Deacons is an ordinance or tradition apostolicall Secondly that as the high Preist was in degree superiour to the other Preists and they to the Leuits so by an apostolicall ordinance the Bishop is superiour to the Presbyters and the Presbyters to the Deacons That wee may know saith he the apostolicall traditions are taken out of the old testament looke what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuits were in the Temple the same let the Bishops Preists and Deacons challenge in the Church To this testimony containing two impregnable proofs for the superiority of BB. not onely de facto but also de iure the refuter thought it his wisest course to say nothing To these arguments this may be added That as the new ordination of a Deacon when he was made a Presbyter doth proue that he was aduanced to a higher degree of the ministery euen so when a Presbyter was chosen to be Bishop he was by a new ordination promoâ—ed to the Bishopricke as to a higher degree The two first canons among those which are called the Apostles appoint that a Bishop should be ordained of two or three Bishops but let a Presbyter say they be ordayned of one Bishop and likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy Valeriuâ— the Bishop dealth with the Primate the Bishop of Carthage by letters intreating him that Augustine who then was Presbyter might be ordained Bishop of Hippo which being obtained Augustine tooke vpon him the care of the Bishopricke maioris loci 〈…〉 and ordination of a greater place The councell of Sardica taketh order that before a man may be a Bishop he must first performe the ministery of a Reader then of a Deacon then of a Presbyter that so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by euery degree if hee be worthy he may arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto the height of the Bishopricke Theadoret testifieth that Iohn Chrysostome hauing been the chiefe of the Presbyters at Antioch a long time oft times might haue been chosen to the Bishopricke which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall presidency but alwaies did flie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that principality So that though he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe of the Presbyters yet he was no Bishop neither durst he for a long time take vpon him that degree of principality So much of the superiority of Bishops in generall CHAP. III. Shewing wherin the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist and first of the singularity of preeminence Serm. sect 3. page 32. But let vs consider more particularly wherein the superioritie of Bishops did and doth consist c. ad lin a fine 6 THe superiority of Bishops ouer other Ministers I place in three things singularity of preeminence during life the power of ordination and the power of iurisdiction all which I ground on Tit. 1.5 But where I say during life hee saith This addition needed not seeing it is grounded vpon an erroneous conceit of mine owne whereby I charge them as holding the contrary Secondly that it is not proued out of the place alleaged In the former hee sheweth how audacious he is seeing Beza the chiefe patron of the pretended discipline holdeth that the Presidents of the Presbyteries which afterwards as he saith were called Bishoppes ought to be but for a short time and that by course and esteemeth them which had a perpetuall presidenship to be Bishops humane as I haue shewed before The practise also of those Churches where the discipline is vsed doth prooue what their Founders thought was agreeable to Gods word This their conceit is euidently confuted by the Epistles to Titus and to Timothy For seeing they doe confesse that they were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches of Creet and Ephesus it is euident that they continued in this Presidentshippe whiles they liued there For it is absurd to imagine that Titus was sent to Creet and Timothy to Ephesus to be presidents there in their turnes and when their turnes were ended to be subiected to other of the Presbyters there in their course But these things the refuter doth but cauill at by the way For he granteth that Titus had this superioritie which we speake of his maine answer is that Titus was not a Bishop Which afterwards J proue in the Sermon by the common consent of the antient and most approoued Writers of the Church with whose affirmation in a matter of fact if this Refuters deniall shall be weighed in the ballance of an vnpartiall iudgement it will be found as light as vanitie it selfe But of this question more hereafter In the meane time J will but desire the Reader to take this for granted because it cannot be denied that if Titus was Bishop of Creet then Bishops had this threefold superioritie which I speake of Where I commend this order of Church gouernement consisting in the superiority of Bishoppes and inferioritie of other Ministers this graue and learned Refuter maketh a scorne at it saying It is a toy to please children and a gay Epiphonema wanting a note of exclamation he would haue said acclamation to grace it The which argueth his spite against the gouernment of Bishoppes rather then his might being neither able to endure the iust commendation of episcopall gouernment nor yet to confute it For what hath he but trifles and toies to obiect against it For where hee saith I begge the question supposing ech Church to be a diocesse the conscience of the Reader I hope also of the Refuter will testifie that what I suppose in this behalfe hath beene before sufficiently prooued Besides those with whom I principally contend in this point doe confesse the Churches indued with power of
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
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
a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect of the question as if he should say Bishops were not therefore they had not this power For where he addeth Diocesan that is spoken vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape especially if it be added that the supposition is not as he vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue it But suppose for a little while that the refuters and the rest of the challengers conceit were true that there were no Bishops but parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops nor to other ministers but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet neither before Timothe and Titus were sent but in the Apostles nor after but in the Bishops that is to say in Timothe and Titus and their successors then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops wherein they are superior to other ministers But both the parts of the antecedent are true therefore the consequent The former part of the
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
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
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
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places
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
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
the behalfe of those which had fallen promising when God should grant peace vnto them that he might returne to them the behauiour and repentance of them which had fallen should be examined in their presence and hauing signified his great dislike of the Presbiters act who not reseruing vnto him the honour of his Priesthood and chaire had without his allowance communicated with them which had fallen In the end he desireth that they which had fallen would patiently heare his counsell expect his returne that when through Gods mercy we shall come vnto you many of my fellow BB. being assembled together may according to the discipline of the Lord in the presence of the confessors examine the letters and desires of the blessed Martyrs he writeth in like manner to the Clergy that is to the Presbiters and Deacons willing them for as much as still his returne was delayed that in the case of necessity they should not expect his presence but for such as should be in danger of death to lay their hands vpon them and reconcile them especially such as had beene commended by the Martyrs as for the rest he would haue them stay till hee being restored to the Church and they all being assembled together might determine what was to be done But being importuned againe by letters from the Confessors who had desired him and by him the rest of the BB. to grant peace as themselues did to them which had fallen he writeth againe to the Presbiters and Deacons