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
Episcopall to be of Apostolicall and diuine Institution yet not as generally perpetually and immutably necessarie But the pretended discipline is held by the fauourers of it so to be enioyned by diuine right that it ought generally in all places and perpetually in all ages and also immutably to be obserued as being not chaÌ„geable by man And so farre doe they differ from the Kings iudgement that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the CoÌ„mon-wealth they say the gouernement of the Common-wealth must be fashioned to the Church But to fashion the Church to the Common-wealth is as much to say as if a man should fashion his house according to his hangings And thus much hath he gained by his third vntruth The fourth remaineth Lastly it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England professed euen by the BB. themselues till of late daâ—es c. therefore vtterly false To this Antecedent I giue no credit though for proofe therof hee citeth B. Iewell and Archbishop Whitgift at randon For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church First therefore the booke of consecrating BB. Priests and Deacons which is approued Article 36. saith It is euident vnto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there haue beene these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Of which orders it is afterwards said that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church And againe the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authoritie as he hath by Gods word such as be vnquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocesse Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof written by Bishop Iewel We belieue that there be diuerse degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Priests some Bishops c. And it is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith which is not coÌ„tained in Gods word or grounded thereon Againe if it were true that the Bishops hauing better informed themselues concerning their functions had reformed their iugdemeÌ„ts according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquitie would it follow that their latter thoughts which commonly are the wiser according to the old saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were false and worthie to be confuted And lastly if this be a true proposition which in the refuters Enthymeme is vnderstood that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is euidently false though it agree with the present doctrine thereof how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be reiected which is contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine of this Church both former and latter especially the discipline of the newest stampe I meane the new-found parish discipline published by the challengers of disputation Anno 1606 maintained by this refuter which neither agreeth with our Church nor as I suppose with any other reformed Church in the world His second reason whereby hee would proue that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needfull to be confuted is because he saw it to be daÌ„gerous And that he proueth by 2. reasons The former because howsoeuer he had said in the former reason that it is euidently false and so not dangerous now he saith the doctrine is by mee so handsomely and likely handled that it is so farre from being euidently false that euery word I speake hath such an appearance and promise of truth that in imitation of Bishop Iewel against Harding hee thinkes he may fitly vse Socrates his words against his accusers or as I thinke more fitly the words of Agrippa to Paul who had vttered no vntruth that I had almost perswaded him to be of my minde But more fitly may I alledge the very next words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Among many things which my aduersarie hath obiected against me falsely I maruell much at this one that hee willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceiued by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as my aduersaries words may expound it one that can tell his tale so handsomely and carrie the matter so smoothly likely and confidently that although he vtter neuer a word of truth yet euery word hee speaketh hath an appearance and promise of truth For both my Sermons and writings shewe that I affect not the perswasorie words of humane wisedome and eloquence but the plaine stile of simple truth And therefore am no more then Socrates himselfe in that regard to be suspected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse my aduersaries call him an eloquent man and powerfull in speech who speaketh the truth Secondly he proueth my doctrine to be dangerous by an induction or particular enumeration of the hurts which as he imagineth were like to come to the Church of God thereby if it were not confuted The Papists saith hee would be much aduantaged seeing that Antichristian doctrine euen after the renewing and reuiuing of their ceremonies among vs so freely preached and published tending to the vpholding of their Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as ours his reasons being indeed the very same with theirs as in the answere to them it shall appeare The aduantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached and the ceremonies still retained among vs may through Gods blessing be this That when they see vs not so new-fangled as our Opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they haue departed from the primitiue Church but are content to obserue the ancient gouernement and lawfull Ceremonies vsed in the primitiue Church though retained by them they may be induced to ioyne with vs in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitiue Church And whereas he calleth our doctrine defending the calling of BB Antichristian and the ceremonies vsed among vs Popish it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our Opposites who call their owne doctrine and pretended discipline though lately deuised Gods owne cause the Discipline of Christ their pleading for it a giuing testimonie to this part of the word of his grace but ours though truely Catholicke and Apostolicall they tearme Antichristian and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church Dagon the tower of Babell the triple headed Cerberus the restoring of BB the building vp again the walles of Iericho my self other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the gouernement established they compare to Achabs 400. prophets and such as plead for Baal Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the vpholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as of ours God forbid In the Popish Clergy aboue BB. and Archbishops
