complaine of the want of such Elderships Now that Ambrose was such a one as I affirme in the assumption I will manifestly proue in answering the refuters cauills For hee as being ledde with a spirit of contradiction after his vsuall manner graunteth neither proposition nor assumption nor any one braunch of them to bee true Which course mee thinks should discredit him with all indifferent Readers who may discerne him to write not out of conscience but out of a resolution to cauill and contradict especallie if they consider that hitherto though he would scarcely graunt any thing to be true that I had saide yea in his preface auowed that I haue scarce vttered one true word yet he hath not bene able to proue any one thing which I deliuered to be false And such will his successe be in the rest That hee might fit this Argument to his owne strength he hath cast it as his manner is into a connexiue syllogisme For it is an easy thing to frame a connexion when he hath done to denie the consequence But yet belike this consequence was too strong for him to deale with whiles the Medium consisting of 3. branches was bound together therfore he dissolueth it taking euery branch by it selfe indeuouring like a grosse headed Sophister to perswade the Reader that because hee can bow euery twigge seuerally therefore the whole bundle or fagot is weake For the 3. branches being ioyned together as they are in the proposition the conscience of the Reader will I doubt not giue testimony to the manifest truth of the proposition vnderstood as I explaned it But though it be to no purpose if he can bend breake the branches seuerally yet we will trie his dealing that way and what he weakneth by dissoluing I will streÌ„gthen by vniting And first he saith this consequence is naught If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop vnderstand who magnified his own calling and could not abide that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to the censures of Lay-men then would he not giue testimony to Lay-Elders he should haue said then would he not haue complained of the want of Lay-Elders who were neuer thought to be wanting where Bishops were thought to be lawfull And why because D. Whitgift was a Bishop yea an Archbishop and D. K. would be a Bishop and yet both giue testimonie to Lay-Elders Because D. Whitgifts graunt is oft laid in our dish the Reader is to know First that he denieth Lay-Elders could be proued out of the scriptures Secondly he graunteth they had bene in vse as Caluin others had testified taking it vpon their credit being loth either to contradict those famous learned men or to impeach the credit of those Churches where the Presbyteries were erected Which course of not contradicting them had still bin held if the Elders had not bene obtruded as Christs ordinance to extrude those who in respect of their first institution were ordained of God Thirdly B. Whitgift was so farre from complaining of the want of Layâ—Elders that he was a chiefe instrument of God vnder the Prince to keepe them out The testimony which D. K. giueth to your Lay-Elders appeareth by his Sermon where for confuting your Presbyteries you say hee spitteth out much poyson against these Elders and spendeth much gall vpon them God grant the poyson of Aspes be not vnder your lippes and that your selfe be not in the gall of bitternes who so virulently bitterly vse to raile on men of so good note in Gods Church But his testimonie concerning your Elders is so farre from complaining of the want of them as that he doth not onely say but also proue at large that there neuer were nor yet do need to be such Only you catch hold of his exposition of Ambrose his speech which as he saith may well be vnderstood of Elders in yeares experience and grauitie hauing some temporary coÌ„mission to assist in ordering the Church but not such as your Lay-Elders It is very true that although Seniores or Presbyteri bee a name of order signifying Ministers and Priestes yet according to the originall signification therof it is vsed by Tertullian and heere by Ambrose as appeareth by the occasion of his words as opposed to the Iuniores of the Clergy And so not only Luther vnderstandeth the word as you heard before but Ambrose so speaketh else-where shewing that it was not needfull that the Iuniores the younger men of the Clergie should goe to the houses of Widowes and Virgins but onely to visit them hoc cum senioribus and that with the Seniors or elder sort of the Clergie that is with the Bishop or with the Presbyters if there be great cause Secondly he reiecteth this consequence if Ambrose did labour to magnifie the calling of Bishops then was it not his meaning c for saith he Suâ—tonius or Tacitus might magnifie the excellencie of the Monarchy and yet confesse that the state of Rome had beene democraticall or might they not complaine that the aduise of the Senators was not now regarded without whose counsell Tiberius in his fiue first yeares would doe little or nothing Yea did not Samuel magnifie the monarchicall gouernement vnder Saul and â—et testifie that they had beene otherwise gouerned yea and complaine that the forme was altered These examples vnlesse they had beene better fitted are to little purpose If he could haue said A Monarch labouring not onely to iustifie but to magnifie the royall calling and not enduring that Monarches and Princes should be subiected either to the Senate or people would notwithstanding complaine that the state is not either Aristocraticall or popular he had fitted the example though he had spoken vntruely For if Suetonius and Tacitus had beene Emperours and such as did magnifie the Monarchicall gouernement and could not abide either that the coÌ„mon-wealth should be ruled by the multitude or themselues ouer-ruled of the greater part of the senate then would they not complaine that the gouernement was not Democratical or Aristocratical But thus he might haue said both fitly and truely As a good king mislyking that some of his predecessors had managed all things without the aduise of their senatours might coÌ„plaine that through their pride or temeritie the aduise of the senators was neglected so Ambrose a good Bishop seeing the Bishops not to regard the aduise of their ancient Presbyters that is Ministers as it were their senatours without whose aduise nothing of importance was wont to be done in the Church might also complaine that their counsell and assistance was growne out of vse through the slouthfulnes or pride of the Bishops As for Samuel if either the state before was Monarchicall or if he had magnified the Monarchicall gouernement of the Iewes when Saul was set ouer them he had had little reason to complaine for the altering of that gouernement into a Monarchy But the state before had beene Monarchicall neither did Samuel magnifie
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach as most plainly appeareth by comparing that place with Tit. 1.5 7.9 Socrates reporteth that in Caesarea of Cappadocia and in Cyprus on the Saterdaies and Lords daies in the euening 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters and B B. expound the scriptures § Sect. 5. As touching the custome of Alexandria in restraining the Presbyters from preaching he saith that it began after Arrius troubled the Church and Sozomen likewise that it was not the custome before Arrius being a Presbyter by his preaching broached his new opinions And this is most plainely testified by Epiphanius who saith that Arrius was a Presbyter in Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was Rector of the Church called Baucalis for all the Catholicke Churches saith he in Alexandria are vnder one Archbishop and to them seuerally are assigned Presbyters whereof when he had named some he saith in one of these was Colluthus in another Carpones in another Sarmatas Arrius in another Now it is manifest that euery one of these at their accustomed meetings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching the people committed to their charge in their Sermons made diuision in the people whereof some inclined to Arrius othersto Colluthus some to Carpones others to Sarmatas And as they taught diuersly in their seuerall Churches some one thing some another so the people called themselues some Arrians some Colluthians c. Neither was it the custome of the Churches of Affrica as T.C. gathereth that Presbyters should not preach at all but that they might not preach nor administer the communion in the presence of the Bishop And that was it which both Valerius granted to Augustine being a Presbyter potestatem coram se in Ecclesia Euangelium predicandi power to preach the Gospell in the Church himselfe being present contrarie to the vse and custome of the Affrican Churches and also nonnulli Episcopi not all but some Bishops found fault with Whose reprehension Valerius regarded not because he knew it was the custome in the East Churches as appeareth by Chrysostomes homilies at Antioch And some other Bishops euen Aurelius himselfe the Bishop of Carthage were so farre from finding fault with Valerius that they followed his example Insomuch that some other Presbyters hauing receiued the like power began to preach the word to the people Coram Episcopis in the presence of the Bishops But that so learned a man as T. C. should be so transported with preiudice as to thinke that Augustine was a Lay-presbyter I cannot sufficiently wonder especially considering that Valerius when he had ordained him Presbyter reioyced and gaue thankes to God who had heard his prayers in sending such a one as might verbo Dei doctrina salubri Ecclesiam Dei aedeficare edifie the Church of God with the word of God and wholesome doctrine Ierome such another Lay-Presbyter no doubt though hee grant that the Presbyters may not celebrate the Communion in the presence of the Bishop standing at the Altar for so his words are Nec ego dico presentibus Episcopis c though in Gratian it be corruptly written Ecce ego dico yet he saith it was a very bad custome in some Churches that Presbyters might not preach in the presence of Bishops And such was the custome of the Church of Rome as appeareth by Leo who denieth it to be lawfull for Presbyters in the presence of the Bishop vnlesse he command them either to administer the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ or to teach the people c. The Councell of Vaux held not long after Ambrose his time decreed for the edification of all Churches and for the profite of the whole people that not onely in cities but also in parishes the Presbyters should haue power giuen them to preach And if by any infirmitie the Presbyter were hindered so that he could not preach by himselfe that then the Deacon should read some homily of the Fathers To conclude it seemeth strange to me that they who out of the Fathers would proue the Presbyters to be equall to the BB. in power of order as indeed they are excepting the power of ordination for as Ierome saith excepting ordination what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter may not doe equall I say in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments should denie they were Ministers or that to preach or to administer the Sacraments did not belong to them by reason of their office Ambrose saith of a Presbyter and Bishop there is one order vterque enim sacerdos est for either of them is a Priest There remaine the lawes and discipline peculiar to Presbyters as being of the sacred ministerie As for example that Presbyters and Deacons should not be chosen ex plebe out of the people or laitie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the sacred order or Clergie That as in the Counsell of Nice it was attempted so in some others concluded that Presbyters and Deacons should lead a single life that he which had married a widow or was the husband of a second wife might not be a Presbyter That they might not take vpon them worldly busines not so much as Gardianship that they might not remoue from citie to citie or from one Church to another without the leaue of the Bishop that they might not goe into a Tauerne and such like It is therefore most euident that howsoeuer the Bishops were called the Doctors yet the Presbyteri also were Ministers Neither can any one instance be giuen of a Presbyter either in or before or after Ambrose his time who was not a Minister For howsoeuer T. C. affirmeth that this Eldership of theirs continued in the Church diuerse hundred yeares after Ambrose his time which doth not well agree with his exposition or reading of Ambrose yet being chalenged by D. Whitgift to shew any one testimonie and auouching that he could not produce any one he answereth thus The next I leaue to the Readers iudgement For the third there was great necessitie that the Bishops in the primitiue Church when they had neither the assistāce of the Magistrate nor direction of Ecclesiasticall lawes should vse the Councell and assistance of wise and learned men For which cause Cyprian to auoid both ouersights in himselfe and offence in others resolued to doe nothing of moment without the common councell and aduise of his Clergie and for the same cause was Chrysostome accused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie he made ordinations And that Presbyters were wont to heare causes and to assist the B. it appeareth by the testimonies first of Ignatius who calleth the Presbytery the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consistorie of God a band of Apostles and the Presbyters the Councellers and Coassessors of the Bishops 2. of Tertullian president probati
conclusion labouring as we say clauum clauo pellere and vndertaking to make me see if I will not shut mine eyes the contradictory of that conclusion to be true which notwithstanding cannot be false the premisses being true And first he denyeth that Ambrose spake by guesse as I say but certaienly and vpon knowledge when Ambrose his expresse words bee these Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio nisi forte c which by what negligence it is growne out of vse I know not vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes c. 2. He saith it might be a matter of slothfulnes in the BB to suffer the seniors to neglect their duties But not to their own so great trouble will M D. say we might belieue him if wee saw not pride driue men to vndertake more then they either need to be charged with or are able to weeld Then is it not their slothfulnes belike that caused them to take the whole burden vpon themselues but their pride which made them winke at the seniors slothfulnes as giuing way to their owne ambition Thirdly he saith the Bishops might prouide for their owne ease by putting off the burthen to their Chancellors Commissaries Officialls c therefore it might be imputed to them as a matter of sloth or idlenesse pride to and so the word Doctorum rightly expounded for Pastors of Parishes alone and not to Diocesan Bishops As thogh their Parish-Bishops were more likely to haue had Chauncellours c then Diocesan BB But I answere 1. the question is not what they might haue done but what they did Now it is euident that in Ambrose his time and a good while after till the Presbyteries were in a manner whollie neglected the Bishops had not ordinary vicars or chancellors or ordinary Commissaries which were not of the Clergie But what they did without the aduise of their Seniors they performed ordinarily in their owne persons or else extraordinarily delegated the same to some of speciall trust In some cases it is euident that both then and long after they vsed the assistance of their Presbyterie as in the iudgement of Heresie or for deposing of a clergie man c. Siricius the B. of Rome in an Epistle to Ambrose denouncing Iouinian Auxentius c. for heretickes sheweth that for their triall his whole presbyterie had beene assembled and saith that by the common consent of his whole clergie they were condemned for heretickes The 4. councell of Carthage as you heard ordained that the Bishop should heare mens causes in the presence of his clergie The 2. councel of Towers decreed that a Bishop might not depose an Archpresbyter without the counsell of all his compresbyters But whom negligence casteth out let him with the counsell of the presbyters be remoued The councell of Carthage appointed that in the cause of a Presbyter sixe and of a Deacon three Bishops should be joyned with their own Bishop because as the coūcell of Ciuill determined one Bishop may to Priests and ministers that is Presbyters Deacons giue their honour but one alone may not take it from them but in the cause of inferiour Clergie men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop alone of the place shall heare and determine it viz. in the presence of his Clergie according to the aforesaid Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage But as in some cases they vsed the counsell of the Presbyteri so in others they did for the most part vndergoe the whole burthen themselues For the proofe whereof the examples of Ambrose and Augustine may suffice For Ambrose was so occupied in hearing and determining mens causes that he had so little time left him for his corporall repast or spirituall studies that Augustine could neuer finde him at leisure to breake his minde vnto him And Augustine was so encombred with hearing of causes that scarcely he could haue the forenoone for his studies the afternoone being wholly taken vp with other mens busines neither could he when the Councels of Numidia and Carthage had imposed a taske vpon him and when his people had promised to forbeare him for fiue dayes obtaine so much breathing time from their affaires But when hee was olde and was desirous to spend the rest of his time in writing and in the studie of the scriptures he nominated Eradius to be his successor in most earnest manner requiring and charging the people that they would suffer him to put off the burden of those imployments to him Possidonius giueth him this testimonie that he heard mens causes diligently sometimes to the hower of repast sometimes fasting the whole day but alwaies himselfe had the cognisance of them and determined them The Emperour Iustinian prouided by law that in Ecclesiasticall causes ciuill iudges should haue nothing to doe sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat but let the holy Bishop according to the Sacred Canons determine the cause As for ordinarie Vicars Chancellors or Commissaries which were Lay-men in those times the Bishops had none for not so much as the steward of the Church might be a Lay-man whereupon Gregorie writing to Ianuarius a Bishop chargeth him to take heed that Ecclesiasticall matters be not committed to secular men but to some approued of the Clergie And the second Councell of Ciuil penned as it seemeth by Isidor who was president thereof pronounceth it an vnseemely thing Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi seculares in ecclesia iudicare that a Lay-mā should be the Bishops Vicar that secular men should iudge in the Church for in one and the same officer there must not be different profession Which hauing confirmed out of Deuteronomie it inferreth wherefore it behoueth vs to obey Gods booke and the preceps of the holy Fathers ordaining that they who shal be associated to Bishops in Church-gouernement may not differ neither in profession nor habit Notwithstanding that they extraordinarily committed to others or delegated causes to be heard appeareth by the aforesaid example of Augustine But more clearely by the practise of Siluanus a godly Bishop of Troas not long after Ambrose his time who perceiuing that they of the Clergie made gaine of the contentions of them who came to be iudged he would not at any time appoint a iudge of the Clergie but himselfe receiuing the petitions of Suiters would make choise of some faithful man or other of the laitie whom he knew to be a louer of iustice and to him he would commit the hearing of the cause and for this cause Socrates saith he was greatly renowmed Out of which examples we may note that causes were wont to be brought to the Bishop that he heard them himselfe if he had leisure otherwise that he committed the hearing of the cause to some of his Clergie but yet so as if he saw cause he might make choise of some other whom he durst better trust Secondly I