that letter which by the refuter is cited saying concerning those which had fallen and by the Confessours haue desired to be reconciled vntill it be certainely knowne what course they haue taken since their fault committed seeing it is a matter which belongeth to the Councill and iudgement of vs all I dare not preiudicate and challenge to my selfe a thing which is common and therefore appointeth that course to be taken which I mentioned out of the last Epistle and to the same purpose writeth to diuers BB. and by name to Calidonius shewing him what order he had taken in this matter and willing him to signifie the same to other BB. that the like course might be taken by them If these letters all concerning the same businesses be conferred together you may obserue first that Cyprian was a Metropolitane B. hauing authoritie to assemble and to direct his comprouinciall BB. as may appeare also by the Synodes held and Synodicall Epistles written by him Secondly that he speaketh not of Church businesse in generall but of this particular which was of so great importance that he saith it was the cause not of one Church or of one Prouince but of the whole world Thirdly that he would not deale alone in this busines but he would call a Synode of his fellow BB. besides his Clergie and in the presence of the people haue the cause of them which had fallen examined Fourthly that although he would not deale alone in this busines being a cause of so great moment but would haue it referred to the examination censure of his fellow BB. besides the concurrence of the people and his owne Clergy in this iudgement notwithstanding the chiefe stroak in this busines was in him as appeareth both by their petitions and his directions And therefore the whole cariage of this businesse doth prooue the Episcopall authoritie of the B. and Cyprians superioritie not onely ouer his owne Presbiters but also ouer his fellow Bishops so farre is it from impleading the same and further I say that Cyprian because his comming to the Bishopricke was much resisted by Felicissimus and his complices and the time wherein he liued troublesome and dangerous therefore though he might as Ierome speaketh of all Bishops rule alone as Moses yet as Moses he voluntarily vsed the assistance of others hauing as himselfe saith from the beginning of his Bishoprick determined to doe nothing by his own priuate sentence without the counsell of the Clergy and consent of the people whereby it appeareth that his vsing of the Clergies counsell and consent of the people was not of necessity but voluntary and therefore when he saw cause and did finde himselfe not to need either the counsell of the Clergy or consent of the people he would sometimes doe matters of importance as namely the ordination of Clerks alone as himselfe signifieth in an Epistle to the Presbiters Deacons and the whole people In ordaining of Clerkes I doe vse before hand to consult with you and by common counsell to weigh the manners and deserts of all but humane testimonies are not to be expected when we haue diuine suffrages and therefore signifieth that he had without them ordained Aurelius and others to be Clerks But suppose that of necessitie Cyprian was to vse the aduise or expect the presence and conscience of his Clergy in dispaching matters of importance would this be an instance against the Episcopall gouernment in those times did the fourth Councill of Cathage set foorth these two Canons the one that a B. without the Councill of his Clergie should not ordaine Clerkes requiring also that the assent or conniuence and testimony of the people should be had the other that a B. should heare no mans cause but in the presence of his Clerkes and that the sentence of the B. should be void which was not confirmed by the presence of his Clergie and yet no man doubteth but that when that Councell was held which was about foure hundred yeeres after Christ the sway of Ecclesiasticall authoritie both for ordination and iurisdiction was in the Bishop But I haue vouchafed too long an answere to so weake an allegation In the next place he mentioneth Ambrose his testimony which was as he saith debated at large in the first point It was debated indeed but nothing to this present purpose Ambrose saith that the B. was wont to vse the aduise of his Presbiters though in his time it was growne out of vse and the matter debated betweene vs was whether those Seniors were Ministers as I proued or Lay-elders as the refuter pretended but whether they were the one or the other the authoritie and gouernment of the B. was no more impayred by vsing their counsell then the authority of a Prince by vsing the aduise of his Counsellours vntill such time and in such cases as by the Canons and Canonicall law their consent was required as necessarie These two allegations if they had beene reduced into sillogismes would haue made very loose inferences and so would the testimonies of Ierom who euery where almost saith the refuter speaketh for vs. This is vauntingly spoken and yet the truth is that as no where 's indeed he speaketh for them so none of the Fathers is more plentifull of pregnant testimonies then he is for BB. as partly hath beene shewed already and more shall be declared hereafter Of the testimonies which the refuter citeth three
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good as being the ordinance of God so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it But the refuter is like the deafe Adder that stoppeth her eare he will not be perswaded though he be conuicted For though he braggeth that this answere of his doth manifest that I haue not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon yet this defence of mine will make it euident that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes which he hath gone about to answere for the most part with sound learning but to elude with shifts and cauillations But some will say this is not all that you vvould perswade vs vnto that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good but when you say it is of diuine institution you seeme to meane that it is diuini iuris and consequently that not onely it is lawfull but that it onely is lawfull and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vnto it as that no other forme of gouernment is warrantable in the Church of God My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull for doubling I leaue to him he was disposed to cauill I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures doe therefore vrge the same as perpetuall and vnchangeable signifying that if they will be constant in their iudgement they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment which hath warrant in the word to be perpetuall and vnchangeable Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause vvhy they haue giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris as being commanded of God and perpetually imposed vpon all Churches Neuerthelesse I plainely declared my resolution to be this that although we be well assured that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best as hauing not onely the warrant of scripture for the first institution but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age for the continuance of it notwithstanding vve doubt not vvhere this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better vvhich obiection and answere I inserted of purpose into the Sermon to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe as being alwaies ad oppositum without regard either of my charitable intent or of the credit of the reformed Churches labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader that I contradict my selfe and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded But as alwayes hitherto so now also he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength For though hee chargeth me as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops yet neither often nor once neither peremptorily nor at all neither the perpetuall necessitie nor any absolute necessitie at all is vrged in any one of the allegations which hee so hotly as it were with fire and towe obiecteth The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before For when I said that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity and for the auoiding of schisme so it is for the same cause to be retained I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it but that as at the first it was ordained as being thought fit expedient and needfull to auoid schisme so it