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
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
CleruÌ„ which is translated inheritance the sacred companie Euen as we now also do call it that is to say the Clergie Which exposition if we follow then those presbyters to whoÌ„ Peter writeth prescribing vnto them how they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Caluin Episcopatu fungi exercise the office of a Bishop and noting their authority ouer the Clergie were such as we call bishops But of that by the way Now if the presbyters Act 20. were ministers and teachers as I haue proued and as all writers almost euen those that are parties in the cause do teach then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding which belongeth to pastors and teachers and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders The refuter hauing with such successe as you see endeuored to maintaine that the presbyters Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers and that the duties both generall of attending to themselues the whole flocke and also special of feeding the Church were required as common to Ministers with Lay-elders which assertions I haue confuted with euidence of truth in this exposition or opposition rather he doth so please himselfe as that hee doubteth not to retort my Syllogisme vpon me after this manner If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 be not onely ministers but gouerning Elders also and the same with those 1. Tim 5.17 then the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 are not onely ministers but gouerning elders also the same with those 1. Tim 5 17 Therefore the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also Heere this great Logick-maister that taketh vpon him to teach and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke bewrayeth himselfe to bee a Logicaster or smatterer in Logicke For an entire and a better Syllogisme concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine is here tumbled into the proposition the proposition and assumption therof not only idlely but with disaduantage to himself if he had meant to haue proued it repeated But because he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignoraÌ„ce I will teach him to make his sillogis thus The Presbyters to whom Paul did speake Acts 20.28 were not ministers onely but Lay or gouerning Elders also The Presbyters of whom hee speaketh I. Tim. 5.17 were the Presbyters to whom he spake Acts. 20 28. Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh Tim. 5.17 were not onely ministers but Lay or onely gouerning Elders also This propositioÌ„ which is but part of his own assumption wheÌ„ he shal be able to make good by any sound proofe I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith that hee hath already iustified it by the ouerthrow of mine it is a most vaine bragge as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader For what one reason or shew of reason hath hee brought or can bring to proue that the Presbyters mentioned Acts. 20. were Lay or onely gouerning Elders CHAP. VI. Maintaining the third reason that Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 11. And that hee speaketh not there of Lay or onely gouerning-Elders it may further be prooued by plaine euidence out of the text For seeing by honour in that place the Apostle vnderstandeth honourable maintenance which by their owne confession is not due to Lay-Elders it is therefore certaine that this place acknowledgeth none such Thus therfore I argue To all those Elders who are mentioned or meant in this place the honour of maintenance is due for their worke sake To the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Therefore the Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant in this place c to pag. 13. THe refuter hauing neither learning enough to beare the weight of this argumeÌ„t nor wit enough to forbeare it in answearing therto he vttereth more gall then would well become an honest man The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leaue to himselfe The virâ—s and force of his arguments and answeres I will take vpon me plainely to confute and both here and euery where else by the helpe of God to put him to silence First as his manner is though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogisme to be most true and vndoubted yet he must needs cauill with it And because hee hath nothing to say against it hee hopeth with it to wound some of our side who among other interpretatioÌ„s of this place haue thought the former part of this Text might more probably be vnderstood of not preaching Ministers or Deacons c then of Lay-Elders And although I would bee loth to become a Proctor for vnlearned Ministers especially when learned may be had yet thus much I will say that if the Disciplinarians doe rightly ground vpon this place a distinction of Presbyters into two sorts that there be some preaching Presbyters some not then this text doth without coÌ„parison fauour the not preaching ministers more theÌ„ the Lay-elders Because it is a most certaine truth which I haue manifestly proued and which the refuter will neuer be able to disproue that by Presbyters ministers only are meant As for DeacoÌ„s I meane not your Lay Deacons D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them vnder Presbyters then your W. T. had vnder the name of Deacons to vnderstand your Lay-Elders though T.C. himselfe did subscribe to his opinion And wheras you challenge those reuerend men for seeking by warraÌ„t of this place to surcharge the Church with maintenance of vnpreaching Ministers and Deacons I answere they do not hold that in euery parish such ought to be maintained as you would haue your Presbyterie erected in euery parish but where better more sufficient Ministers cannot be had which was the case of many parishes in England at the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne c. But all his spite is against the assumption though hee spend his spite neither in disproouing it with force of argument nor in answering my proofes with any substaÌ„ce of reason but in sophistical cauilling odious wrangling For wheÌ„ he hath said what he was able I cannot tell whether he doth denie the assumption or graunt it onely hee cauilleth with my proofes of it My assumption was this To Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Hereunto I require a direct answere If hee say that the honour of maintenance yea double honor that is as not only Theodoreâ— but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentifull maintenance is due vnto them he should haue brought sufficient proofes both to confute the iudgement of those learned Diuines who reformed as directors other Churches and condemne the practise of all reformed Churches which hauing those Presbyters doe not