of the sacred Ministery such as Presbyters and Deacons are with vs. And so much of my second argument The third is taken from the testimony of the great Councell of Chalcedon and may thus briefly be framed It is sacriledge to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter Therefore BB. were superior to Presbyters in degree not onely de facto but also de iure But what is this saith he to the Apostles times and the age following Indeed if the Councell had testified the superiority of Bishops de facto onely there had been some colour for this exception especially if he could haue proued an alteration in the state of Bishops and the aduancement of them to a higher degree to haue begun after the first two hundred yeeres But seeing no such matter can truly be alleaged and seeing also that famous Councell giueth testimony to the superiority of Bishops not only de facto but also de iure and that in such sort as it deemeth it sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it cannot therefore bee denied but that this is a most pregnant testimony if it bee rightly alleged Let vs therefore coÌ„sider the occasion of those words which in the copie whereon Th. Balsamo doth comment and in some manuscript Greeke copies is the twenty nine canon of that Councell When Eustathius Bishop of Berytum for so I find him termed diuers times in the Acts of that Councell in Euagrâ—m in Photius and Balsamo and not of Tyre as in Tilius his Greeke edition it is corruptly printed when Eustathius J say had withdrawne diuers Bishopricks from the Metropolitan Church of Tyrus deposing the Bishops whom Photius the Bishop of Tyrus had ordained and bringing them downe to the degree of Presbyters complaint was made to the great Councell of Chalcedon and the matter therein in propounded by the Princes in these words Concerning the Bishops ordained by Photius and degraded by Eustathius and after they had been Bishops commanded to be Presbyters what is the senteÌ„ce of this holy Synod Whereto Paschasinus and Lucentiuâ— Bishops and Bonifaciuâ— Presbyter vicegerents of the Church of Rome answered To reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Presbyter it is sacrilege if any iust cause depose them from their Bishopricke neither ought they to retaine the place of Presbyters But if without any crime they haue beene remoued from their honour they shall returne againe to their episcopall dignity Anaâ—olius the Archbishop of Constantinople said These Bishops who are said to haue descended from the episcopall dignity vnto the order of Presbyters if for iust cause they are condemned neither are they worthy of the honour of Presbyters But if without any reasonable cause they haue been deiected to a lesse degree they are worthy if they be blamelesse to recouer againe the dignity and priesthood of their Bishopricke If you thinke that these were but the priuate opinions of these men heare the censure of the whole Councell All the reuerend Bishoppes cried Righteous is the iudgement of the Fathers wee all say the same things the Fathers haue decreed iustly let the sentence of the Archbishops hold My fourth argument is drawne from the testimony of Ierome whose authority in this cause ought to be of greatest weight because he is the onely man almost among the fathers whom the Disciplinarians can alledge against the superiority of Bishops Ierome therefore saith that at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius Bishops euermore the presbyters hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in exceâ—siori gradu in an higher degree called him Bishop euen as an armie chooseth a Generall This testimony the Refuter eleuateth in two respects The first because Ierome is vnder age Which is a very simple euasion For Ierome doth not onely testify what was in his time but also giueth plaine euidence that in the first two hundred yeeres euen from S. Marke vntill Heraclas Bishops were placed in a superior degree aboue Presbyters Secondly because Bëllarmine alleageth the sâ—me testimony to the same purpose whose allegation is answered by Châ—mier whose answer if I like not he bids me try what I can say in defence of Bellarmine against it To omit how odiously this is set downe I doe professe that I may with better credit agree with Bellarmine wherein he consenteth with all antiquity then the Refuter and his consorts can agree with Aërius wherein he dissenting from all antiquity was by Epiphanius Philaster Augustine and all the Catholike Church in his time condemned for an heretike But let vs heare his answers First that Ierome proueth by the practise of the Church of Alexandria that which before he had demonstrated out of the Scriptures to wit that a Presbyter and a Bishop differ not Neither doth he call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist This answere might become our refuter better then Chamier For first it is vntrue that Ierome in these words proueth that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ not For doth hee not plainly say that the Bishop was placed in a higher degree and doth hee not compare him in respect of the Presbyters which chose him to the Chieftaine or Generall chosen of the Army Secondly he faileth in setting downe Ieromes purpose which was not to prooue there was no difference betwixt Bishoppes and Presbyters but to prooue that Presbyters were superior to Deacons That he proueth by many arguments First because the name Episcopus Bishop in the Scriptures is giuen to Presbyters Secondly because the Apostles and Bishops are in the Scriptures called Presbyters to which purpose he alleageth 1. Tim. 4.13 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Iohn 1. and 3. Iohn 1. And thirdly whereas it might be obiected the Bishops were set ouer Presbyters he confesseth it was done for auoiding of schisme but yet so as by the Presbyters the Bishop was chosen out of the Presbyters euer since S. Marks time vntill Heraclaâ— and Dâ—â—â—ysius as a Generall by the Army or the Arch-deacon by the Deacons out of their owne company Whereby he would also insinuate that a Presbyter is so much better then a Deacon as a Bishop is superior to an Arch deacon Thirdly where he saith that Ierome doth not call Marke a Bishop but an Euangelist and saith else where that he planted that Church It is plaine that in another place he confesseth Marke to haue been the first Bishop of Alexandria If Marke therefore were superiour in degree to the Presbyters at Alexandra as no man wil deny then must the same be confessed of Anianus and the rest of his successors as Ierome plainely testifieth Secondly he answeareth That the order by which the Presbyters chose a Bishop from among themselues continued to Heraclas and Dionysius time whom he therefore calleth Bishops to the end he might signifie that in their daies after one hundred and forty yeers were expired from Marks comming to
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
as well say that as one Presbyter in euery parish is superiour to the rest according to their conceipt so one Pastor which is the Bishop in euerie diocese is superiour to the other Pastors c. But indeed the superioritie of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or originall that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof Yea so farre vvas it from breeding the oecumenicall B. of the whole world that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the maine parts of the world nor yet the superioritie of the Metropolitanes in the seuerall prouinces For the superioritie of Metropolitanes did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing and force of necessitie vrging men to that course but as I rather thinke from the institution of the Apostles after whose times the first originall of them cannot be shewen For although actually they were not Primates till in the seuerall dioceses of the prouince Bishops were ordained yet the euent plainely sheweth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother citie should be the chiefe in the prouince And you haue heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitane B. of Syria and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitane B of Creet and Irenaeus the B. of Lyons was the Metropolitane of the churches in France And although not long after the Patriarches were acknowledged and in the councill of Nice established in a godly policie as Caluin Beza and Zanchius confesse yet neither did the superioritie of Bishops breede them nor they the Papacy The true originall of the superioritie of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches in their circuites was the patterne of ciuill gouernment in the Romane Empire diuided into certaine precinâ—ts which the Church did follow Whereas therefore to each citie the countrey adioyning was subiect the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities committing to their charge not only the citie but countrey subiect to it which wee call a Diocese wherein from the beginning there was neuer more lawfully then one B. and whereas in euery prouince wherein were many Cities there was one Metropolis or mother citie where the ruler of that prouince was seated in like manner so soone as Bishops were placed in the seuerall cities they acknowledged the B. of their mother citie their primate and chiefe B. of the Prouince And as the whole Empire was diuided among certaine gouernours who were called praefecti praetorio whereof one was placed in Rome hauing the gouernment of Italy Affricke and part of Illyricum A second in Alexandria hauing the rule of Egypt Lybia Pentapolis c. A third at Antioch ruling Syria and other countreyes of the East A fourth in France gouerning France Germanie Spaine and Britaine so the diuers prouinces subiect to the praefecti praetorio at least the three former were subiected to the Bishops of the same sees who afterwards were called Patriarches whose Patriarchal authoritie was ratified in the Councill of Nice to wit that according to the auncient custome the B. of Rome should haue the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon that is as I suppose of the prouinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture that the B. of Alexandria should haue the gouernment of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countreyes in the East After Constantinople was built and made the seat of the Empire diuers countreyes were subiect to the prefecture and consequently to the Bishopricke thereof Neither as I said did the superioritie of Patriarches though perhaps larger then was absolutely needfull because the Ecclesiasticall causes of euery prouince might be sufficiently determined in the prouincial Synodes notwithstanding I say it did not breede the Popes supremacie Which did arise from another occasion which was this The Bishop of Constantinople considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogatiue which they had because they were seates of praefecti praetorio and Rome because it had beene the seate not onely of the praefectus but of the Emperour himselfe though at that time in respect of ciuill gouernment it were subiect to the Exarch of Rauenna for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superioritie and with all remembring that Constantinople vvas the seate of the Empire contended therefore that as the Emperour who had his seate at Constantinople was the Monarch of the world so himselfe might be acknowledged the vniuersall B. or oecumenicall Patriarch The which ambition though it were condemned by Gregorie the B. of Rome as Antichristian for there is no vniuersall B. or head of the whole Church but Christ yet his successor Boniface the third did imitate and exceede Alledging that Rome whereof hee was Bishop was the ancient seate of the Empire and that the Emperour though hee remained at Constantinople yet hee was the Romane Emperour At length with much a doe and contention obtained of the Emperour Phocas not only that he should be called an Oecumenicall Patriarch for that title the B. of Constantinople hauing once vsurped enioyed it as well as hee and doth retayne it to this day but that his See should be head of all Churches And this was the true originall of the Popes supremacie Serm sect 12. pag. 89. Secondly they vrge Ieromes inference in that place Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsell therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still The refuter denyeth this inference to be Ieromes or that any hath vrged such an inference from him When indeed the inference plainely is Ieromes and is that which among all their obiections is to best purpose obiected by the Disciplinarians Ierome had said before that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Diuell some saying I am of Paul c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters c. Of those speeches when hee had made a briefe recitall haecpropterea c. he maketh an inference to this effect that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first therefore both Presbyters should know themselues to be subiect to the B. and BB superiour to the Presbyters by the custome of the Church c. And for as much as at the first the churches were gouerned by the common councell of the Presbyters as vnder the Apostles that therefore the B. being set ouer the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them but should in communi EcclesiaÌ„ regere rule the church in common imitating Moses who when hee had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone chose seauenty with whom he might iudge the people Which obiection being better then any the refuter hath made in this booke I will not let it passe without some
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author Diuided into 4 Bookes The first prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning Elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity The second shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The third defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order but also in degree and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction The fourth maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed William Hall and Thomas Snodham 1611. TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne France and Ireland defender of the faith c. All true happinesse and prosperitie in this life and eternall felicitie in the life to come THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer most gracious and dread Soueraigne is in some sort verified of vs in this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides The Romanists on the one side blaming vs for departing too farre from the Church of Rome our innouatours accusing vs on the other side for comming too neare the same Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames are a good euidence for vs that wee hold the meane For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ to which in departing from them wee are returned neither haue wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them which with them wee haue not receiued eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church The which as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects God hauing vouchsafed vnto vs this especiall fauour for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vs that there is not a Church vnder the Sunne which both for the substance of Doctrine and forme of Discipline doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches as these vnder your gracious gouernment Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God not onely for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment where it was in vse before and likewise for renewing and restoring the same though to your great cost and charges where it was formerly abolished These vnestimable benefits if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to haue receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onely vnthankefull both to God who is the gracious Authour and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits but also vnworthy to enioy them If we doe according to our bounden duetie acknowledge so much it remayneth that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vs by walking worthy our calling and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vs by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes haue thought so much the better of themselues by how much they haue thought the worse of Bishops yet is it most certaine that the contempt of Bishops is the cause if not of all euill which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme yet of very much euill among vs. This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided as by the godly and religious care both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would and indeed should be accounted worthy so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision which is among vs proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian I was perswaded for my part that I could not performe a seruice eyther more acceptable vnto God or more profitable to his Church then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others which had perswaded mine owne soule not onely that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention and new deuise hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquitie but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth which I had defended from his sophisticall cauillations The which through Gods good blessing vpon my labours I haue so performed that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon if any at all oppugned by the aduersarie which I haue not defended by plaine euidence of truth These my labours I haue presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie as the principall Patrone vnder Christ of that truth which I defend not onely intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours but also commending my selfe and them to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection The King of Kings blesse prosper and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie the good of his Church and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME The Contents of this Booke The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text. Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17 Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1 doth not giue testimonie to Lay-elders and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Chap. 8.