is fit expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus and to all such as should haue the like function that is to say Bishops yet if this forme of gouernment be changed those which shall exercise the like authority must follow those directions as being giuen though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were not Bishops should haue the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons whose authoritie should dye with them but to them and their successors to the end of the world he straitly chargeth Timothie that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him should be kept inuiolable vnto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ and therefore by such as should haue the like authority vnto the end And presently after for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary without which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences Can he deny the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus to be perpetually necessary which is the summe of the second sentence or if it be perpetually necessary that some were to haue it to the end of the world which was affirmed in the former sentence If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas modus potestatis whereof I spake before the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable hee would not so hotly haue vrged these allegations Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches How this speâ—ch is to be vnderstood I distinctly shewed before not thinking I protest of this obiection made by the Refuter For when I said their function
and authority was ordinarie and perpetually necessary I meant that their function was ordinary as being Pastorall and Episcopall and that the authority which they had was perpetually necessary as was said in the former allegations If he shall perhaps vrge those words which mention the successors of Timothie and Titus to the end of the world I answere it is more then likely that they shall haue successors in the same function in some Churches to the end that is to say Bishops though in some others that forme of gouernment being altered the authority may be in those who doe not succeed them in the said function at least in the same forme and manner of gouerning This being all which he hath gained by these allegations he might haue forborne his triumphing insultations which bewray his want of iudgement For where he obiecteth against me this contradiction as though I held both that the gouernment by Bishops is necessary for the very being of visible Churches and also that there may be visible Churches without it either he doth ignorantly mistake or wilfully depraue my sayings For though I said the authority which Timothie and Titus exercised was perpetually necessary both to the being of Churches as the power of ordination and to the well being as the authority of iurisdiction yet I neuer said that this forme of gouernment was necessary to the being of visible Churches And where hee goeth about to proue that the Episcopall gouernment is not perpetually necessary because there be many visible Churches at this day without it what doth hee else but fight with his owne shadow seeing that in fauour onely of those Churches this passage was by me inserted howbeit hee impudently ouer-reacheth when he saith almost all visible Churches are without Bishops For not to mention all other Churches which be in the Christian world which haue alwayes had and still haue Bishops and to speake onely of the reformed Churches in Europe is it not euident that the farre greater part of them is gouerned by Bishops and which is all one with Bishops by Superintendents The refuter when hee desired to the vttermost pag. 52. to enlarge the number of those Churches which haue the Presbyterian Discipline he reckoned the reformed Churches of Fraunce the Low-countreyes Saxony Heluetia Bohemia Zuricke Berne Geneua Sauoy Palatine Poland Hungary Gernsey Iersey Scotland from which number notwithstanding some Churches are to be substracted as all in Scotland and some if not all in Saxony neither doe I suppose that their Presbyterian discipline is established in Zuricke and all the Churches of Heluetia neither is any one whole kingdome ruled by that discipline So that I am perswaded there are scarse so many particular Churches or congregations gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline in all the world as are gouerned by Bishops in the Kings dominions in great Britaine and in Ireland But besides these I finde alledged by one of great wisdome and iudgement many more which are not gouerned by the Presbyterian discipline as the Churches of Denmarke Sueuia all the reformed Churches of Germany sauing in some parts of the Low-countreyes and of late about Heidelberge procured in the minority of the Prince all the Churches in the Duchy of Saxony the Duchy of Brunswicke and Luneburge the Duchy of Megalopurge the Duchy of Wirtemberge all the Churches within the countreyes of the Marquesse of Brandeburge and the Marquesse of Bade all the Churches within the gouernment of the Earledome of Henneberge the Earledome of Swartzenberge the Earledome of Lenning the Earledome of Hannaw the Earledome of Oetinghe the Earledome of Mansfield the Earledome of Stalbergh the Earledome of Glich the Earledome of Rheinesterne and the Earledome of Leonstine and all the Churches in the Barony of Limpurge the Barony of Schenburge and the Barony of Wildenfield Whereunto may be added all the Churches in foure or fiue and thirty at the least free cities with their territories the most of them as large and ample as Geneua in none whereof the Presbyterian discipline is erected Which enumeration is a good euidence also to iustifie my answere to the next obiection which is this Some will say the Protestants which were the blessed instruments of God for the reformation of religion in this last age are thought to haue preferred the other discipline by Presbyteries before this by Bishops and therefore in thus magnifying the Bishops you seeme to ioyne with the Papists against them Whereunto I answered that those godly and learned men allowed the Episcopall function and simply desired the continuance thereof if with it they might haue enioyed the Gospell For proofe whereof I referred the reader to the Suruey of the pretended discipline cap. 8. pag. 110.111 c. In refuting of which answere the refuter dealeth very absurdly with me and the reuerend author of the Suruey For when I referred the reader to a Chapter of that booke contayning many notable testimonies to proue that which I said the refuter dealeth as a man resolued to deny my conclusion what proofes so euer I should bring against him And though I referre him to testimonies for number and weight sufficient either to satisfie or to conuince him if he would but haue turned to the place yet he saith hee cannot possibly see how I should haue any such opinion of those godly and learned men whose writings as he saith doe so often and so vehemently professe the contrary And that he may not seeme to speake without ground he desireth me to leaue the Surueyour and heare what he can say As if the Surueyour were not worthie to be heard when the learned refuter is to speake When as indeed our Refuter for ought I see by him is not for wisedome learning and iudgement worthie to be named with that reuerend Author on the same day But though he would seeme not to vouchsafe an answere to the Suruey yet the truth is he durst not acquaint the Reader with those testimonies which howsoeuer before I did mention for breuity sake I may not now wholy conceale from the Reader And although I might by way of requitall desire him to lay aside hâ—s misse-alledged allegations as vnworthie to be examined and to giue eare to those testimonies cited by the Surueyour yet I will vouchsafe an answere to his authorities after I haue recited some few testimonies of the chiefe Protestant writers as I find them cited by the Surueyour referring the Reader for the rest to the Suruey it selfe And first I wil begin with the Augustane confession whervnto the chiefe learned men who first were called Protestants did subscribe Caluin soone after being one of the number and with the Apologie thereof We haue oft protested say they that we doe greatly approue the Ecclesiasticall policy degrees in the Church and as much as lyeth in vs doe desire to conserue them We doe not mislike the authority of Bishops so that they would not compell vs to doe
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.