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
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
common to attend the whole flocke conuerted For that which is added of labouring the conuersion of the residue c. is the errour forsooth which before he noted How proueth he these points to be false Thus whome can M.D. perswade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies wherein the teachers and hearers should euery day so disorderly be changed And then putteth the like case of a schoole himselfe being worthy to be put into a cloake-bagge For in which of these points doth this orderly vnconfounded man note such disorder and confusion or was not the confused conceite he speaketh of in his own braine Let him call to mind what euen now hee said in oppugning the proposition that euery one of the churches then was but one parish which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers Do we not see the like saith he in the French Duch churches here in England concludeth that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times and none but such Tell me then is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into seuerall parishes which is the first point If they be how are they but one Parish Are their ministers supposing them to be as he saith many as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the diuision of the parishes are they assigned to seueral titles that is parishes or cures If their Church be not diuided into diuers parishes how can their Presbyters be assigned to diuers which is the 2. point Thirdly doe not their ministers communi consilio mutuo auxilio by common counsel and mutuall helpe attend their whole flocke none of them being appointed to a seuerall charge And yet all this I hope without disorder or confusion That therefore which hee bableth in the greatest part of the page concerning disorder and confusion is wholy to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Yea but M.D. telleth vs that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flocke So saith S. Luke Act. 20.28 What of that if they were to attend the whole flocke in cōmon then were they not assigned to seuerall parishes which were but parts of the flocke to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted Doth either of them say that a flocke was any more then one ordinarie assembly and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocesse Either of whome hee had mētioned none but S. Luke onely But let that passe For to what purpose doth he aske whether Luke said that a flocke was any more then one assembly If the flocke were but one assēbly that which I proposed is the more confirmed For if they were to attend al one assembly thē were they not assigned to seueral parishes But yet I would haue him know that the word flock the word ecclesia or church which there the word people which in other places is vsed as a word of the same signification is of a larger extēt then to signifie onely one assembly The flocke is that for which Christ the good shepheard did giue his life vnto which appertained the sheep which his father gaue him not only amōg the Iewes but the Gentiles also And this flock is that Church which God meaning Christ who is God in that place of the Acts is said to haue redeemed with his bloud that people of his which he saueth frō their sins And as this is spoken of the Church in generall so the company of them that belong to Christ in any Nation Prouince Diocesse City or Parish may bee called the Flocke the Church the people of God Neither doe I doubt for the reasons before alleadged but that the flock in which those Presbyters Act. 20. were set as ouerseers was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus and the Country adioyning where he saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily vsed of beasts and fowles that heard and flocke together I confesse it is beyond the compasse of my reading who neuer read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to fowles but haue found the word vsed properly for a flocke of sheepe and metaphorically for the flocke of Christs sheepe but that flocke is not one onely particular congregation For Luke 12.32 Iohn 10.16 as touching the word Ecclesia which he denieth to signifie any other outward company of men then a particular congregation only I haue already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But heare his conclusion if my that is if the word Ecclesia doth not signifie any other then a particular congregation what truth is there in his assumption that denieth parishes to bee distinguished he would haue said to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue been assigned to their seuerall titles or cures This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance vntill as you haue seene him deny it before so you shall see him againe and againe to deny it Jn the meane time I beseech you how is it inferred If the word Church signifie onely a particular congregation and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set Act. 20.28 therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to haue beene distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures Who seeth not that the contrary is to bee inferred Jf the word Church did signifie one congregation and was in euery City but one and if such was the flocke which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common then it followeth that the flocke was not diuided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to seuerall cure◠And so the assumption by his owne inference is proued to be true This and thus weakly saith the refuter hath M.D. proued the point of so great importance And thus and thus stongly say I hath our refuter disproued it Now let the iudicious Reader iudge whether my weakenesse hath not been of sufficient force to ouerthrow his strength CHAP. V. Answering their obiection who say that in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in each great Citie were but one particular congregation assembling in one place NOw wee are to examine their proofes And first that which I obiected for them and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himselfe Serm. sect 4. page 19. Against this which hath been said they doe obiect that in the first two hundred yeeres c. 16 lines Here the refuter chargeth me that I making shew of taking away what euer can bee said against my assertion doe propound but one onely bare obiection whereas diuers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers haue been alleaged by others c. Thus makes he no conscience either of belying me who onely intended to answere that which I tooke to be their chiefe obiection and had of