acknowledged him to be a man of a good spirit I would haue answered him sometimes with better respect But seeing I knowe him no otherwise but by his fruites as he is the Author of this worke wherein he hath shewed himselfe to be in points materiall a very cauilling Sophister and in matters personall a malicious libeller let him take such answeres as doe not like him not as directed to his person which I knowe not but to the person or vizard vnder which he masketh of a wrangling Sophister and a spitefull libeller to whom the sharpest answeres which I haue made are but too milde THE FIRST BOOKE TREATING CHIEFELY of Lay-Elders CHAP. I. Answering the Refuters Preamble THE refuter before he would encounter the Sermon it selfe thought good to spend some of his splene vpon the Author of the Sermon the matter and the text proudly insulting ouer the Author scornefully gibing at the matter and captiously carping at the choyse of the text His insultation is ioyned with scorne and with slander therein behauing himselfe like another insulting Goliah gibing Tobiah slandering Sanballat He insulteth I say Goliah-like despising the Author of the Sermon comming against him in simple maner like Dauid with fiue smooth stones taken out of the fountaine of Gods word streames of antiquitie as not able to stand in his hands being as he saith litle worth yea miserable poore indeed He scoffeth Tobiah-like at my building as ruinous and tottering so readie to tipe and fall as if belike but one of the foxes that trouble the vine doe come vpon it the goodly mansion built for our reuerend Bishops as a tower of defence for their Lordships to rest in which proud and disdainefull scoâ—fe hee repeateth againe pag. 8. will fall to the ground For answere whereof I desire the Reader to compare the latter end of his preface with this begining of his confutation For there bearing the Reader in hand that he hath sufficiently confuted my Sermon hee vseth my praise as a steppe to raise himselfe and to aduantage his cause giuing me greater commendation then either I doe desire or deserue but here beginning his confutation he would perswade the Reader he shall easily performe it his aduersarie being little worth yea miserable poorâ— indeed his building ruinous and tottering ready to tipe and fall Which imputations if they be not true proue him to be a lyer if true a worthlesse and witlesse fellowe worthlesse who passing by all the worthies of our side and their most accurate and learned treatises as himselfe tearmeth them maketh choyce either of such an aduersarie to contend with as is little worth yea miserable poore indeed or of such a building to assaile as is ruinous and tottering ready of it selfe to tipe and fall Witlesse in making choyse of such an aduersarie in vanquishing of whom being so weake and miserable poore as he can gaine no credit to himselfe or his cause so can hee bring no great disaduantage to the aduerse partie The fault being in all reason to be ascribed to the weakenes of the Champion not to the badnesse of the cause But if so weake and worthlesse a defendant did in a Sermon prouided in 9. or 10. daies at the most so foretâ—fie the cause of the Bishops that the greatest worthies of the aduersarie partie assailing it withall their force haue not beene able in twice so many monethes to make the least breach therein then must it be confessed that howsoeuer his aduersarie may be inferiour to him in other things yet he is superiour in the cause But softâ— let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that puts it off When I consider the weakenesse of your strength and badnesse of your cause I wonder at your confidence You might doe well to followe the counsell of â—rchâ—damus to his foole-hardy sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either adde to your strength or abate from your confidence And whereas Sanballat-like he saith I make great boast in my Sermon of much riches c. I answere with Nehemiah it is not done according to these words there is no such matter in my Sermon but it is a fiction of your owne heart Such vanting suiteth better with my aduersarie who as in the forefront of his booke most arrogantly applyeth the words of wisedome and truth to these his owne writings which for the most part are either false or friuolous Giue care saith he for I will speake of excellent things and the opening of my lippes shall teach things that be right for my mouth shall speake the truth and my lippes abhorre wickednes so now in the very entrance hee playeth Pyrgopolinices himselfe taking on as if with a little paper-shotte he could ouerthrowe all my building and blowe poore me away as it were with a breath Sect. 2. The matter also he scoffeth at applying vnto it the speech of one of the sons of the Prophets whoÌ„ he calleth a poore laborer to make him as it seemeth the liker to me saying of his axe when the head fell into the water Alas Maister it is but borrowed Neither doubteth he with what forhead I knowe not for he goeth vnder a vizard to affirme that my whole building from the foundation to the roofe is but old stuffe taken out of D. Bilsons booke of the perpetuall gouernement of the Church Which base calumniation framed as it may seeme according to his owne practise he doth odiously repeate ad nauseam vsque euen so often harping on this string as I haue occasion to handle though neuer so differently the same points with that most learned and reuerend diuine To which obiection I answere that if it were true it would proue the refuter to be but a childish and yet an odious wrangler Childish for it is the fashion of wrangling boyes in their Sophemes and disputations when they cannot tell how to answere an argument to tell the opponent he had it in such a booke And it is the part of an odious wrangler to seeke the disgrace of my person by that which doth no whit aduantage his cause For what aduantage is this to his cause to obiect that my proofes are the same with D. Bilsons seeing his proofes be such as neuer were and neuer wil be answered But if the obiection be false as euery man that compareth the treatises may easily discerne then besides the testimonie of odious wrangling he shall gaine to himselfe the commendation of a slanderous libeller For besides my consent in iudgement with that most reuerend learned man which I most willingly and gladly professse there is not any thing almost besides concurrence in diuerse allegations which should breed any iust occasion of this surmile And as for them I doe professe that the most of them are of mine owne reading and those which before I had either not read or not obserued I did not content my selfe to alleadge them as it were
c to pag. 5. own case That these 2. things are offered to our consideration saith the refuter wee denie not but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into hee should by his Text haue taught vs the meaning of these 2. points and not quite contrarie as hee goes about by these two points to teach vs the meaning of his Text. To whom I will not giue that answere which Festus did to Paul that too much learning hath made him madde for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath which is furor breuis which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section hath made him so to forget himselfe that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to explane his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text and to shew what manner of BB are here meant by the Angels of the Churches for the explicatioÌ„ wherof what could more fitly be propounded then the consideration of these 2. things viz what manner of Churches they were whereof they were the Angels or BB and what manner of preheminence they had in those Churches in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling and from it inferre the vse Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text or vrging the vse therevpon inferred there had bene reason I should prooue them as afterwards I doe by the Text already explicated But when I am about to explicate the Text propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text and the Text that which is explicated And if the Text be that which is explicated who could bee so senselesse as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text or to finde fault that by the handling of them the Text is explaned But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline whereof I spake but too mildely as you may see hee chargeth mee with bitter inueighing scornefull vpbraiding ouerflowing of the gall with spitting out vnsauoury reproaches making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section and much adoe he had not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon with whome it better fitteth let the Reader iudge Proud haughtie and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie hee is afraide for mee that I care not to loose much of my peace within that all I here speake is Night worke proceeding from great distemper of the braine c. Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled was hee guiltie to himselfe of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions that hee thus flingeth and kicketh when they are so gentlie touched Who knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions for the tryall whereof the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made which are there magnified as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vs and the Papists that if in them the BB. ioyning as they pretend with the Papists haue the truth then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome by our separating therefrom and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schismaticall that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome Who I say knowing this could with more mildnesse haue spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties For where hee saith that almost all of them haue bene alwayes generallie maintained and practised by all soundly reformed Churches hee seemeth either not to care what hee speaketh or by soundly reformed Churches to meane none but Brownists or such like Betweene whom and these vnchristian and immodest challengers there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres These remaining after a sort in the peece the other beeing by open Schisme cut off Which againe they haue manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie This being the summe of their suite that they may be tollerated Schismatickes But to let passe their new-coyned positions excepting those that concerne this cause with the Libellers bitter wranglings and vaine ianglings There are two things in answere to this Section which I may not let passe the one is his defence of the challengers the other a great aduantage taken against a word which as hee saith I dropt by the way His defence is against that calumnious outcrie as hee calleth it in the ende of the Section where I brieflie note that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish by the same they may as well denie the King who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions as being the Gouernour of them all in Great Brittaine and Irelâ—nd is further from being a member of one onely parish then anie Bishop in this Kingdome Hee answereth that the challengers hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe But tell mee doe they hold it to bee a true Church that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church Or if they doe Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie to bee an entire familie by themselues But it is no matter what they holde vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men seeing it is fiue times repeated in print once in their late petition with great amplifications once in the Abortiue booke with this note in the margent sic tu beas amicos Thrice in this Booke with great triumphes and insultations not onely in the treatise it selfe but also euery where in the margent demanding with scorne in this place Is this your kindnesse to your friends in the second sic tu beas amicos in the third quid facias odio sic vbi amore noces The Reader must needes expect some great matter seeing these hilles thus to swell The words whereat they take aduantage were these Least they might seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling in euerie parish who should haue not onely supreame but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall they adioyne to him that
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
though so much be signified without it No it will not serue the turne for though Presbyter doe alwaies and onely signifie a Minister and neuer signifie an onely gouerning Elder yet there might bee gouerning Elders who were signified by other names Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers which was the point to be proued And what then becommeth which is the chiefe scope of this place of all those testimonies wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned which T. C. and others doe alledge supposing the most of the places in the scriptures councils and fathers where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is mentioned to be so many proofes of your gouerning Elders call you this a weake proofe which doth not onely at once bereaue you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned and wherein your chiefe strength did lie but also proue that there were no Presbyters but Ministers This consequence therefore was not to be denied And much lesse the other For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any lay annuall onely-gouerning Elders with what proofs will they vrge them or with what conscience can they obtrude them as the ordinance of Christ An argument taken from the scriptures alone negatiuè was wont to be a sufficient disproofe of any pretended ordinance of Christ and shall not an argument holde negatiuely from Scriptures Fathers Councels and all Notwithstanding the consequence must needs be infirme and weake for although there be no proofe of any Lay-annuall-onely gouerning elders yet may there be indeed is for all that proofe sufficient for such only gouerning Presbyters as are ecclesiâ—sticall and to be perpetuall Wherefore which way soeuer the proposition lye the consequence therof I flatly deny saith our ryming refuter But heere I intreat the Reader to trie the spirit of this Sophister For if himselfe acknowledge that my meaning is simply to denie the onely-gouerning Elders then can hee not be excused from this imputation of setting himselfe to wrangle against conscience But so much hee acknowledgeth when hee commeth to the assumption for otherwise he could not haue wrangled therewith M. D. meaing saith he is simply to denie all kinde onely-gouerning Elders therefore I denie the assumption His meaning was not to denie all but annuall and Lay-Elders therefore I flatly denie the consequence Thus you see how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction not caring to gaine say himselfe so hee may seeme to contradict mee But so farre was the consequence from being to be denyed because I mention Lay and annuall that rather it was to be graunted These words being added ad maiorem cautelam and distinctly propounded to make the consequence so much the stronger and to signifie that I spake of all Elders whatsoeuer that are not Ministers call them as you will whether Lay or annuall or onely gouerning Elders And here againe let the Reader obserue that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not haue such Elders as lately were in Scotland and still are at Geneua and the Low Countreys No they scorne such those be Lay annuall as you haue heard but these may not be so Therfore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise who though they were faine to yeeld that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laitie yet they did foresee that the Ministers would beare the sway as indeed they ought because they were perpetuall the others annuall or but for a short time whereas these men making the Lay-Elders perpetuall and referring matters to be ruled by pluralitie of voyces absurdly subiect the Ministers to bee ruled and ouer-ruled by them who in the most Countrey-parishes are more fitte to holde the plough then to sit at the sterne of the Church And so desperate or franticke whether are they nowe growne that although they make their parish-parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church and doe holde that euery parish hath a sufficient and independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall Notwithstanding offer to submitte their Bishop and his Consistorie yea their whole visible Church with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiasticall to the ouersight and superintendencie of each Iustice of peace Hauing thus wrangled with the proposition hee setteth himselfe also against the assumption containing the two aforesaide Assertions The former whereof viz that the word Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person in the Church of Christ euermore in the Scriptures Councells and Fathers signifieth a Minister hee denyeth For if the word onely bee added it is vtterly false For I shall make it euident saith hee that the worde Presbyter doth sometimes signifie one that is not a Minister And if it bee left out it will be false neuerthelesse For it shall appeare that sometimes the word is vsed for an Ecclesiasticall person that is no Minister So that by his owne confession all is one whether the word onely bee inserted or omitted the contradictorie being one and the same that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister But though hee delay the Reader for his owne proofes which I dare assure him will not satisfie his iudicious expectation yet seeing he setteth himselfe to catch and snatch at euery word he should not haue passed by those argumeÌ„ts â—hereby I proued my Assertion and I am perswaded would not if silence had not bene his best answere For a man of his Acumen might easily out of those fewe words haue raised three syllogismes which he could not so easily answere But the labour which hee thought best to spare I will vndertake for him For 1. If the word Priest freed as it is in our Church from the popish abuse and conceiued without all relation to reall sacrifices be the proper English of presbyter as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person then presbyter signifieth a Minister onely and as well might question bee made whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay-presbyters but the former is true therefore the latter 2. That word which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop doth signifie a Minister onely But Presbyter by their owne confession is confounded with Episcopus or Bishop Therefore presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely 3. That word which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach doth signifie a Minister of the word onely for in none but Ministers is that propertie required But Presbyter is such a word as beeing in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop doth also note a person who must by the Apostles rule be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or able to preach Therefore the word Presbyter doth signifie a Minister onely The latter part of his assumption saith he in case he vrge the words Lay and annuall
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