is but an ouerseer of a Parish c. In the next place he citeth Viret as pleading for a popular state in euery church wherein if the allegation be true he is singular hauing neither the iudgement of any other sound Diuine nor practise of any reformed Church that I know of No not of Geneua it selfe to second him For though the common wealth of Geneua be reduced to a popular state yet the gouernment of the church by their consistorie is Aristocraticall And though he passeth by as well he might Caluin and Beza Bucer Peter Martyr Bullinger Brentius Musculus whom he thought good to mention onely as fauourers of the pretended discipline yet neither any of these nor any other moderate and iudicious Diuine doth condemne as our Presbyterians doe eyther the ancient gouernment by Bishops in the primitiue Church or the retayning thereof in reformed churches now as hath been shewed before But he is pleased to conclude with some of our own writers and Martyrs And first with Francis Lambard who is alledged as saying that a B. and preacher a church and a parish is all one that euery parish should haue right to choose their Pastour and which is a very vnaduised speech if it be truely alledged to depose him if he proue vnworthy but not as disallowing the gouernment of the church by orthodoxal BB. eyther now or in the Primitiue church which was the point to be proued And the like is to be said of Iohn Lambart c. As for Bradford whom hee citeth as holding that the Scripture knoweth no difference betwixt a B. and a minister meaning that the names were confounded and that nothing is to be gotten by the succession of Popish BB. as minister not but Lord it yet nothing can be alleadged out of him to proue that he disalloweth the gouernment of orthodoxal Bishops But it is strange that he should alleadge B. Hooper and B. Bale as disallowing in their iudgement the superioritie of BB. which they allowed in their practise But all that is said out of B. Hooper is eyther that BB. were not till Siluesters or Constantines time such as they are now which is true in respect of their outward estate which by the peace and prosperitie of the Church was much increased but is not to be vnderstood in respect of the substance of their calling or that excommunication should not be vsed by the B. alone which is little or nothing to the present purpose as if hee must needs disallow the Episcopall function vvho vvould not haue the Bishop to excommunicate alone B. Bale vnderstandeth by the names of blasphemie written on the heads of the beast Apoc. 13. the titles of Popish offices which he saith are vsurped and not appointed by the holy Ghost among which when he reckoneth Metropolitanes Diocesans Parsons Vicars and Doctors he cannot be vnderstood as speaking of these offices in the true church but as they are members of Antichrist For what is the office of a Parson but of a Pastour c. And that this vvas his meaning appeareth by the other allegation wherein besides the titles and offices of the Popish hierarchy among whom he reckoneth BB. Doctors Priests he addeth temporall gouernors also as Emperours Kings Princes Dukes Earles Lords Iustices Deputies Iudges Lawyers Mayors Baylifes Constables c. leauing their owne duetie offices as to minister rightly to serue their abhomination After these for want of better proofes hee alleadgeth the testimonie of the English men which were at Geneua in Queene Maries time and were the first authors of this contention for the pretended discipline among vs to whose testimonie in their owne cause that they present to vs the forme of a Church limited within the compasse of Gods word what should I answere but that they haue often said but neuer will be able to proue that their discipline is prescribed in Gods word Lastly he alleadgeth M. Foxe whose testimonie though in vaine I sought in three seuerall editions yet his iudgement is apparant by that which may easily be found Hee therefore saith according to the refuters allegation that in the Primitiue Church there was not then any one mother Church such as the church of Rome now pretendeth her selfe to be aboue other Churches but the whole vniuersall Church was the mother Church vnder which vniuersall Church in generall were comprehended all other particular Churches in speciall hee meaneth the Churches of seuerall countreyes and Prouinces as sister Churches together not one greater then another but all in like aequalitie What will hee hence conclude that therefore there were no BB. nor Archbishops Not so But that therefore as the Diocesan churches were equall so were the BB. and as the Metropolitane churches were equal so the Archbb. Heare Mr. Foxe himselfe where he debateth this question If they say there must needs be distinction of degrees in the church and in this distinction of degrees superioritie must necessarily be granted for the outward discipline of the church for directing matters for quieting of schismes for setting orders for coÌ„mencing of Conuocations Councils as need shal require c. Against this superioritie we stand not and therefore we yeeld to our superiour powers Kings and Princes our due obedience and to our lawfull gouernours vnder God of both regiments Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Also in the Ecclesiasticall state we take not away the distinction of ordinarie degrees such as by the scripture be appointed or by the Primitiue Church allowed As Patriarkes or Archbb. BB. Ministers and Deacons for of these foure we especially reade as chiefe In which foure degrees as we grant diuersitie of office so we admit in the same also diuersitie of dignitie neither denying that which is due to each degree neither yet maintaining the ambition of any singular person For as we giue to the Minister place aboue the Deacon to the B aboue the Minister to the Archbishop aboue the B. so wee see no cause of inequalitie why one Minister should be aboue another minister one Bishop in his degree aboue another B. to deale in his Diocese or one Archbb. aboue another Archbishop And this is to keepe an order duely and truely in the church c. Here then is the question betweene vs and the Papists whether the Metropolitane church of Rome with the Archbb. of the same ought to be preferred before other Metropolitane churches and Archbb through vniuersall Christendome or not And thus I haue examined his testimonies which if you shall compare with those whereunto in the Sermon I referred the reader you wil acknowledge that he had little cause either to accuse my speech of vntruth or to iustle out the Surueyours testimonies with his own as though they had not beene worthy to haue been heard in comparison of his Wheras indeed if there had been no more testimonies alleadged then of the authors of the Augustane conâ—ession and the subscribers therunto whom I especialy ment being the men