in the first 100. yeeres Concerning Rome I haue proued already that within the first 200. yeeres it was diuided into many parishes and therefore although there bee not so good euidence for other Cities in particular yet the like is to bee concluded of them seeing they were all of the same constitution Passing by therefore his proposition I take hold of his assumption and doe plainely denie the Churches he speaketh of or any other which had a Bishop and Presbyterie to haue beene for the first two hundred yeeres no more but parishes for J doubt not but it is easier to proue that within this terme not onely the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses but also the Bishops in the same Prouinces were subiect to the Bishops of these three Cities For as it is euident of Antioch by the testimonie of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria so no reason can bee alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth who in the third centurie and in the ages following were Metropolitans were not so in the second or if they were Metropolitans in the third and in the ages following as most certainely they were why they should not haue beene Diocesans at the least in the second The assumption hee saith appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars But what doth he prooue of the particulars Are his syllogismes so soone come to an end His chiefe proofes be that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one Congregation Was this your assumption You that are so strict in exacting syllogismes and direct proofes should not haue sought to carrie away the matter as it were in the cloudes Yea but that which he prooueth doth prooue the assumption That shall thus bee tried by his owne forme of argumentation If those Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place then were they for the first 200. yeeres each of them but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore for the first 200. yeeres they were each of them but one parish The proposition is omitted by the disputer as taken for granted but therein he hath plaied the sophister for he that meaneth truly doth not vse to omit any part of his argument but that which is certaine or confessed But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught for if hee had onely said thus If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres they were so the consequence had beene starke naught or if he had onely said If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation then were they each one parish that consequence also had beene naught but when he saith If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres each of them was but a parish that consequence is as I said worse then naught That the first of the two consequences is naught it is euident for though at the first conuersion of any great City and for a while after the number vsually was so small that they might haue assembled in one place yet it is certaine that within 200. yeeres their number was growne to bee almost innumerable as hath beene shewed and therefore too great to make one ordinarie congregation This one exception if no more should bee added ouerturneth all his dispute As touching the second though it should bee granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarilie assemble together in one place yet would it not follow that therefore each of them was but a parish and much lesse which is the end of all this disputation that all Churches endued with ecclesiasticall power should be but parishes and consequently that euery parish should haue a Bishop and presbyterie The reasons of my deniall of these consequences I haue before set downe at large Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I haue sufficiently ouerthrowne already For a surplussage I adde these two reasons First If these Churches because they were each of them but one Congregation were parishes before the diuision of parishes then were they such Churches as after the diuision parishes were This consequence may not be denied especially by them who would haue all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches But they were not such for the parishes after their diuision had not a Bishop and presbyterie but only a Presbyter assigned to them neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent ouer others neither was any of them intended to bee a mother Church Secondly if that assumption was false which denied parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But he said before that that assumption had no truth in it These two iust exceptions I haue against his consequence If against the former it bee obiected that some of his testimonies doe seeme to prooue that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation I answer that his maine argument and proofes thereof doe speake of the Apostles time Those which are extended further shall bee further examined Now I come to his assumption for though I doe not denie but that at the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soone after their conuersion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation yet I cannot yeeld to all his proofes His proofes be either allegation of Scriptures or other testimonies His Scriptures for Corinth are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians and Rom. â—6 1 for Ephesus Act. 20.28 for Antioch Act. 14.27 Now let vs consider the date of his testimonies and then what is testified in them The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome which was in the yeere 5â— or â—6 Which I do note to shew to what time his proposition is to bee restrained as if hee had said If before the yeere 55. or â—6 they were but one congregation then they were no more vntill the yeere 200. The thing that is testified for Corinth 1. Cor 11. is such as might bee written to the Church of England as verse 18. When you come into the Church I beare there bee schismâ—s among you vers 20. When you come together in the same place this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord vers 33. When you come together to eat expect one another Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae whereof mention hath beene made now thrice to no purpose vnlesse it bee against himselfe for if Câ—nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth as most certainly it was it selfe hauing not a Bishop or presbyterie but a
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