the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them For vntill Saul God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands chiefly in prescribing them lawes and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time But when the people would needs haue a king after the manner of other nations the Lord saith to Samuel they haue not reiected thee but me haue they reiected that I should not reignâ— ouer them And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the earâ—hly King in comparison of the Celestiall that describing vnto them the fashion of their future king he telleth them that whereas before God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onely they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure which would not proue very pleasant to them as he sheweth by many particulars § Sect. 8. As touching the third branch he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse It followeth not saith he there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them But say I where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men as alwaies it hath done according to the practise of Geneua and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline it cannot be auoided but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders especially if they according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians may be perpetuall But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no it is not materiall seeing they were ioyntly propounded and seeing from them vnited a necessary consequence dependeth Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence and to breede matter of cauil was a sophisticall if not a leaud trick The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare if we consider his dealing with the assumption for he that hauing seuered the branches of the proposition exacted from euery one seuerally a necessary consequence in the assumption he will haue them all taken together For before he taketh the assumption in pieces meaning to cauill with euery part seuerally he vseth this Caution Prouided alwaies and be it remembred of the Reader that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false though the other two be neuer so true the whole assumption is in law of true reason vtterly void and of none effect But if in the proposition I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally the assuming of any one part will conclude the question As thus If I must be forced to maintaine this consequence If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop then would hee noâ— complaine of the want of Lay-Elders it wil be sufficient to assume thus but he was a Diocesan Bishop to coÌ„clude that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders It is true that it is required in my assumption as I propound it that euery branch must be true but the reasoÌ„ hereof is because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence For if they be seuerally propounded in the proposition they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience But come we to the assumption with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus Ambrose saith M. D. was a Diocesâ—n Bishop Was he so indeed Had he not onely supreme but 〈◊〉 authoritie as our BB haue ouer I know not how many hundreds of Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall Was he an absolute Pop linâ— indeed What a shame is this that he who eueÌ„ now charged so mâ—ny learned men to haue done Ambrose wrong should now be found the man â—uilty of that trespas Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling to preach the word administer the sacrameÌ„ts in his owne Church c. Can a man of a sincere conscience professing as themselues terme it the cause of sinceritie be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant or rather can a man that taketh vpon him the defence of this controuersie as a chiefe champion of the pretended discipline and one I doubt not of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops to dispute with them in these causes be ignorant that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least and can he thus denie it and keepe his conscience sincere well though the taske be all one as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London or rather the Archbishop of Yorke is a Diocesan Bishop yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it and pretendeth some reason of his denyall I will first proue that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B and for the greatnes of his authoritie and largenes of his iurisdiction comparable with ours and in the second place I will answere his reasons First therfore you are to be aduertised that Mediolanum Millaine whereof Ambrose was Bishop not onely is a Metropolis or seate of a Metropolitan but was both in and before Ambrose his time Strabo saith it was a Metropolis wherein the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it also is a mother citie of Italy It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses prouinces was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnder the Romane Empire Ambrose himself was a man of consular dignitie in Rome and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine Where keeping his residence it fell out that Auxentius the Bishop being dead and the Emperour Valentinian hauing assembled as the manner was for the choise of a Metropolitan the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates you shall compare gold with lead As for the people the Episcopall function hath not onely obtained to be preferred before them but also is enioyned by Euangelicall precepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them for they as the sheepe of Christ are committed to BB. as to rulers who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them c. Againe these things I haue spoken saith he to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops For his
deeds consider his repelling of Theodosius the Emperour from entring into the Church vntill he had testified his repentance his not permitting him to remaine within the Chācell alledging that it was a place peculiar to the Clergie which fauour when Nectarius the Bishop of Cōstantinople would haue grāted to him Theodosius professed that he had with much a doe learned the differēce between an Emperour and a Bishop adding that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth Ambrose is the onely man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith in the Emperours Consistorie when Valentinian the younger had sent for him contrarie to a law made by his Father Valentinian protesting that he would rather loose his life then by his yeelding the honour of Bishops should be diminished Non tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deijciat sacerdotium non tanti est vnius vita quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum his refusall to deliuer vp the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperour Valētinians commandement professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperour but the Churches to the Bishop His other doubt is whether I compare Ambrose with them of his owne time or with them that liued before or after c here was a knot sought in a bullrush seeing my meaning is euident that Ambrose laboured as much as any of the ancient approued Fathers And that he did so it is alreadie sufficiently manifested If that be so saith he then either all men thought it needfull for the Bishop to be aduised and directed as D. Bilson saith by the counsell and consent of Elders or else that Ambrose who thoght it needful as appeareth by this testimonie labored not to magnifie such a calling of Bishops as M.D. maintaineth Ambrose others thought it needful that a presbyterie of graue ancient ministers should with their coūsell aduise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt as D. Bilson saith of daunger and importance when as yet nether Synodes could assemble nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church But this as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders so doth it no more detract from the dignitie of Bishops to vse the counsell of wise and learned men then it doth derogate from the Maiestie of Kings to vse the aduise of their wise faithfull Counsellors There remaineth the third branch Wherevnto besides his rayling against our Bishops for subiecting Ministers to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls which are but lay-men hee answereth onely That if adioyning Presbyters to the Byshop bee a subiecting him to them I doubt not but this testimony will prooue that Ambrose was not willing that Ministers should bee subiected to the Consistories of Lay-men There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers they of Lay-Elders Ambrose of an assistance to aduise and direct such as is the aduise of Counsellers to a Prince they of an assistance to ouerrule as in the Romane Senate by plurality of voices giuing their Bishop not so much as one negatiue voice Ambrose therfore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop they an assistance of Lay-Elders subjecting the Bishops to them Neither should they of all men raile against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors c. seeing it is not so vntollerable that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the lawes and that so farre onely as the B. shall thinke fit as that they should not onely be ouerruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most countrey-parishes but also stand to the curtesie of them and their neighbours to be deposed and depriued at their pleasure Now how farre Ambrose was from subiecting BB or Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Consistories of Lay-men may appeare first by his sentence giuen against Palladius the Arfian Bishop in the Councell of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answere but before some honourable persons of the Laytie who were at hand Ambrose answered Priests or BB. ought to iudge of Lay-men and not Lay-men of Priests And againe though hee bee found guiltie of manie impieties notwithstanding we are abashed that hee which challengeth Priesthood to himselfe should seeme to be condemned of Lay-men And therefore forasmuch as heerein hee is to be condemned who expecteth the sentence of Lay-men seeing rather priests ought to iudge of Laymen according to those things which to day wee haue heard Palladius professing and according to those things which he refused to condemne I pronounce him saith Ambrose vnworthie of Priest-hood But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperour wherein hee refuseth to be tryed as his aduersary Auxentius desired in the Emperors Consistorie alleadging that his Father Valentinian had by Law prouided that in the cause of faith or of any Ecclesiasticall order hee ought to iudge qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis who is neiher in function vnequall nor in right vnlike that is Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare Hee would haue BB for them ordinarily hee meaneth by Sacerdotes to iudge of BB or Priests Yea moreouer saith hee if a Bishop were otherwise called into question and the cause of manners were to be examined euen this also would hee that is Valentinian the Father haue to belong to Episcopall iudgement When did you euer heare most gracious Emperor that Lay-men in a cause of faith iudged of BB Are wee therefore so bowed with flatterie that wee forget the right of BB And that I should thinke what God hath giuen mee is to bee committed to others If a Bishop must be taught of a Lay-man what to follow let the Lay-man dispute and let the Bishop heare let the B learne of the Lay-man But surely if wee call to minde either the tenor of holie Scriptures or ancient times who can denie but that in a cause of Faith In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare You shall one day if it please God come to ripe yeares and then you will be able to iudge Qualis ille Episcopus sit qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut What a Bishop he is that subiecteth the right of Bishops to Lay-men Your Father beeing through Gods goodnes of ripe yeares said Meum non est I am not able For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse Iudicij to iudge among BB. doth your Grace now say I ought to iudge would Ambrose condemne such a Bishop as should subiect the right of BB. to Lay-men and would hee allow of such prerbyteries of Lay-men as intrude vpon the right of BB yea which are vrged to extrude BB could hee not indure that a B. or
minister should be iudged in causes Ecclesiasticall by the consistory of the Emperour because it consisted of Lay-men and would hee allow a B. or minister should be iudged yea deposed and depriued by a parishionall consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men doth he commend the good Emperour that said he was vnable to iudge among Bishops and would hee allow of priuate men vnlearned and vnacquainted with gouernement as competent Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall And thus much of my denyall of their exposition of Ambrose made good by sufficient proofe CHAP. VIII The proofe of their Exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasâ—os which I alleadged why the Counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Serm. Sect. 7. Pag. 14. But let vs examine the force of their Argument Ambrose saith there were Elders in the Church as well as in the Synagogue Therefore say they there were Elders It followeth not c to learned Presbyters in the middle of pag. 16. THeir Argument is heere such as in this question of Lay-Elders perpetuallie they vse in all their proofes of Scriptures and Fathers that is from the genus to the species yea to a fancied or fained species affirmatiuely As if they should say hee is a Magistrate therefore a Constable an ancient Cittizen therefore an Alderman or rather thus It is a man therefore the man in the moone I see a shippe therefore it is Argo Like the wise man of Athens who standing in Pyraeo on the key there saide euery shippe he saw was his Sauing that he was somewhat wiser because he had a shippe at the Sea These mens shippe doth swimme in their owne braines So strong is their fancie as wee shall heare that when either Christ saith Tell the Church that is as themselues expound it the rulers of the Church they strongly conclude therefore tell Lay-Elders or Luke that Paul and Barnabas ordayned Presbyters ergo Lay-Elders or Iames is any sicke let him send for the Presbyters ergo for Lay-Elders or Paul hee that ruleth Marke how he speaketh of a ruler therefore of a Lay-Elder God hath appointed gouernements therefore of Lay-Elders or Ignatius be subiect to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ ergò to Lay-Elders or Tertullianus Certaine approued Seniors be presidents c ergo Lay Elders or Ierome wee haue a Senate of Presbyters Ergo of Lay-Elders And that no man should liue in feare of the great stroakes which this great champion hath threatned let him vnderstand that these be all the strokes that he will strike when his turne of striking commeth To this argument and all the rest I answere by denying the consequence which is so badde as the refuter is loath to Father it and yet neither in this nor in any other of their testimonies they haue or can make no better Well saith he Whatsoeuer the argument is the answere is well worse meaning as it seemeth the reason of the answere which was this for euen the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests as well as of the people My reason may thus be explained If not onely the Church had Seniors that were ministers whose aduise was neglected in Ambrose his time but euen also the Sinagogue meaning Israell or the state of the Iewes had Seniors of the Priests then it followeth not that the Seniors of whom Ambrose speaketh were Lay-Elders But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it Therefore the consequent The consequent of the proposition is necessarie for an argument from the genus to the species doth not hold affirmatiuely Genus saith Fabius ad probandum speciem minimuÌ„ valet plurimum ad refellendum the generall is of no force to proue the speciall affirmatiuely though it bee of great force to disproue it if you argue from it negatiuely As for example it followeth noâ— because it is a tree that therefore it is a plane tree It is not necessary saith the Philosopher that what is affirmed of the genus should also be affirmed of the species As touching the assumption the former part viz that the Church had seniors which were ministers I tooke for granted because either all those places of Scriptures and Fathers as I say or at least some as my aduersarie will confesse where Presbyters be named Ministers are vnderstood The second part I proue out of Ierem 19.1 where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some not onely of the Seniors of the people but also of the Seniors of the Priests that is men of authoritie as well of the Ecclesiasticall state as of ciuill Which words though the refuter vnderstand as I doe as prouing not that the Iewes had an Eccclesiasticall Senate consisting partly of the Priests and partly of the Elders of the people for of such a presbyterie though there be much talke yet there is no proofe but that in the Iewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests as Seniors of the people notwithstanding the seely Philosopher would faine make the Reader belieue that I confesse which most confidently I doe denie that in the Church of the Iewes there was an Ecclesiasticall Eldership consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people and therevpon would inferre that this testimonie maketh mee Because forsooth Ambrose acknowledgeth that there was such an Eldership in the Church as had beene among the Iewes But among the Iewes there was as hee saith I confesse an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Priests and Elders of the people therefore Ambrose acknowledgeth such a Presbyterie to haue bene in the Church consisting of Ministers and Lay-Elders First for Ambrose hee doth not speake of Eldership either among Iewes or Christians but sheweth that because both the Iewes and Christians had Seniors this is an Argument that age is honorable seeing that ancient men were of authoritie both among the Iewes who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiasticall as ciuil state and also among Christians Now to inferre from hence that either the Iewes or Christians had an Ecclesiasticall senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders is a vaine collection For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the Iewes they might haue as indeed they had a Senate consisting of Priests and Leuites and chiefe of the people but that was not an Ecclesiasticall Senate as hereafter shall be shewed but their chiefe Counsell of state â—f by Synagogue you vnderstaÌ„d only the ecclesiasticall state of the Iews in that ther were no other seniors but of the Clergie of Israel And as for my confession I protest that I meant nothing lesse then that the Church of the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of the Seniors of the Priests and Elders of the people For I know it to be an idle conceit hauing no other warrant but the probabile est of a new writer a chiefe party in this cause But hereof more in my answer to his allegation out of Matth 18. Besides can any man that