who first were called Protestants my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed though the refuter could haue alledged the iudgements of more particular men then he hath done to the contrarie But I added in the Sermon that howsoeuer the first reformers of religion whom they cal Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall gouernment but simply desired the continuance thereof as I haue now proued by their owne testimonies notwithstanding when together with the Gospell c. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words I doe partly excuse the auncient Protestants who first yeelded to the deposing of Bishops and partly accuse the innouatours among our selues The former I excuse because they desiring chiefely and aboue all the instauration of religion propagation of the gospell which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retayned their authoritie were forced with the losse of the Episcopall gouernment to redeeme the free profession of the gospel The refuter as if he were desirous to leaue them without excuse saith that is a bad excuse because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to finde diuers Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries I deny not but that among them there were some fit to haue been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is vntrue It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the Affricane council professed to find many fit men to be Presbyters especially if the laitie also afford fit men for that purpose then to finde one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider first who should haue ordained them secondly how they should haue been maintained thirdly and chiefely whether the assistance of the ciuil Magistrates could haue been had for deposing the BB. vnles they had yeelded both to the dissolution of the Bishoprickes and to the alteration of the forme of gouernment c. Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustane confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal gouernment I proue because so soon as they could they procured the restitution thereof though vnder other names because the names of BB. Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelates were odious And because the refuter shall no longer doubt whether those Superintendents and generall superintendents placed in Protestant churches be for the substance of their calling the same with BB. Archbb. he shall heare the iudgement of Zanchius in this behalfe Who after he had signified his approbation of the auncient forme of gouernment by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer he addeth for further confirmation the practise of reformed churches some wheerof both in deed name haue retained BB. Archbb. and besides saith he in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom hauing changed the good Greeke names into bad latin words they call Superintendents and generall Superintendents Heare the history of the Augustane confession Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons Pastors superintendents Deacons we cal yong Ministers who are ioyned to Pastors c. We call them Pastors to whom though alone some church is safely cōmitted not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague Superintendents we cal these Pastors who are set ouer other Pastors Deacons With vs saith Heerbrand there are Deacons Pastors speciall superintendents and ouer them generall superintendents But why in other churches the learned men haue not restored BB. I gaue this reason for that they could not eyther because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the ciuill Magistrate as in France or because the forme of ciuill gouernment being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state could no more endure the gouernment of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarquinius the regiment of a King The refuter saith they could thereby insinuating that they would not But doth he thinke that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state would endure Antibishops to be set vp against them in their Diocese And for Geneua is it not a plaine case that that state was so farre from admitting againe the gouernment of BB. that Caluin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone was faine to accept of a Presbyterie wherin twelue Citizens are ioyned to sixe Ministers neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited doth adde in the next words But euen in those Churches also where neither the good Greeke names nor the bad Latine names are vsed notwithstanding there vse to be some chiefe men in whose hands all the authoritie almost is Where therefore these be vpheld and Bishops repelled it may seeme to be but a controuersie concerning the names but when wee agree of the things why should we striue about the names At Geneua while Caluin liued he was the perpetuall president of their Ecclesiasticall Senate differing rather in name then authoritie from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten yeares had the like authoritie till Danaeus comming thither that course was altered Since which time Beza finding some inconueniences which he knew not how to redresse hath sometimes signified his desire to some whom I know wishing with all his heart that with the reformation of religion the Episcopall gouerment in that church had beene retayned And I haue beene very credibly informed that the most learned and iudicious Diuines both in France and Geneua could well be contented that the ancient gouernment by BB. were renewed among them which neede not seeme strange to vs seeing in the Church of Scotland where the Geneua Discipline had for a long time beene practised notwithstanding when the matter was referred to voices of that great number which were assembled to that purpose there were not aboue fiue which stood for the Presbyterian discipline as I haue beene informed by some that were there But there are two things more in the refuters answere to be touched the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place as holding the gouernment by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it I say against sense because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this gouernment could not be had others might be admitted and in this place I doe not onely excuse those Diuines which wanting the Episcopall gouernment brought in the Presbyteries but also commend their fact as wisely performed The other is that out of a desire of contradicting me hee denyeth the state of Geneua to be popular But let Bodin vvho could discerne betweene the diuers formes of policie be iudge betweene vs. The selfe same yeare saith he that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracie at Geneua did they of Geneua hauing expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state And after libertie was restored to
16. C. Antioch c. 9 ex ep Const. g Conc. Ephes. post aduent Episcoporum Cypr. Ad page 79. §. 12. Caluins testimony consenting with vs in the three first points handled in the Sermon Ad pag. 80. §. 13. Calu. in tit l. 4. c. 4. sect 1. Let these words before the papacy be obserued of them who say we haue receiued our gouernment from the Papists § 14. Caluins testimony that the Churches were dioceses § 15. Calums testimony that the Bishops were diocesan BB. Bez. de grad min. c. 24. Ad Pag 81. See Calu. in Act. 20.17.28 in Act. 14.23 § 2. Whether the gouernment of the whol Church and of the parts must be of one forme §. 3. The gouernment of the whole Church Aristocraticall n An. 1609. a Cypr. de Simplic praelatorum Hoc erant vtique caeteri Apostoli quod suit Petrus pari consorrio praeâ—liti honoris potâ—statis b Eiusdem sacerdotij Hier. ad Euagr. Though the gouernment of seuerall Churches be monarchicall yet it followeth not that therefore the gouernment of the Vniuersall Church shold be monarchicall Lib. 3. Epist. 13. Ad pag. 82. Wherein the Disciplinarians do agree and wherein they discent from vs. Ad pag. 33. §. 6. They hold that there must be a President of the Presbytery lib. 1. cap. 2. § 16. 17. a De grad Minist cap. 23. b De grad Minist c. 24. p. 177 c Ibid. c. 23. p. 144. 156. d Pag. 139.140 e Pag. 159.160 f Vide supr l. 1. c. 2 §. 16. They deny to the President maiority of rule g Calu. Instit. l. 4. c. 4 s. 2. h Beza de grad p. 156 157. i T. C. lâ— 110. §. 7. Beza dissenting from vs in this fourth point but with more moderation then our Disciplinarians vse §. 