and Presbyter were at the first all one yet professeth that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the Bishop c. Hauing passed by these two hee professeth to begin with Wickliffe whom hee would faine haue the Reader beleeue to haue beene a Marprelate or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops But howsoeuer either Papists through malice or Protestants for want of information haue in some points so conceiued of him of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some yet those who haue perused his writings protest that not onely for doctrine but also for discipline hee was wholy conformable to the present Church of England approuing the gouernment of Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons c. And whereas the Rhemists obiect against Wickliffe that he had renued the heresie of Aerius D. Fulke answereth thus It appeareth by many places of Wickliffe his works and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and gouernment although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments they are all one Indeed in the booke of Martyrs where be eighteene articles obiected against Wickliffe though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth nor that which Pighius obiecteth against him is contayned in that number the which articles he explaneth Among which the fifteenth is this that euery Priest rightly and duely ordered according to the law of grace hath power according to his vocation whereby he may minister the Sacraments and consequently absolue any man confessing his fault being contrite and penitent for the same Which article when he came to expound hee gaue this reason because that the order of Priesthood in his owne nature and substance receiueth no such degrees either of more or lesse And yet notwithstanding the power of inferiour Priests in these dayes be vpon due consideration restrayned and sometimes againe in time of extreame necessitie released And thus according to the Doctors a Prelate hath a double power to wit the power of order and the power of Iurisdiction or regiment And according to the second power the Prelates are in an higher maiestie and regiment Thus haue I recited word for word what is set downe in the booke of Martyrs the words whereof the Refuter depraueth making Wickliffe to say the order of Priesthood receiueth no degrees of more or lesse howsoeuer the Doctors say that the Prelate hath a double power c. Whereby he would make the Reader beleeue that he differed from those Doctors with whom he doth agree affirming as many others haue done who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops that in the power of order all Priests are equall though Bishops haue also the power of Iurisdiction wherein they are superiour to other Priests To the same purpose is alledged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons which the Papists themselues holde diuiding Priests â—nto Maiores which be Bishops and Minores which be Presbyters Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not vnlesse it were to shew his more exquisite reading then other mens hauing belike read there something concerning this cause which no man else is able to read or to finde But I had almost forgotten his first allegation which the Refuter pretending such plenty might well haue omitted as impertinent For though he enuied against the excessiue lordlinesse and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops Yet doth it not proue that he was an enemie to the superiority of Bishops or the substance of their calling And whereas with Wickliffe hee ioyneth the Waldenses whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius it is euident by the booke of Martyrs in their story that they acknowledged these three degrees Bishops Priests and Deacons Artic. 7. And therefore is vntruly layd to their charge by Aeneas Syluius that they held no difference of degrees among Priests vnlesse perhaps by Priests be meant Bishops The next is Iohn Hus saith the Refuter who was charged by the Pope and his officers to erre First in that he held not nor allowed that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinals Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them but affirmed that signification to be drawne out of the Schoole-men Secondly that he auouched all Priests to be of like power and therefore the reseruation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops and consecration of Clerks was inuented onely for couetousnesse Thirdly that he held that euery man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of soules Whereto I answere first that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis but I doe not read that either he acknowledged them to be true or that he was condemned for them Secondly in the book of Martyrs and also in his Story prefixed before his works it is said that of the articles which were obiected against him there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true This therefore is the refuters argument Iohn Hus was accused by his malicious aduersaries who made no conscience of accusing him falsly that hee held all these articles therefore all these were his opinions But if it be sufficient to accuse as the Emperour said who can be innocent the godlyest Martyrs neuer wanted accusers whom if the refuter should therfore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused he should shew himselfe a wise man But so he dealeth with Iohn Hus he was accused of these opinions therefore he held them Wherfore he must either proue that Hus did acknowledge them to be true or else what doth hee but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him But suppose the first of these three were his what will the refuter inferre thereof he did not hold nor allowe that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinalls Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them therefore hee did not allowe the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops Michael de Causis his accuser for this article quoteth his booke de Ecclesia where I finde this assertion by the allegation whereof you may guesse how he was vsed in the rest that the Pope of Rome with his Cardinalls is not the whole body of the vniuersall Church but a part and that the Pope is not the head thereof but Christ. The which assertion hee opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors who held first that the Romane Church is the Church vniuersall that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head and the colledge of Cardinalls the body Which assertion if you shall compare with his aduersaries allegation and apply to the refuters purpose you shall perceiue the malice of the one and folly of the other For the second article his accuser doth not quote any of his bookes but saith thus aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles wherein there is
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.