doth not wilfully peruert my meaning vnderstand me to speake of any but the Seniors of the priests saying of such Ambrose speaketh when he saith in the Church or Church-causes nothing was don without their consent But it may be that your former consequence may be confirmed if the testimonie of Ambrose be better pressed vpon vs to which purpose I say in the Sermon If it be saide that Ambrose speaketh c. If it be said saith the refuter he knoweth it well enough that it is said and shal be maintained that Ambrose speaketh of such Seniors whose aduise was neglected through the default of the teachers not learned or teachers as M. D. setteth it downe and therefore of such Seniors as were not teachers Cunningly therefore and to weaken the force of our argument doth hee here so produce and alledge it as if it were rather conceiued for our helpe by himselfe then propounded and expressed by vs. Let him therefore for his honestie and credits sake shew the Reader where this testimonie of Ambrose is thus vrged In the mean time the Reader shal vnderstand these 2. things First that the disciplinarians knowing that their proofes out of Scriptures and Fathers will not necessarily conclude for them if they should seeme to inforce them by discourse Therefore they vse this poore pollicie to holde them out as it were Mineruaes shield as if they were so pregnant that they need not to be vrged but the very naming of them were sufficient to put vs to silence They thinke it therfore their best course in all their writings almost to take it for graunted that their discipline is the very discipline and kingdome of Christ their presbyterie the very ordinance of Christ and when they should proue it as they would seeme most sufficiently to doe they holde out a few places of the Scriptures and Fathers barely quoted being so farre from vrging them as that for the most part they doe not so much as cite the words thus in the booke of H. I. dedicated to the King 1604. vrging a reformation after the newe-cut Thus in the protestation that came out of the North made in the yeare 1606. and printed Anno 1608. Thus in this worthy worke of the refuter as after you shall heare when he commeth to deale his blowes thinking belike that the very naming of such witnesses will sufficiently if not daunt vs yet satisfie their simple followers who are too easily ledde with shewes The other thing is that I haue vrged this testimony for them and to speake the trueth haue inforced it better and made it stronger for them then euer they made it or haue yet the witte to conceiue But to answere their argument for now it is theirs neither must my wordes be retained learned or teachers c The Reader therfore is to remember what before was saide that the word Doctorum being ambiguous signifying either learned or teachers this place of Ambrose doth accordingly admit two interpretations The one as it signifieth Learned and is a common title to the Bishops and Presbyters the other as it signifieth Doctors or Teachers and was a title in those times peculiar to the BB. as shal be proued The former of these which seemeth more to fauor the Lay-Elders my aduersary doth reiect insisteth in the latter But he doth not shew as me thinkes he should how this testimony then will conclude for Lay-Elders It was sufficient for him to contradict mee though hee left his cause in wâ—rse case then he found it For my part I am so farre from this spirit of contradiction that I doe agree with him in preferring the latter exposition which by Doctorum vnderstandeth Doctors before the other Let vs see then how that sense being retained this place doth conclude for Lay-Elders All Seniors that were not called Doctors in those times were Lay-Elders The Seniors whose counsell was neglected by the Doctors were such Seniors as in those times were not called Doctors Therefore the Seniors whose counsell was neglected by the Doctors were Lay-Elders I denie the proposition because in those times the title of Doctor or Teacher was peculiar to BB we therefore may with more truth affirme that all Seniors or Presbyters that were not called Doctors in that time were Ministers and thereupon conclude that therefore the Seniors whose Counsell was neglected by the Doctors were Ministers For the clearing of this matter I will briefly shew these foure things 1. That not Presbyters but Bishops were in those times called Doctors 2. That the Presbyters though they were not called Teachers were notwithstanding Ministers 3. That certaine ancient or principall Ministers called Seniores in the primitiue Church did so assist the Bishop that nothing almost of importance was done without their counsell and aduise 4. That their counsell and assistance was much neglected and themselues much debased in Ambrose his time For the first After that Arrius being a Presbyter had poysoned the Church with his heresie the Presbyters or Ministers were in many Churches restrained from preaching So that the Bishops who before were the principall in Ambrose his time they were almost the onely Teachers and for this cause the name of Doctors was appropriated vnto them And this is so cleare a case that the Bishops in those times were in a manner the onely Doctors that therefore thought the Presbyters which are mentioned in the Fathers to haue beene no Ministers because he perceiued they were no Teachers and for this cause commendeth the decree of the Church of Alexandria that the Presbyters should no more teach and preferreth the Affrican Churches before others for that the same order was obserued therein As touching Alexandria Socrates reporteth that Presbyters doe not preach there Sozomen that the Bishop alone of the citie doth preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both of them assigning the heresie of Arrius to haue beene the originall occasion of that custome Concerning the vse of the Affrican Churches saith T. C. vntill Augustines time that one testimonie is more then sufficient whereby is affirmed that Valerius B. of Hippo did contrarie to the custome of the Affrican Church in that he committed the office of teaching vnto Augustine who was an Elder of that Church and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops checked I say notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared to haue done it for support of his infirmitie because himselfe was not so apt to preach To conclude his conceit is that not the Presbyters mentioned in the Fathers and by him translated Elders but the Bishop onely had right to preach the other but by indulgence or by commandement In those times therefore the Bishops alone were called Doctores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the least for further proofe whereof if you expect some other testimonie either of Ambrose or of others in that time you may haue recourse to his booke of
quique seniores the approued Seniors be praesident Thirdly of Clement in his epistle to Iames translated by Rufinus cited by Gratian if any of the brethren haue Saints let them not be judged by secular Iudges sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided to their determination let the parties stand Fourthly of Ierome Presbyters saith hee meaning ministers whom he also calleth Preists and attributeth to them the ministery of the worde and Sacraments from the beginning were appointed Iudges of causes c. And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries testifie that the Presbyters besides that they taught the people did also compound suites and controuersies Now that their aduise was much neglected and themselues but too much dejected by the Byshops in Ambrose his time appeareth not onely by his but also by Ieromes complaint Likewise by diuers Canons in the fourth councell of Carthage held about the yeare 401 wherein it was decreed that the Bishop without the assemblie of his clergie should not ordaine clerkes that in the ordination of a presbyter the Presbyters also which be present should with the Bishop impose their hands that the B should not determine any mans cause but in the presence of his Clergy that he might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church without the consent of his clergie that the Bishop though in the Church and in the assembly of the presbyters ought to sit in an higher place yet priuatly he should vse the presbyters as his Colleagues and sitting himselfe should not suffer a presbyter to stand that the Deacons should acknowledge themselues to be Ministers to the presbyters as well as to the Bishops that if the presbyters badde them they might sit in their presence which otherwise they might not doe All these things considered together with that which before hath bene alledged to proue that there were neuer any Lay-Elders doe necessarily euince that there is no reason to imagine if Doctorum signifie Doctors or Teachers Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place And so much of the exposition of this place according to the former sense of the word Doctorum signifying Doctors which with my aduersaries consent I doe much preferre before the other and therefore can be very well content to giue in the latter Notwithstanding because some perhaps will vnderstand the word Doctorum as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters signifying learned and will therefore imagine that the Elders whose counsell was neglected by them were Idiotae or Lay-men for their sakes therefore I will briefly shew that though this interpretation be admitted yet there is no necessitie that Seniors should signifie Lay-Elders for Doctorum being according to this interpretation a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters Ambrose his meaning may be conceiued to be this that the assistance and councell of ancient Ministers meant by Seniors who were wont to assist the Bishop was growne out of vse either by their owne negligeÌ„ce or the Bishops pride Whereunto after much froath of idle words he replyeth First that the Councell of Ministers was not growne out of vse in Ambrose his time and this he indeuoureth to proue by fiue testimonies First of Ierome saying that the Churches at the first were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio by the common Councell of Presbyters Which testimonie maketh against him for Ierome speaketh of such Presbyters as Paul speaketh of who were Ministers and are there called Bishops If therefore the Church was at the first gouerned by common councell of Ministers and if Ambrose complaine that their councell in his time was neglected which at the first had beene vsed and whereby the Church had beene gouerned who seeth not that it was the neglect of the Ministers aduise wherof Ambrose complaineth 2. yea but Ierome saith we also in the Church haue senatum nostrum â—â—tum Presbyterorum our senate a company of Presbyters which testimonie is wont to be alleaged to proue that in Ieromes time there was a Presbyterie of Lay-Elders But here my aduersarie presupposing that Lay-Elders were growne out of vse in Ambrose his time whom T C supposeth to haue continued diuers hundred yeares after Ambrose bringeth it to proue that in Ieromes time who was almost as ancient as Ambrose there was a Senate of Ministers which no man doubteth of For else-where he saith the Church hath a Senate a companie of Presbyters without whose Counsell the Monkes may doe nothing And not only in Ieromes time the Church had but in all Ages since euen to this day it hath such a Senate which in latter times hath called Capitulum the chapter Howbeit both in Ambrose his time and since the aduise and assistance thereof notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsell of Carthage hath beene though in some things eueÌ„ to this day vsed yet in the most things and for the most part neglected His third testimony which hee saith is plaine enough of the saide Ierome cited in the canon Law is also plaine against him For hauing saide as euen now I alledged him that the presbyters from the beginning had bene appointed to heare and iudge causes as the Bishops assistants hee prooueth it because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops howsoeuer now the Bishops enuied them that dignitie c. His 4. testimonie is the 23. canon of the councell of Carthage which euen now I cited which maketh against him rather then for him For seeing good lawes arise from bad manners it is to bee imagined that according to the complaint of Ambrose and Ierome who were somewhat before this councell the presence of the Clergie and assistance of the presbyters was neglected and that this neglect gaue occasion to the making of that canon His. 5. testimonie is of D. Bilson though hee name also another learned maÌ„ only to abuse him Howbeit D. Bilson vnderstandeth Ambrose as coÌ„plaining of the Bishops of his time who whiles they would seeme to rule alone had excluded or neglected the aid couÌ„sell of their bretheren of the Clergie who were wont to aduise and assist them as well in Doctrine as in Discipline And whereas in the second place he replieth that slothfulnesse and pride must needs be referred to the same persons and not slothfulnes to presbyters and pride to BB I answeare that if Doctorum be a common title to both as it is if it signifie learned and if the slothfulnes of the presbyters rather then of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of vse as the pride of the BB then is there no necessitie that slothfulnesse and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops but rather it is very likely that slouthfulnes is imputed to
presbyters and pride to the Bishops But both the parts of the Antecedent is true therefore the consequent But let vs heare his Reasons The first If Ambrose had meant to ascribe slouthfulnes to the Seniors hee would haue saide that their assistance grew out of vse either by their owne slothfulnes or rather by the pryde of the BB. The second he would haue said not Doctorum but Ipforum desidiâm which reason is the latine of the first and the first the english of this Such iudgment heere is shewed in distinguishing of arguments But who knoweth not that the same sentence may very manie wayes bee varied in respect of the words the same sence remaining so that this exception might be made against any exposition almost If I should say As in Christs Colledge so in some others Elections were wont to bee caryed by the voyces of the iuniors as well as the Seniors which thing is now grown out of vse by what meanes I know not vnlesse perhaps by the remissenes of the fellowes or rather arrogancie whiles they would rule alone I might not vnfitly so speake ascribing remissnes to the iunior fellowes and arrogancie to the Seniors His third and fourth reasons are impertinent vnderstanding the word Doctorum of Doctors a title in those times peculiar to Bishops not of learned which is common to both For though the speciall title of Doctors according to the former interpretation which is ◠better be opposed to of the Seniors or presbyters who were not called Doctors yet to a common title neither of the specials to which it is common are to be opposed but both to be subiected The 5. that Ambrose chargeth both slothfulnes and pride vpon the same persons called Doctors c. But this should haue bene prooued and not begged especially seeing I disprooue it in the reason following For that which he pratteleth of amplifying the fault by rising from the lesse to the greater hath not so much as a shew of a good reason to dsproue my exposition seeing of the 2. causes Ambrose seemeth to make the slothfulnesse of the learned that is the Presbyters not so principall as the pride of the learned that is to say the BB. vnles perhaps saith he by the slothfulnes of the presbyters or rather pride of the BB. Lastly saith he If we make diuers sorts of teachers he should haue said learned Ambrose his speech were defectiue and somewhat must be added as either by the slothfulnes of the teachers or rather pride of the Bishops or some of them I answere if the word Learned be vsed being a title common both to the Seniors and the Doctors there needs no addition to make the sentence perfect but a distinct application of the common title to the speciall sorts according to their seuerall faultes by which they are to be distinguished Slothfulnesse beeing the fault of the one and pride of the other as before you heard in the example of fellowes But why should I spend time in answering such slieght Objections the which notwithstanding seeme of such weight with him that hee wondereth that all these worthie reasons considered I would vnderstand Doctorum signifying learned as a common title both to the Bishops and Seniors and that saith hee as if hee were another Pythagoras vpon his bareword I say his bare word for as yet he hath not vouchsafed vs one piece of a Reason This is one of the refuters poore shifts to make himselfe wrangling worke To take an Assertion of mine and hauing seuered it from the Reasons wherewith it was guarded to cauill with mee as if without alledging a Reason I would like an other Pythagoras bee belieued vppon my bare word Whereas in truth both heere and in other places where I am the Answerer I render more reasons then were needfull were it not that I sought to satisfie in hope that men will at the length be satisfied with reason As for example this place of Ambrose is objected as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders I answere there is no necessitie this place should so bee vnderstood Here might I haue rested and put the opponents to inforce this testimonie which by them is barely propounded But being desirous to giue satisfaction I vrge it for them thus Ambrose saith there were Seniors in the primitiue Church whose councell was now neglected therefore he giueth testimonie to Lay-Elders I denie the consequence giuing a reason because those Seniors were of the Clergie and not of the Laitie Against this answere I make them replie thus The Seniors aduise was neglected by the learned Therfore themselues were such as were not learned or of the Clergie To this I answere that if the word Doctorum signifie learned Notwithstanding this place may be vnderstood of the Seniors of the clergie onely If wee conceiue Doctorū signifying learned as a common title both to the BB Seniors and of this answeare I giue a reason by explaning this testimony of Ambrose And whereas I did foresee that it would be objected that Doctorum was to be vnderstood either of pastors of parishes alone according to the conceite of the new Disciplinarians or of BB. a lone according to the rest I therfore sought to preuent this obiection in those words for if you expound Doctorum for pastors c. Wherein a sufficient reason is concluded holding strongly against the parish B. his Elders And not contented with all this in desire to giue satisfaction I rendred the true causes besides arrogancy of BB. which I knewe was presupposed why the assistance of the ancient ministers called Seniors was growne out of vse and yet forsooth like another Pythagoras I looke that my bare word should be credited without reason Yea but saith hee that which is added in steed of a Reason hath no more reason in it but his owne blindnes saying that I cannot see how c. But is it not strange that hee who is so sharpe sighted to finde out Syllogismes where none were intended could see no reason heere Or shall we not thinke that he chose rather like a shifting sophister to take aduātage of that modest phrase thē to encoūter with the reason it selfe which may thus be cōcluded That which is a matter of great labour and paines to the vndertaker and ease to the relinquisher is not to be ascribed to slothfulnes in him that taketh it vpon him but rather in them who are eased But the taking of the whole burden and cumbersome imployment of hearing suites and managing all causes Ecclesiasticall vpon the BB is a matter of great labour and paines to them and ease to the Seniors Therefore the Bishops vnderaking the whole burden and cumbersome imployment of hearing suites and managing all causes Ecclesiasticall is not to be ascribed to slothfulnes in them but rather to the Seniors One of these premisses should haue bene denyed and the denyall made good if hee had bene able but in steed hereof he encountereth with the