8. The refuter seeketh starting holes Ad pag. 84. He would restraine the Primitiue church vnto the Apostles times k Iust. l. 4. c. 4. l Parag. 4. m Confess c. 5. § 29. n De relig c. 25. § 11. o Obseru in cap. 25. aphor 10.11 §. 9. The Church vnder Constantine to be imitated of vs. The same forme of gouernment and the like authority of diocesan B.B. throughout all the times of the primitiue Church p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. l. 2. c. 24 §. 10. Of H.I. pag. 7. his distinction of BB. into 6. sorts q Lib. 5. c. 9. r Lib. 2. cap. 15 s Anno 260. t Ad Euagrium u Vide supr l. 1. c. 11. §. 4. x Had the Bishop priority of order only in respect of his parishioners § 11. T. C. his collection out of Ieromâ— words y Ad Euagr. a Conf. p. 462. Chron. â—n 251. hist. l. 6.35 c. Athanas. de sentent Dionysij Episcopi Alexandrini § 12. H. I. diocesan BB. when they began Of Patriarchs and when they began Conc. Nic. can 6. Ignat. Epist. ad Rom. Conc. Nic. c. 7. § 13. The Refuter would restraine the question to the seuen Angels onely His second starting hole Ad pag. 85. § 2. The first argument prouing that BB. were superior in degree because Aërius was counted an hertike for denying it Epiph. haer 75. Aug. haer 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haer 75. Aug. haer 53. Epiph. a Ad Euagr. b 1. Pet 5.1 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1. c Act. 1.20 d Heres 75. § 3. Obiections for Aërius answered e Epist. ad â— K. f Phil. 1.1 g Phil. 2.25 Vide Theodor. 〈◊〉 Phil. 2.25 h Chrysost. Hieronym Ambros. Theodor. Oecum c. i In Epist ad Quâ—dvulâ—de uÌ„ k August de haeres in fine § 4. Other obiections answered l In 1. Tim 3. hom 9. 10. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n In Phil. 1. o Socrat. l. 6. c. 22. p Homil. 20. ad pop Antioch in initio q Theod. l. 5. ca. 28. r Aug. quast noui vet test 101. t. 4. s Ambr. de dignit Sacerd. cap. 3. t Cap. 5. u Ambr. in 1. Tim. 3. x In â—â—ph 4. y In 1. Tim. 3. The 2. argument Antiquitie acknowledgeth 3. degrees of Ministers a Epist. 1. b Epist. 3. c Eccl. Hierarch c. 5. d De fuge in persecut de Baptismo e Homil. 7. in Ierem §. 6. Adpag B6 B7 B8 f Epist. 2. vivisuque g Ad Phil. Trall h Epist. 3. Sacerdotum fratres ordo bipartitus est i Cyprian Ambrose Ierome Augustine k Epist. 4. l Ignat. ad Trall m Ign. ad Philipp n Ign. ad Philadelph §. 7. The three orders of ministers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees 1. Tim. 3.13 o Li. 4. Epist. 2. Ad sacerdotij sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit p Sard. c. 10. lat 13. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rhetoricae vacans BalsaÌ„ r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Theodor. l. 5. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Conc. Ephes. c. 1.2.6 z Chalâ— c. 2 12. a Conâ— Carth. Graâ— c. 3. Siue Carthag 2. c. 2. b Conâ— Carth. Grae. 〈◊〉 Carth. 6. c. â— c In Encomio Athanasâ—â— d L. 1. c. 26. e Admirable f In vita Basil. g L. 7. c. 41. h Contr. Parmeâ— lib. 1. i Decret l. â— c. â—5 k Ad Eâ—agr in fine Ad Nepoti Epist. 2. Quod Aaron falios eius hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse nouimus § 8. BB. Presbyters Deacons answerable to the high Priest Priests and Leuites k Inst. l. 4 c. 6. s. 2. § 9. The Testimonies of Ignatius l Pag. 51. m Ad Smyrn That Deacons were in a degree of the ministrie n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Conc. Const. in Trullo ca. 16. s Conc. Neocaes cap. 15. t Act. 6. u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 x Have s. 20. misâ—t etiam alios 72. ad praedicandâ—m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Act. 8.5 21.8 z Cap. 15. §. 10. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 themselues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their dutie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. ad Trall Can. Apost 15. Conc. Anâ—yr cap. 2. b Cap. 18. c Apol. 2. d Tertull. de Bapt. e Cypr. passim f Conc. Elib ca. 77. g Carth. Grâ—c ca. 25. siue Carth 5. ca. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Aduers Lucifer i Conc. Carth. 4. ca. 36. k Conc. Carth. 4. c. 2.3.4 l Ca. 37. m Ca. 38. n Ca. 41. §. 11. The Refuter denieth Presbyters to haue bin minsters of the word a De baptismo §. 12. b â—lioquin etiam laicis ius est c Ad Philadelph Of the word Clerus or Clergy d Cypr. passim e In Ierem. hom 7. f De fuga in persecut Quam ipsi authores i. ipsi 〈◊〉 presbyteri episcopi fugiunt quomodo Laicus c. Cum duces fugiunt quis de
4. i Conc. Chalc. act 10. k Bals. in Conc. Eph. c. 5. l Burchard decret l. 2. c. 126. ex Conc. Parisiens §. 21. The superioritie of BB. in iurisdiction prooued by reason §. 22 Ad pag. 104. a Page 6. Ad. pag. 105. Whether BB. may be called Lords Acts 9.5 Ad page 106. Psal. 91.11 Dan. 10.11 §. 2. a Theodor. l. 1. c. 4. b Th. l. 1. c. 5. c Ibid. c. 6. d Atha Apol. 2. e Sozom. l. 3. c. 22. f Soz. l. 3. c. 23. g Greg. Naz. epist ad Greg. Nyss. h Theo. l. 4. c. 9. i Soz. l. 4. c. 13. k Constantine p. 1. apud Theodor l. 5. c. 9. l Ambros. Epist 81. m Conc. Arelat 3. n Turonens 1. Epaunens Valent. Aurelian 3. Toleta 3. c. o Socr. hist. l. 6. in prooem p Chrys. in Ps. 13. apud Caes. Baron an 58.2 q Epist. Caluin ad Cranmer r Epist. Dedic l. de 3. Elohius s Suru 131. Septemb. 15. 1589. t Luc. 22.26 u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nedibim * In Pagnia thesaur x In Luc. 22.26 y Matt. 20.20 25. z Hier. in Tit. 1. § 27. § 28. Ad pag. 107. § 1. That this treatise of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling is not superfluous though from the former points the same thing may be concluded Ad pag. 108. § 2. The question is of such BB. as were described in the former part of the Sermon and in the 2. and 3. bookes of this defence Ad pag. 109. § 3. Ad pag. 110. That the function of such BB. is of Apostolicall institution a De grad c. 23. The 1. argument because it was generally vsed in the primitiue Church b De Baptisme cont Donat. l. 4. c. 24 Epi. 118. c De praescript aduers. haeres con Marc. l. 4. d Lib. 2. pag. 2. Ad pag. 111. § 4. 4. Arguments prouing the assumption 1. Because all the Angels or gouernours of the primitiue Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles were diocesan BB. Ad pag. 112. f Con. Nic. c. 6. g Conc. Ephe. post aduentum Episcoporum Cypri h Cyp. lib. 4. epi. 2 § 5. That diocesan BB. had not their first beginning after the Apostles times i Eus. hist. l. 4. c. 1. 2. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l c. 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m lib. 4. c. 19.20.21.22 n An. 8. Antoni Christi 169. o Eus. l. 4. c. 22. § 6. The second argument from the two testimonies of Ierome p Hier. in Tit. The 1. q Ad. Euagr. r 1 Cor. 1. s Conc. Ancyr c. 16.20.21.22.23.24.25 Et Neocaes c. 2. 3. § 7. The second testimonie of Ierome in Psal. 45. t Ad. Euagr. Ad pag. 113. § 8. The third argument consisting of two parts the first affirmatiue that all Councils Histories and Fathers giue testimony to BB. u Note his reason the testimonies of the Fathers to no purpose because the antientest Councils were in the fourth age vv They be the first words of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. § 9. The second part of the third argument negatiue that no instance can be giuen to the contrary All the refuters instances either false or impertinent Hier. ad Euagr. § 10. The refuters instances out of the old writers Ignatius Iustin Martyr Tertullian a Cyp. l. 3. Epi. 19 b l. 4. Epist. 9. c l. 3. Epist. 9. d li. 3. Epist. 2. 13. l. 4. Epist. 2. e li. 1. Epist. 3. l. 3. epi. 9. 14. 15. f li. 4. Epist. 9. g li. 3. Epist. 9. 16. li. 1. Epist. 3. § 11. Cyprians testimonie examined h li. 3. Epist. 14. i Epi. 15. 16. k li. 3. Epist. 15. l li. 4. Epist. 16. m Epi. 17. 18 n L. 3. Epist. 19. o L. 3. Epist. 20. p L. 3. Epist. 18. q In Tit. 1. r lib. 3. Epist. 10 s lib. Epist. 5. lâ—b 3. Epist. 22. lib. 4. Epist. 5. t Con. Carth. 4. cap. 22. 23. § 12. The testimony of Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. The testimonies of Ierome answered u Ad Ocean in Tit. 1. Ad Euagr. (w) Hier. ad Euagr. Theodor. in 1 Tim. 3. § 13. A fourth testi +mony of Ierome misalledged aduers. Lucifer § 14. Ad pag. 114. The testimony of Augustine Epist. 19. a Aug. â— 2. Epist. 17. 18. b Ad Craâ—â—er c Erasmus in 1. Tim. 4. Theodoret. Beda Sedulius c. d Sacerdotes § 15. Allegations out of the new Writers § 16. His allegations out of new Writers answered § 17. Ad pag. 125. Allegation of Examples * I omit here how shamefully he belyeth the Doctrine of the Churches of England Wirtemberge and Sweueland as opposite to the gouernment of BB. quoting Harmon Confess Sect. 11. The Church of Sweueland is so farre from opposing it selfe to the spirituall authority of Bishops that it doth not contradict the secular power and soueraigntie of such Bishops as be Princes a Euseb. Chron. anno 174. b Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 21. 22. c Apol. 2. d Lib. 1.14 e Lib. 2.621 f Bez. in 1 Tim. 5. in Phil. 1. g Lib. 1. cap. 11. § 3. h Apologeâ— c. 39. i Praescrip contr haere § 18. Ad pag. 126. The fourth argument from the succession of BB. k Euseb. hist. Chron. l Iren. li. 3. c. 3. m Tertul de praescript Augustine Epist. 24. Christiana societas persedes Apostolorum ac successiones EpiscoporuÌ„ certa per orbem propagatione diffunditur n li. 3 cap. 1. §. 10 12. The Episcopall function not first ordained by Councils o Conc. Nic. c. 6. p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The conclusion § 19. A syllogisme concluding against the pretended discipline vpon the same groundâ— His answere to the proposition § 2. Ad pag. 128. His answer to the assumption § 3. His answere to the former part of the assumption and the proofes therof a Eus. l. 4. ca. 15. b in Apoc. coâ— 9. c Eus. l. 5. ca. 24. lib. 4. cap. 26. Sozo lib. 4. c. 24. § 4. Ad pag. 129. d Inter Orthodoxographa e In Polycarpo f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Euseb. l. 3. c. 35. § 5. The second argument prouing the assumption h Iranaeus Eusebius Epiphanius Augustine c. His ioynt answere to the former reasons § 6. The latter part of the assumption that the Episcopall function was not disallowed by the Apostles k Phil. 2.25.29 l Act. 15. 21. Gal. 1.19 m Col. 4.17 Philem. 1. n Ap. 2.13 Ad pag. 130. o Chap. 3. § 12.13.14 § 7. That Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue bin in the Apostles time p In Tit. 1. q Ad Euagr. r Catalog script s In Clemente t Ad Euagr. u Proaem in Mat. w Catalog in Marco x Ad Euagr. y In Tit. 1. § 8. The refuters argument for the Presbyterian discipline a In Tit. 1. b Ad Trall His answere to the preposition c li.
in 2 Tim. 4. m Hier. in Catalog n Chrysost. in Phil. 1. o 1 Tim. 4.14 p Prefat in Epi. 1 ad Tim. q in Ephes. 4. r â—ares 75. s Prefaâ— in 1 Tim. t in 2 Tim. 1. v in 1 Tim. 3. vv prefat in Tit. x Praesat in 1 Tim. y In 1 Tim. 1. z In 2 Tim. 1.6 a Pastor cur part 2. c. 11. b De vita morte sanctorum 87. 88. c Apud Antonin part 1. tit 6. c. 28. § 6. Vincent specul l. 10. c. 38. d Theophyl in Eph. 4. e Praefat. in 1 Tim. f Prolog in Tit. g Oecum in 1 Tim. 1. h In Tit. 1. i In Eph. 4. k Lib. 2. c. 34. l Caluâ— in Epist. ad Tim. 1. m Centur. 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Ioan. Euang. n in Tit. 1.5 o in 1 Tim. 5.19 § 19. His answere to these testimonies p T.C. l. 2. part 1.3.14 q Ad Trall r in Phil. 1.1 s Ad Trallian t In 1 Tim. 3. â— Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat v In Eph. 4. § 20. Examples of other BB. made by the Apostles a Euseb. Chron. ann 4 5. hist. l. 3. c. 22. b Ad Antioch c Iren. l. 3. c 3. d Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. l. 3. c. 4. et c. 13. 22. e Niceph. l. 14. c. 39. Greg. l. 6. Epist. 37. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 24. Hier proaem in Matt. in Catal. in Marco ad Euagr. Dor. in synops Euseb. Chron. an 65. 86. 99. f Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 22. Chron. an 63. g Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Eus. l. 3. c. 35. l. 4. c. 14. Tertull. de praescript Hier. in Catal. h Eus. l. 3. c. 23. i Iren. l. 4. c. 63. l. 3. c. 3. l. 5. Tertull. de praescripâ— k Cypr. l. 4. Epi. 9 l Hier. ad Euagr. m ad Marell de error Monta. n li. 4. c. 18. o Epist. 55. ad Ambros. p Ire 3. c. 3. q August Hier. in Psa. 44. Ad Nepotian de â— ordin Eccles. § 2. The first allegation Hier. in Tit. 1. Ad pag. 148. Catalog in Iacobo § 3. Ieromes speech vntrue in respect of Ierusalem Catalog in Iaco. Contr. Bellarm. controu 5. l. 1. c. 15. § 18. Lib. 2. c. 23. Ibid. Eusebius in his Chronicle noteth Iames to haue beene made B of Ierusalem in the same yeere wherin Christ was crucified that is according to his computation Anno 33. In respect of other Churches Ieromes testimonie doth not proue that for which it is alledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Ad pag. 149. § 5. The Presbyters gouerning the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of Presbyters and BB. is confounded § 6. The Presbyters ruling the Church by coÌ„mon counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The time in generall when BB. were first ordayned according to Ierome Ad pag. 150. a 1 Cor 1.14.16 b in 1 Cor. 4.14 c 1 Cor. 4.6 § 7. The place in generall where BB. were ordayned according to Ierome In Tit. 1. Ad pag. 151. e Ad Euagr. § 8. Ierome testifieth in particular whom where when wherfore the Apostles ordayned Bishops f Catal. in Iacobo g Catal. in Simone h Catal. in Ign. i Proaem in Mat. k Catal. in Marco l Catal. in Clem. m Catal. in Polycarp n Catal. in Timoth Tit. § 9. The end of ordayning BB. according to Ierome Aduers Lucifer In excelfjiori gradu ad Euagr. § 10. That the superioritie of BB. did not breed the Papacy Calu. Iust. l. 4. c. 4. § 4. Bez. Confes. c. 5. § 29. Zanch. de relig obseru in cap. 25. Con. Nic. c. 6. § 11. Ieromes inference vrged § 12. Ad pag. 152. The chiefe obiection that BB. are greater then Presbyters by the custome of the church not by Diuine ordinance n Phil. 1.1 Acts 20.17.28 Tit. 1.5.7 1 Pet. 5. o Epist. 19. ad Hier. § 13. The refuters reply that Ierome is not to be vnderstood as speaking of the names q Heb. 1. r Plat. Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s Hier. in Phil. 1. t Hier. in 1 Tim. 3 The second answere u Ad Euagr. Ad pag 153. vv Hier. ad Euagr. August quaest ex vet nou test 101. In vvhat sence I hold this assertion that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution Lib. 1. Epist. 3. Acts 15. Acts 20.28 § 2. That the BB. were ordained of God Ad pag. 154. a 1 Tim. 4.14 b Chrysost. hom 4. Grac. 5. latin in 1 Tim. 1. c Theodoret. d Theophil e Oecum in 1 Tit. 4. f Calu. in 1 Tim. 4. g 2 Tim. 4.5 h in Col. 4.17 sect 3. The Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine institution Ad pag. 155. 