answere that the reason which I vsed concludeth most strongly against the refuters exposition who by Doctorum will needs vnderstand parish Bishops Who if they should take the whole burden vpon them of Church-gouernement and deciding causes Ecclesiasticall without the aide or assistance of the Elders could not therefore be accused of idlenes for I hope the refuter will not say that they also had Chancellers or Comissaries vnder them to whom they might put off those cumbersome imployments It remaineth now that I should proceed to the causes which I rendred why the Councell of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was so much neglected by Bishops But that my aduersary after his accustomed maner will needs take occasion to shew his owne ignorance by taking vp a speech which as he saith I let drop by the way concerning Deanes and Chapters of our Cathedrall Churches as being a resemblance or remainder of the Presbyteries which were in the Primitiue Church For such is his reading that he doubteth not to deny that in Ambrose his times there were any Cathedrall Churches or that our Deanes and Chapters are so much as resemblances of the Presbyteries of those times For Cathedrall Churches you are to vnderstand that although in euery Diocesse there were many parish churches both in country and citie yet there was one chiefe church in the citie which was the Bishops Cathedra or seat wherein the Bishop most vsually performed the duties of the Episcopall and pastorall function whereunto a peculiar Clergie belonged consisting of Presbyters Deacons and other inferiour orders and whereto Episcopium the Bishops house was neare adioyning This church in those times was called sometimes Cathedra sc. Episcopi as Concil Carthag where it was decreed that no Bishop relicta cathedra leauing his Cathedrall Church should remoue his seate or See to any church in his Diocesse the Greeke hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise BB are forbidden to neglect any of those places which beloÌ„g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Matrix Matrix Cathedra as Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Episcopus qui matricom tenet Conc. Carth. graec c. 24 siue Affric c. 90. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If in the mother Churches that is to say the Cathedrall the Bishop shal be negligent c sometimes Ciuitatensis ecclesia sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Councell of Neocaessaria Such a Church was that in Millaine whereunto Ambrose his house adioyned for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that house of salutation where Ambrose sate when Theodosius came to him to be absolued was not as T. C. imagined Ambrose his owne house before he was Bishop for it was intra septa Ecclesiae within the bounds of the Church Paulinus testifieth that Ambrose gaue away all when he was made Bishop and left himselfe nothing which here he might call his owne In that Church Ambrose vsually preached to that Church the Emperour himselfe resorted In the chancell whereof when Theodosius the Emperour would haue remained to receiue the communion Ambrose sent him word by his Archdeacon that that place was peculiar to the clergie which belonged to this Church consisting of the Arch-Presbyter and the other Presbyters of the Archdeacon and other Deacons and other inferior orders of the Clergie For albeit the name Decanus was not perhaps as yet in vse yet the office was and the Deane signified by other names For sometimes he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe or ruler of the Presbyters euen as Ambrose his Archdeacon in the place euen now cited is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such a one was Chrysostome in Antioch a long time Eulogius at Edessa sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Peter was the Protopresbyter in the Church at Alexandria And Arsacius who succeeded Chrysostome in the Bishopricke of Constantinople the Protopresbyter there In latine most vsually Archipresbyter as histor tripat lib. 10. c. 10. and in the fourth Councell of Carthage where it was decreed that the Bishop should take care of widowes Orphans strangers not by himselfe but by his Archpresbyter or by his Archdeacon Ierome shewing that in each societie there is some one ruler saith singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi singuli Archipresbyteri singuli Archdiaconi the Churches haue each of them one Bishop one Archpresbyter on Archdeacon In processe of time they were called decani Archipresbyteri a pluribus decani nuncupantur Archpresbyters of the most are called Deanes Neither were there onely Archpresbyters and Deanes of Cathedrall Churches which were called Archipresbyteri vrbani ciuitatenses of whom all these former testimonies are to be vnderstood but also rurall Deanes called sometimes Archipresbyteri decani as in the Councell of Towers and sometimes decani firsti Archipresbyteri parochiarum in the Councell of Agatha The chapter was wont to be called Presbyterium Placuit Presbyterium contrahi we thought good the Presbyterie should be gathered together saith Cornelius to Cyprian And Syricius the Bishop of Râ—me in an Epistle to Ambrose facto Presbyterio the Presbyterie being assembled somtimes seâ—atus caetus Presbyterorum the senate or assembly of Presbyters The Presbyters or Seniors themselues were called sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ciuitatenses Presbyteri the Presbyters of the citie seniores by Tertullian and Ambrose in the place alleaged The ancient Councell of Ancyra hauing pronounced it vnlawfull for the Chorepiscopi or countrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither yet is it lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie whereby it may in part appeare what was the estimation of the Presbyters of the citie in comparison of the countrie Bishops But as the Archipresbyteri in latter times were called decani so these Presbyters of the citie were in processe of time called Canonici prebendarij and the company of them which had beene called Presbyterium was termed capitulum in english Chapter Caluin saith Presbyteri vrbani versi sunt in canonicos the Presbyters of the citie are turned into Canons or prebendaries And it is to be noted saith Duarenus that in euery citie there was a certaine College of these Presbyters which the Bishop gouerned such as is at this day canonicorum collegium the college of Canons who seeme to haue succeeded into their place and this companie of Presbyters Ierome calleth the senate of the church By all which it is more then euident that as in the ancient times they had Cathedrall churches as well as we and those endowed with great reuenewes as it is easie to proue so the Deanes and chapters of our Cathedrall Churches are the remainder of their Presbyteries our Deanes being those who were called Archpresbyters our Prebendaries those which were called Presbyteri vrbani our chapters those which they called Presbyteries Neither doth that hinder which our
refuter obiecteth that our BB haue not the like assistance of the Deane and chapter that the ancient BB had of their Presbyteries For Ambrose complaineth that euen in his time their counsell was neglected And yet in these times as the Bishop may vse their aduise if he please so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent Besides sede vacante in the vacancy of the See the custodie of the Bishopricke Episcopall rights as also the election of the new Bishop is after a sort referred to them And as in times past so now the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the citie whom we call Prebendaries appertaineth to the BB a few Churches onely among vs excepted And to conclude as Deanes and Chapters with vs are in a maner peculiar to Cathedrall Churches the seats of Bishops some collegiate Churches excepted so were the Presbyteries in the primitiue Church Insomuch that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say there was in old time now should be a Deane chapter as a Presbyterie in euery parish If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitiue Churches let them seeke and sue that the Bishops may vse the counsell and assistance of the Presbyterie of the citie which we call the Deane and Chapter and they may hope to preuaile if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborne be sufficient which now come to be examined Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 16. But howsoeuer Ambrose knew not what to say of this matter otherwise then by coniecture c to the end of the first point pag. 17. These reasons I added by way of surplusage or aduantage to giue satisfaction if it might be But nothing will satisfie them who set themselues to cauill for whereas I said I doubt not but the true causes c the refuter depraueth my speech as if the word I had beene vttered with an immodest Emphasis when as I meant no more by that speech then when we say proculdubio or dubium non est which kind of speech my aduersarie me thinkes should not so greatly mislike sithens their Lay-Elders which haue beene vrged with such heat haue no better warrant then dubium non est satis opinor constat probabile est as you shall heare when we come to their proofes They may say confidently there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles yea from the time of Moses vntill Christ and that after the example of the Iewes who indeed neuer had such Presbyteries they are to be erected in euery parish and yet haue no better warrant for these things then their owne coniectures They may take vpon them to auow without reason that to haue beene done in the Apostles times whereunto neither scripture nor Father giueth testimonie and in me it is great immodestie to affirme that which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of though I alleage sufficient reason of my affirmation For in the first three hundred yeares after Christ when Christians neither had frequent Synodes to determine doubts nor Synodall constitutions to direct the Bishops nor the authoritie of the Christian Magistrate to rectifie what was amisse in the gouernement of the Church there was great necessitie that the Bishop should vse the aduise and counsell of other wise and learned men otherwise his will would haue seemed to stand for a law and his gouernement would haue beene subiect to ouersight in himselfe to remedilesse wrong towards the clergie and people and to the obloquy and scandall of all But when as prouinciall Synodes were frequently assembled to determine doubts to right the causes of them that were wronged to prescribe so many Caâ—ons and constitutions as to the BB assembling in Councell seemed sufficient for their direction wheÌ„ the authoritie of the christian Magistrate was helpefull to the Church then we may easily conceiue that as the Councell and assistance of the Presbyterie was not so needfull so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone it would seeme needlesse which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equall balance of the Readers iudgement against the cauills of the refuter wherewith he hath blotted more then a whole leafe It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the prouinciall Synodes For when by experience it was fouÌ„d to be very troublesome chargeable to the BB hurtfull to their churches tedious to suiters by reason of multitude of causes referred to Synodal audience that al the BB in euery couÌ„try should twice euery yeare for a long time be absent from their churches to be present at Synodes it was decreed both by the Emperours and BB that those causes wherewith prouinciall Synodes had vsually bene troubled should be referred to the audience and decisioÌ„ of the Archbishop or Metropolitan Euen so when it was found troublesome and tedious to the Presbyters and hurtfull to the Church that their time which might better be spent in studie of Diuinitie to furnish them for the publike Ministery should be taken vp in hearing brabbles and quarrels and also their assistance seemed not needfull to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid it is not to be maruelled that their assistance grew out of vse For whereas the refuter obiecteth and is the onely thing worth the mentioning which he obiecteth that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time and long after I answere that they continue to this day But as their assistance now in matters of gouernement is not much vsed so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected And thus much concerning the testimonie of Ambrose which hauing cleared as well as that 1. Tim. 5.17 being the onely places of moment which vse to be produced in this cause I might safely conclude from all the premisses that therfore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church From whence besides the maine conclusion that therefore the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow The first that therefore there were no parishionall Presbyteries the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were subiect to the Diocesan Bishops Against the former he obiecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that euery Church in the Apostles times had many Prophets Pastors and Teachers which as the refuter saith might make a Presbyterie But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of were not in seuerall parishes but as he saith in populous cities such as that of Ephesus Act. 20 and those prouided not for any one parish but for the whole citie and countrey adioyning that is to say the Diocesse For when my aduersarie shall produce any one pregnant testimonie that in such congregations as we call parishes there was a Presbyterie of Ministers I will also grant
Patriarch of the Diocesse but first according to the sacred constitutions before the Bishop of the City in which the Clergy man liueth then if he be suspected as partiall let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitane Bishop But if he also shall not allow of the accusation let him bring him before the Synode of that prouince but if still hee thinke himselfe wronged let him appeale to the Patriarch of the Diocesse from whose sentence there lieth no appeale c. Afterwards he addeth this exception that wheras there are two sorts of Patriarches some who in the Prouinces wherein they are beare the office of Metropolitanes their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Prouince such were the Bishops of Antioch Rome and Alexandria others per totam Diocesin throughout the whole Diocesse doe ordaine the Metropolitanes and other Bishops who are vnder them as the Bishop of Constantinople and perhaps Ierusalem therefore the causes which happen in the Prouinces of the former sort are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to Metropolitanes In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or disposition of the Churches subiect to the Patriarch of Constantinople made by the Emperour Leo the Philosopher it is noted that seuen Metropolitane Churches were withdrawn from the Romane Diocesse with the Bishops vnder them one also viz. Seleâ—cia in Pamphylia from the Diocesse of the East meaning of the Bishop of Antioch for he as Theodoret saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops in the East together with 26. Bishopricks subiect thereto Epiphanius as you heard before testifieth this to haue beene the custome that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue the Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diocesse or Administration of all Egypt Thebais Mareot Libya Ammoniace Maraeotis and Pentapolis It is said of Gregory the Great that vnto the Bishopricks of his Diocesse hee inuited Bishops of another Diocesse vacantes being voided of their Bishoprickes as the Bishop of Smyrna hee inuited to a Bishopricke in Sicilia The circuit also of an Archbishops iurisdiction is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Dioecesis and the Archbishop himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the Councell of Chalcedon where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches the name of Patriarch being also giuen sometimes vnto them If any haue a controuersie with the Metropolitane of the Prouince let him goe vnto either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primate of the Diocesse or to the patriarch of Constantinople The same Councell appointeth the Metropolitanes of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thracia to bee ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the BB. of euery prouince in those Dioceses to bee as they were wont according to the Canons to bee ordained of their Metropolitans So that according to this sense a prouince is but part of a Diocesse Socrates speaking of the first Councell of Constantinople saith that they established Patriarches meaning Archbishops diuiding vnto them prouinces Thus of the Diocesse of Pontus Helladius the Bishoppe of Cesarea Gregorius the Bishoppe of Nyssa Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship The Patriarchship of the Diocesse of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Millaine mentioneth diuers BB. of his Diocesse as you heard before But we are briefly also to shew that a Bishops charge is called Dioecesis The first Councell of Constantinople decreeth as it is commonly vnderstood that BB. should not goe out of their Diocesse vnto Churches without their bounds and that they should not confound the Churches Where a Diocesse is attributed to a Bishop as the circuit and bounds of his iurisdiction and Churches which the Councell forbiddeth to be confounded are confounded with Dioceses Againe that BB. being not called may not goe without their Diocesse to ordaine Ministers or to exercise other ecclesiasticall administrations In the Councell of Africke it was decreed that those people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synode of the prouince and the Primate and by the consent of him in whose Diocesse the said Church is Againe that one Bishop doe not inuade the Diocesse of another Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocesse But where we find it opposed to the City or to the Cathedral church then doth it signifie the rest of the Diocesse as in the Africane Councell it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocesse conuerted from Donatisme should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholicke B. Againe the BB are forbidden to leaue their chiefe seat or See to remoue themselues to another church in their Diocesse Thus in the plural number it signifieth sometimes al the churches in the Diocesse meaning the couÌ„try somtimes any of theÌ„ seuerally It was concluded vpon in the Councel of Carthage that the BB. which liue in the vnity coÌ„munion of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that hee should not onely iustly retaine his owne See but also possesse such Dioeceses that is parts of the Diocesse as had gotten to themselues a a schismaticall Bishop of their owne Againe it was decreed that Dioceses that is parts of the Diocesse in the country which neuer had a Bishop should not haue any and that Diocesse which sometimes had should haue their owne B. And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a peculiar gouernour with the consent or liking of him in whose power the Diocesse is let them haue a Bishop Wee haue heard it ordained saith Honoratus and Vrbanus in the 3. Councell of Carthage that Dioceses meaning but parts of the Diocesse in the Country should not obtaine a Bishop but with the consent of him vnder whom they are placed But perhaps some in our Prouince when they haue beene ordained Bishops in such a Diocesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses haue challenged other Dioceses this ought to be amended Epigonius answered that which is meet is reserued to euery Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that out of the company or combination of Parishes iointly possessed no part should bee taken to haue a Bishoppe of her owne but by the consent of him who hath authority meaning the Bishoppe of the City vnto which the Country belongeth But if he shall grant that the Diocesse meaning part of his owne Diocesse permitted shall enioy a Bishop of their owne hee that is so preferred may not encroch vpon other Dioceses that is other parts of the Diocesse because that one being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many was vouchsafed alone to receiue a Bishopricke of their owne