156. i Apoc. 12.1 Ad pag. 157. Ob. 1. The Episcopall gouernment so held to be of diuine institution as notwithstanding where it may not be had another forme of gouernment may be admitted § 2. Contradiction falsly obiected Ad pag. 158. § 3. Whether more reformed Churches are gouerned by the Episcopall or by the Presbyterian discipline Suru pag. 362. § 4. Ob. 2. The first and principall Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall function Ad pag. 159. § 5. Suruey pag. 110 111.112 c. a Histor. confess August per Chytr p. 109. b Apol. Confess August per Pap. pag 137. c Ibid. pag. 305. d Melanct. to Camerar in histor Confess August per Chytr p. 389. e Concion Georg. Princ. Anhalt fol. 6. f Calu. to Sadol g Artic. protest cap. de vnit Ecclesiae h Resp. protest i De Reform aduers Eccles. p. 95. k De vi vsis ministr p. 565. l De Regno Christi pag. 67. m De cura curat p. 251. n Loc. comm de Ecclesia p. 699. § 6. Iohn Wickliffe q As in that which the Refuter calleth the twelfth article and Pighius his question r Thom. Iames his Apologie for Wickliffe prouing his conformity with the now Church of England Epist. dedic cap. 8. s. 21. s In Phil. 1.1 Ordo sacerdotalis non suscipit magis mâ—nus Ad pag. 160. Bal. Centur. 6.1 § 7 Iohn Hus. u The words are dicit illam significationem extortam à scholaribus vv The refuter putteth in Priests x Hus. de Eccl. c. 7. y De Eccles. c. 10 15. z Ex Bed in Luc. 10. Ierome of Prage a Act. Mon. in the history of Ierome of Prage § 9. M. Luther c Supr §. 5. Ad pag. 161. d Camerar in vita Phil. Melancth Zuinglius e Ecclesiast Oecolampadius Ph. Melancthon Ad pag. 162. f Hist. August Confess pag. 306. g Ibid. pag. 304. h In vita Philippi Melancth Tindall i Pag. 251. k Pag. 133. 135. § 10. In precept 8. Ad pag. 164. n In Apoc. 17.3 o Act. Mon. pag. 20. edit 1570. § 11. Histor. August confes per Chytr Non agitur vt dominatio eripiatur Episcopis sâ—d hoc vnumpetitur vt patiantur Euangelium purè â—oceri See the confession of the church of Sueueland Harm confes s. 11. Ad pag. 165. Conc. Afric c. 22. Carth. Grac. â—55 § 12. De relig obseru in cap. 25. § 10. 11. Hist. August Confes. per Chytr Loc. com pag. 699. Suru 118. De repub l 2. c. 6. Anno. 1523. § 12. Ad pag. 166.
order and iurisdiction yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it For though euery Minister as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis yet it doth not follow that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions the one of the power of order and of iurisdiction for euery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply but the power of iurisdiction as he is praelatus or pastor The former he hath giuen him in his ordination the latter in his institution By the former hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments and to doe other â—spirituall actions peculiar to his order which another man who is not of that order neither can doe nor may haue leaue to doe But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation as the Pastor therof vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop who hath the charge of the whole diocesse A presbyter therefore though he haue potestatem ordinis may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation which are part of the Bishops charge vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis in his institution Againe we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise execution of it For although euery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper yet the exercise of their power is and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop to be permitted directed restrained and suspended by him This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop for the exercise of their power which euer hath beene practised in the Church doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery as the refuter malepertly speaketh nor themselues to be no ministers But plainly proueth the contrary as I haue shewed For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony His words be these Dandi baptismum ius â—abâ—t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus c. The cheif Preist which is the Bishop hath the right to giue baptisme Then the presbyters and deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church which being safe peace is safe Otherwise euen laymen haue right Where Tertullian sheweth that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops Presbyters deacons as belonging to the power of their order though for the honour and peace of the Church the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority otherwise that is extraordinarily and in case of necessity the lay man euen without the Bishops leaue hath right in Tertullians iudgement to baptize Where he saith That in Tertullians time who was himselfe a Presbyter Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers and much lesse in Ignatius time I hope he wil râ—call this foule error proceeding from extreme ignorance when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary And whereas the last testimony which I alledged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy he answereth two things the first That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times then those Ignatius loued in by that very word clergy apprâ—priated therein to the ministers which is of a far latter breed He should haue done well to haue shewed how late the breed is For I am well assured that Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius And Origen before him mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity Tertullian who liued in the same century with Ignatius distinguisheth each company of Christians as sometimes into gregem duces the flocke and the guides ecclesiâ— ordinem laicos the order of the Church meaning those which were in orders and the lay people so sometimes in ecclesiaÌ„ cleruÌ„ the assembly and the clergy The clergy also or guides he distinguisheth into these three degrees Deacons Presbyters Bishops The antient Canons called the Apostles often mention those of the clergy as opposed to the laity But if I should say that S. Peter vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense when writing to Bishops whom he calleth Presbyters himself their Compresbyter he willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not exercise lordship ouer the clergy I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient Writers and as I am perswaded to the truth Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus was first taken from that place of Peter who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament wherein it is oft said that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites For therefore are they called Clerici saith Ierome vel quia de sorte sunt Domini vel quia ipse Dominus sors i. pars clericoruÌ„ est Either because they are the Lords portion which notatioÌ„ some late writers do mislike not without cause the people also being Gods inheritance or because the Lord is their portion which is agreeable with the scriptures His other answer is that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy yet they were not Ministers for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not if he say no hee is worthy to be hissed at if yea who were these Ministers if the Presbyters and Deacons were not Besides it is plaine that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers which were trained vp in learning the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe being the seminary of the whole diocesse out of which not only euery parish both in the Citie and Country was to be furnished with Ministers but also the Bishop himselfe in the vacancie of the See was to be chosen Moreouer ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters Deacons for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon Herâ— the Presbyters deacons out of the inferior orders as of sub deacons or readers c. Wherby it is most euideÌ„t that presbyters deacoÌ„s were not such as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church hauing attained degrees