Bishoppe by the consent of the antient Bishoppe who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church shall only retain that people vnto which he was ordained Finally in another Councell of Africke it was decreed that such people as neuer had B. of their own should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of euery prouince and of the primate and also by the consent of him vnder whose diocesse the said Church is placed Out of which canons we may obserue these things First that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie Secondly that euer from the beginning they haue belonged to the Bishop of the Citie Thirdly that those parts of dioceses which then had no Bishop of their owne neuer had Fourthly that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished or the circuits of them inlarged but contrariwise if there were cause the number was increased and the circuits or dioceses lessened Fifthly that when a new Bishopricke was to be erected it was erected in some Bishops diocesse but not without his leaue and liking and also approbation of the Primate and Prouinciall synod Sixthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected that part wherein it was erected was taken as before I noted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all the parts iointly possessed and as it were from the body of the rest Seuenthly that hee which was preferred to such a Bishopricke was not a parish Bishoppe For besides his owne Church hee had a diocesse Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to euery parish but to such populous parts of dioceses as might seeme worthy of a Bishop Eighthly that when a new Bishopricke was erected the Presbyter who obtained this honour was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe and so placed in a superiour degree of the Ministerie then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presbyâ—er onely of a parish To these canons wee might adde the decrees of Clemens and Anacletus ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes or small Cities lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfet and yet it is to bee confessed that the Epistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus and that which in this point either of them decreed agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles time to our age But to let them passe the Epistle of Leo the Great is without suspicion which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued that not in any places or townes Bishops should be consecrated nor where heretofore they haue not been seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are the care of Presbyters may suffice But episcopall gouernment is onely to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Cities lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God haue forbidden the height of priesthood should be giuen to villages and parishes or obscure and solitary townes and the episcopall honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee committed it selfe should grow vile or contemptible by the multitude thereof The canons whereof he speaketh that I may also come to them were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice as Hosius and Athanasius c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice at that time much oppugned by the Arians â—this councell I say determined that it is simply vnlawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small City vnto which euen one onely Presbyter doth suffice For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there lest the name authority of a Bishop grow into contempt But the Bishops of the prouince being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke let it haue a Bishop For that of Laodicea though it were but a prouinciall Synode yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the ancient Code of canons and were confirmed by the generall councell held in Trullo In that councill therefore it was decreed that Bishops ought not to bee placed in villages and countrey townes but visitors and that those which before that time had beene ordained might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop who is in the Citty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same hath Photius Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares agoe beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King which I doe the rather mention because whereas the Bishop of Merida by the commandement of their late King Bamba had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt contrary to the canons of the councels and practise of the Church decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there As for him that was ordained not by his owne ambition but by the Kings compulsion they grant to him this fauour to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing And in the end they make this generall decree If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places where a Bishop neuer was let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onely the decrees of the ancient Fathers but also the Apostolicall ordinances This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the countrey That which was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councils and decrees of godly Bishops was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised But the placing of Bishops in countrie parishes was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councels and decrees of godly Bishops as I haue shewed Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was neuer lawfully regularly ordinarily practised It may be that my aduersary who is ready to catch at euerie syllable will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited obiect that
question which wee haue in hand concerning parish Bishops For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey then the Countrey Bishops were such but they were not such for they were set ouer diuers parishes Againe if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie then much more the Presbyters of parishes who were inferiour and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi as the Bishops substitutes were subiect to the Bishop and their parishes being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops were but a part of the diocesse So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops or their parishes from being entire Churches endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement But the former is true as hath beene proued therefore the latter That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them it is apparant because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes but for a time had episcopall ordination and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and to place Readers in parishes as also they might send Formatas or Canonicall Epistles which the Presbyters might not doe Likewise when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium pronounced void and censured the ordainers As for the partie ordained because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus but so as that hee should not ordaine nor exercise any other episcopall function but only confirme Nouices and consecrate Virgins and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop and as superiour to a Presbyter And this was my second argument whereby I haue prooued that Countrey parishes had no Bishops Neither had each of them a Presbyterie but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of Sardica and by the iudgement of Leo Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes as with vs but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes as namely that of the Councel of Carthage Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice If any Deacon ruling a people shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any c. Againe if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery then was it either of the Ministery or of the Laitie But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities and Cathedrall Churches and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country no not to assist the Chorepiscopi much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries Moreouer Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall sufficient for the gouernment of themselues hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie had the power of ordination as themselues also teach But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne For the Assumption let the Refuter consider with mee what course was taken in Countrey parishes when their Minister was departed Among themselues they had ordinarily none or if by chance they had they could not ordaine him but were as sometimes it happened in Cities to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied vnlesse first it did appeare that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church wherein as the Nurserie of the diocesse diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie did supply their want assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them But if there were none fit as sometimes their store was drawne drie by supplying the wants of many they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse whom they called another Bishops Clerke without his leaue and dimissorie letters for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong and such ordinations were to be disanulled If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse with the consent of his neighbour Bishop he sent to the Metropolitan who either out of his owne Clergie or some other in the Prouince was to supplie them And this as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches so is it confessed by Caluin Each City saith he had a College of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers for both did they all discharge the office of teaching c. to the people and also that they might leaue seede behinde them they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie To euery Citie a certaine region was attributed which should receiue their Ministers from thence and be accounted of the body of that Church It is therefore euident that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities For it was neuer almost heard of that there were at any time more Bishops so properly called then one in a City where notwithstanding were many Presbyters when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop was a parishionall Bishop but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them in the Citie and Countrey adioining there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one not onely of the true Christians but also of the heretikes and schismatickes as before was noted concerning Antioch I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which
neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
their owne peculiar dioceses and yet hauing a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince I cannot deny but that long before the Councell of Nice there were Patriarches aboue Metropolitanes whose originall as it seemeth proceeded from humane policie as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to antient custome But the superiority of Metropolitanes was either intended by the Apostles as I thinke when they appointed Bishoppes ouer mother Cities who though at the first actually were but Bishoppes of their owne diocesse yet vpon the conuersion of other Cities in the prouince were to be ackowledged the chiefe or at least as Beza supposeth they were ordained not by authority of Councels but sâ—â—dente natura necessitate flagitante nature aduising and necessitie requiring it For it was conuenient or rather necessary that there should be consociation of Churches within the same prouince and that the gouernours of the seuerall dioceses should meete for the common good as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishoppes within their dioceses might bee remedied By consequent therfore it was necessary especially before there were Christian magistrates that one in euery prouince should be held as chiefe or primate who should assemble the synods moderate them being assembled see the decrees executed and haue a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles saith quid aliud hic statuituâ— quam ordo ille quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupiâ—â—â— What other thing is here ordained but that order which in all Churches wee desire may be restored That there were Metropolitane Bishoppes within the first 200 yeeres it is euident by those prouincial councels which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter being assembled and guided by Metropolitanes As the president of the prouinciall synode held at Rome was Victoâ— the Metropolitane Bishoppe of Rome of those in Palestina Theophilus the Metropolitane of Caesarea and Narcissus Bishoppe of Ierusalem of that in France Irenaeus the Bishoppe of Lyons of that in Achaia Bacchylus the Bishoppe of Corinth of that in Asia Polycrates the Bishoppe of Ephesus And so of that in Osroene and of diuers others Now it is to be noted that Eusebius speaking of the synode held in France saith there was a meeting of the Churches in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he That there haue been Metropolitanes and prouinciall Churches euer since the Apostles times this one euidence among many which might bee alleaged may sufficientlie euince In the time of the first Ephesine Councell Dionysius the gouernour of the East whose chiefe seat was Antioch hauing appointed Theodorus to bee the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus the Patriarch of Antioch because the ecclesiasticall iurisdiction for the most part followed the ciuill challenged authority ouer the Isle of Cyprus and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia the mother city of Cyprus To which end the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters both to the clergy of Constantia and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus to interdict them from chusing their Metropolitane the See being then void or if they had already chosen their Bishop that both he and they should repaire to the Councell at Ephesus hoping that by the Councell they should be ouerruled according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire Reginus therefore who was chosen Bishoppe with other Bishoppes of Cyprus put vp a Supplication to the Councell complaining that the Bishoppe and clergy of Antioch had sought contrary to the Apostles Canons and contrary to the determination of the Councell of Nice to bring them in subiection to them and therefore requested that as euer since the Apostles times the prouinciall synod had ordained their Metropolitane so their antient right might not now be infringed Whereupon the Councell hauing censured the attempt of the Bishoppe of Antioch as 〈◊〉 innouation contrary to the lawes ecclesiasticall and caâ—â—â—s of the holy Apostles decreed not onely that the Bishoppes of Cyprus but also of all other dioceses and prouinces should retaine their antient right and that no Bishop should challenge vnto himselfe any prouince which had not bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in former times from the beginning vnder his predecessors iurisdiction It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod that to euery prouince her right which â—â—er from the beginning it hath had shall bee kept pure and iâ—â—iolable according to the antient receiued custome Euery Metropolitan hauing good lâ—aâ—â— to take a copie of this Act for his owne security Whereby it appeareth that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitane from the Apostles time And that no Metropolitane had or ought to haue the gouernement of any prouince which had not alwaies from the beginning been subiect to his Seâ— And that Metropolitanes were either actually appointed or at the least intended by the Apostles appeareth hereby That euer since their times in all prouinces throughout the Christian world there haue been Metropolitanes neuer misliked or contradicted by any vntil this our age And whereas the Refuter obiecteth that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops I say it maketh for them For euery Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop hauing a peculiar diocesse of his owne whereof he is Bishop as the Archbishop of Canterbury hath Canterbury and part of Kent besides some other peculiar Churches the Archbishop of Yorke hath Yorkeshire excepting the County of Richmond which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester and the County of Nottingham To his question therefore demanding where then are our Diocesan Churches become I answere there remaine 24 of them where they were wont to be for any thing that he can say to the contrary besides the Churches of Canterbury and Yorke which as they be prouinciall Churches in respect of the 2. prouinces so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging vnto them And where he saith the Cathedrall Churches are as it were parishes he saith he knowes not what For Cathedral Churches which are the mother Churches of euery diocesse neither are nor euer were parishes nor the Bishop nor Presbyteries of them euer intended to one parish And if it so fall out that to some part of the Cathedrall Church a particular parish belong therto a seuerall Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops haue beene presidents were neuer Parishionall but rather Panegyricall euen in the most ancient and purest Churches vnder the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma as it were with a paire of rams hornes For such is his wisdome that he thinketh diocesan prouinciall Churches which are subordinate one to the other to be so opposite as that to hold the one is to deny the other And therefore if I
vniuersall to be Aristocraticall because as our Sauiour Christ ascending into Heauen left his twelue Apostles as it were twelue Patriarches aunswerable to the Princes of the twelue tribes furnished with equall authority and power whose colledge was the supreme Senate of the vniuersall church so they committed the Churches to Bishops as their successours being equall in degree who as they gouerne the Churches seuerally so ioyntly with other gouernors are the highest Senate of the vniuersall Church But it was neuer practised in the Church of God that any presbyters or pastors of parishes should be called to generall councils to haue right of suffrage and authority to judge and determine those matters which were debated in those councils but both they and Deacons I meane some of them were to attend their Bishop to assist him with their priuate counsell and aduice which one argument by the way doth notably set forth the superiority of Bishops ouer other ministers But as his assumption crosseth the conceits of our new Disciplinarians so is his conclusion repugnant to their assertion who ascribing the supreme authority in their seuerall Churches to the whole congregation stand for a popular state rather then Aristocraticall Whereas indeed the gouernment of Churches as they are prouinciall are according to the ancient Canons which are in vse with vs gouerned by prouinciall synodes and therefore by a regiment Aristocraticall So that of this syllogisme the proposition is false the assumption is gainesaid by themselues and the conclusion confuting their owne assertion agreeth with the practise of prouinciall churches with vs. § 4. His other inference is this If the gouernment of the seurall Churches may be monarchicall then by the same reason the gouernment of the whole Church may be monarchicall But the gouernment of the whole Church may not be monarchicall therefore the gouernment of the seueral Churches may not This consequence is vnsound there being not the like reason of the whole Church and of the parts And that is the answere which ouâ— men doe make to the papists when they vrge this reason as there was but one high priest for the gouernment of the Church vnder the Law so there should be but one chiefe Bishop for the gouernment of the whole Church They answere there is not the like reason betweene the Church of one nation and of the whole world Cal. Inst. li. 4. ca. 6. s. 2. Gentis vnius totius orbis longè diuersa est ratio perinde est ac siquis contendat totum mundum a praefecto vno debere regi quia ager vnus non plures praefectos habeat For of the vniuersall Church Christ onely is the head which supreame and vniuersal gouernment if any man shall assume to himselfe as the Pope of Rome doth thereby he declareth himselfe to be Antichrist or emulus Christi sitting in the Church of God as God and lifting vp himselfe aboue all that is called God But as touching the seuerall Churches those who be the lieutenants of Christ may be called the heads or gouernors thereof as soueraigne princes of all states and persons within their dominions Metropolitans of prouinciall Churches Bishops of their dioces and Pastors of their seuerall flocks Secondly whereas particular men are enabled by God to gouerne seuerall churches no mortall man is able to weild the gouernment of the whole Church which is one of the maine arguments which our writers vse against the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church which this refuter seeketh in vaine to infringe The Romane Emperors when their Empire was at the largest and they esteemed themselues Lords of the world enioying indeed not one third part of the whole yet finding themselues vnable to weild so great a burden were faine to assume colleagues vnto them with whom they parted the Empire when they might haue retained the whole Thirdly the monarchicall gouernment of the whole Church would proue dangerous and pernicious to the same if that one head or Monarch thereof should fall into errour or idolatry especially he being so aboue the whole Church as that he should not be subiect to a generall Councell But the heads of seuerall Churches if they erre or fall may by the Synodes of other Bishops be brought into order or deposed Examples whereof we haue in all euen the chiefe seats of Bishops as of Marcellinus at Rome Paulus Samosatenus at Antioch Dioscorus at Alexandria Nestorius and Macedonius at Constantinople c. Cyprian writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome about the deposing of Martianus Bishop of Arles saith Idcirco copiosum corpus est Sacerdotâ—â— concordiâ— muâ—na glutino atque vnitatis vinculo copulatum vt si quis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregâ—m Christi lâ—cerare vastare tentauerit subueniant cateri c. Fourthly to the head of seuerall Churches the members may haue easie and speedie recourse for clearing of doubts and deciding of controuersies c. But from all parts of the world men could not without infinite trouble besides manifold inconueniences repaire to one place These reasons may suffice for the confutation of the proposition The assumption is false in respect of Christ who is the Monarch of the Church otherwise I acknowledge it to be true but without any disaduantage to my cause the odious consequence of the proposition which is so oft vrged being vnsound If therefore he can no better disproue the Supremacy of the Pope then he doth the superioritie of Bishops it were better he should be silent then busie himselfe in matters aboue his reach The other part of his idle flourish is a vaine bragge that were it not for that cause he should not neede to busie himselfe in answearing or examining this point For if neither the Churches were dioceses nor the Bishops Diocesan to what end should wee enquire what power or iurisdiction they had But the Churches were dioceses and the BB. diocesan as I haue manifestly proued before and as those Disciplinarians do confesse with whom chiefly I deale in this point who granting that the Churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan doe notwithstanding deny the superiority of Bishops in degree c. § 5. Now that the state of the controuersie betwixt vs and them may appeare I shew wherein the Presbyterians agree with vs and wherein they dissent from vs. But first he findeth fault that I call them Presbyterians as sometimes I doe also Disciplinarians though thereby I meane no other but such as doe stand for the Presbytery and for that discipline being loth either to call them aduersaries whom I acknowledge to be brethren or to offend them with the title of Puritans wherewith others doe vpbraid them And howsoeuer he in bitter scorne doth say that of my charity I doe in scorne so call them I doe professe vnfainedly that out of a charitable mind I did terme them Presbyterians not knowing how to speake of them as dissenting from vs more
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
For first is not this a plaine lie and a notorious falsification of my words to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops c Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of Could those words so is it for the same cause to be retained no otherwise be expounded then as implying an absolute necessity That is to be retained which is meet or fit expedient or conuenient profitable or needfull to be reteyned Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d iure diuino implying a perpetuall necessity thereof and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage that I holde no such matter Thirdly let it be obserued how vnder this pretence of amazement he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian which sitteth so neare to him and his consorts But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian noting the source of all schismes to be this when the Bishop who is but one and gouerneth the Church by the proud presumptioÌ„ of some is contemned c. And in the same epistle you ought to know saith he to Pupianus that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who haue not peace with the Priests of God that is the Bishops c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth Neque enim aliâ—â—de haereses c. Neither haue heresies or schismes any other beginning then this that Gods Priest meaning the Bishop is not obeied Neither is one Bishop for the time nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged c. Againe haec sunt initia haereticorum these bee the beginnings of heretikes these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes that they please themselues and contemne their B. with swelling pride Sic de ecclesia receditur thus doe men depart from the Church c. And in another place Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes when they speake euill of Priests and enuy their Bishops c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe that they may see their sinne and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof Out of Ierome who is the onely man among the Fathers on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie I produce three most pregnant testimonies the first affirming that vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop there will be as many schismes as Priests The second that euer since Saint Marks time the Presbyters hauing elected one placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishoppe The third that when some beganne to say J am of Paul I of Apollo which was in the Apostles time it was decreed by the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Of these allegations the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure the other two testifying de facto beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times These testimonies are featly auoided with a promise to answere them afterwards when he will say neuer a word to the present not almost to any purpose The second part of this section wherein I prooue against Beza and the better sort of the Disciplinarians that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence neither for a short time nor by course but were elected for terme of life this Refuter reiecteth as not worth the mentioning hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie Refuted oft I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon All the refutation of this point which hitherto wee haue had was this that I charged them with vntruths that I threaten kindnesse on them that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles if I could perswade that any of them haue said this when as I haue brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose And although I forbeare to mention Beza tendering his credit yet what I heere confuted is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke concerning the degrees of Ministers chiefly in the 141.142.143 pages Now because this point is of great moment though the Refuter haue tripped ouer it so lightly like a dog ouer a hot hearth as if I were afraid to touch it I will therefore endeuour to giue the Reader some further satisfaction therein by adding some other proofes What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret. For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors who also had consented to him mooued with repentance and returning from schisme vnto the Church confessed their error saying Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. Neithâ—r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God one Christ the Lord whom we haue confessed one holy Ghost one Bishop in a Catholike Church Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome gaue consent that Liberius should returne but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor with one voice cried as Theodoret reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one God one Christ one Bishop After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice Liberius returned and Felix departed to another Citie and shortly died Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence saith Sozomen that the seat of Peter should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a note of dissension and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall 2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited doth testifie Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors who had ioined with Nouatian Granat me saith he it greiueth me c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order against the Euangelical law against the vnity of Catholicke institution haue thought that another Bishop was to be made that is to say which is vngodly and vnlawfull to be done that another Church should be instituted the members of Christrent asunder the minde and body of the Lords flocke which is but one to be torne with schismaticall emulation And in another place Where a Bishop is once
lawfully ordained whosoeuer now will be made Bishop it is necessarie that he should be put forth of the Church and that he haue not the Churches ordination who doth not hold the vnity of the Church Whosoeuer he be though he boast much of himselfe and challenge verie much to himselfe he is prophane he is an aliant he is out of the Church And for as much as after the first Bishop there cannot be a second whosoeuer after that one who ought to be alone is made he is not the second but none at all Thirdly the singularitie of preeminence in Bishops during their life is proued by their singularitie of succession both in and since the Apostles times noted by Irenaeus Tertullian Eusebius and other approued authors most plainly prouing that there was but one Bishop at once in the ancient and Apostolicall Churches Fourthly what the preeminence and superioritie of Bishops was ouer the Presbyters and others of the Clergie appeareth by this that in good writers they are said the Bishop his Presbyters the Bishops Deacons the Bishops clergy Thus Arius is said to haue been Alexanders presbyter Petrus and Irenaus Timotheâ—â— and Macarius to haue been Athanasius his Presbyters the vicegerents of Siluester in the councill of Nice were his Presbyters Thus Crispio is said to haue been Epiphaniuâ— his archdeacon Heraclides to haue been Chrysostomes deacon In a word all of the Clergie were said to be the Bishops clerks as in the councill of Africke Let no Bishop take anothers clerke without the consent of him whose clerk he is The which is a plain argument of the great preeminence which the Bishops of the primitiue Church had ouer the Presbyters and others of the clergie To these we will adde the testimonie of Bucer against whom the Refuter cannot except as being partiall for Bishops By the perpetuall obseruation of the Church saith he euen from the Apostles themselues we see it seemed good to the holie Ghost that among the Presbyters to whom the charge of the Church is specially committed one shold haue the singular charge of the Churches and in that charge and care gouerned al others for which cause the name of Bishop was attributed to these chiefe Gouernors of Churches Howbeit without the counsell of the other Presbyters they ought not to determine any thing c. Thus much of the Preeminence of Bishops CHAP. IIII. That Bishops were superior in power and first in the power of ordination Serm. sect 5. pag. 36. Let vs see if Bishops were not also superiour in power Hearken to Ierome The safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the chiefe Priest or Bishop to whom if there be not yeelded exors ab omnibus eminens potestas a peerelesse power and eminent aboue all there will be so many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests THis testimony is handled by him as Sir Christopher Blunts head was vsed after his apprehension first healed and then cut off For first he explanes the testimonie and then reiects it He restraineth Ieromes speech to the Church in his owne time viz. in the end of the fourth age saying That no man can without open violence stretch it further Which is as vnlearned a shift as euer was heard of As though Ierome had spoken onely of that which was in his time and not of that which in his judgement ought to be Was it Ieromes judgement that the superioritie of Bishops was needfull for the auoiding of Schismes in his time onely doth he not plainly teach that the superioritie of Bishops began in the Apostles times and that at the first they were ordained for auoiding of Shismes For the former doth he not say that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem Timothe of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Doth he not say that euer since Saint Marks time there haue been Bishops placed in a superiour degree aboue the Presbytes Doth he not call the superioritie of BB. a tradition Apostolicall and doth he not say that it began in the whole world when diuisions began in the Church saying I am of Paul c. which was in the Apostles time c. As touching the latter he saith indeed that at the first the Churches vnder the Apostles before BB. were ordained were gouerned by the common Counsell of Presbyters But whereas afterwards one was elected who should be set ouer the rest In Schismatis remedium factum est It was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euery man drawing after him should rend in peeces the Church of Christ. And least we should think that afterwards to be referred to the times after the Apostles he addeth in the next words Nam Alexandriae For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist who died 5. or 6. yeares before Peter and Paul and almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn the Presbyters haue alwaies chosen one and placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishop The like he hath in Titum 1. that when diuisions began in the Church it was decreed in the whole world that one should be set ouer the rest to whom omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur the care of the whole Church or all the care of the Church should appertaine and that the seeds of Schismes might be taken away or as he speakth afterwards vt dissensionum plantaria euellerentur ad vnum omnem solicitudinem esse delaâ—â—â— that the first plants or sets of dissensions might be plucked out the whole care was committed to one It is most plaine therefore that in Ieromes judgement the superioritie of BB. was needfull for the auoiding of Schisme not onely in his own time but euen in the Apostles times when Bishops were first ordained And as he teacheth that BB. were instituted for auoiding of Schisme so his judgement in the place alleaged was that for the same cause they are necessarily to be reteined Yea he saith Salus Ecclesia The safetie of the Church dependeth on this dignitie of Bishops and that vnlesse a peerelesse and supereminent power be giuen vnto them there would be as many Schismes in the Churches as there be Priests But the refuter wants no reasons J warrant you to restraine Ieromes words to Ieromes time For To stretch it to the Apostles times saith he were to make Ierome a wilde headed 〈◊〉 indeed Thus Ierome if he agree not with the conceipts of some giddie heads shall be judged wild-headed And why so I pray you For three reasons First because Ierome in diuers places disputeth and concludeth that BB. and Presbyters are equall by the word of God Whereunto I answeare that this is all which Ierome in this cause saith that Bishops and Presbyters are the 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures His meaning is that before Bishops were ordained the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops which I do not denie
But no wheres he saith that Bishops and Presbyters were equall for before BB. were ordained he could not say that Presbyters and Bishops were equall he saith they were the same After Bishops were ordained which he acknowledgeth to haue been done in the Apostles times and that by the Apostles for which cause he calleth their institution a tradition Apostolicall he plainly confesseth that one who was chosen from among the Presbyters and was called the Bishop of the Church to haue been placed in a higher degree But hereof we shall haue occasion hereafter to intreat more fully His second reason Ierome maketh Heraclas and Dionysius in Alexandria the first authors of aduancing one minister aboue another in power The words are Nam Alexandriae á Marco Euangelista vsque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper vnum ex se electum in â—â—ccelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quo modo si exercitus imperatorem faciat For euen at Alexandria euer since Mark the Euangelist vntill the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters haue alwaies called one being chosen out of themselues and placed him in a higher degree Bishop euen as an armie chooseth their chiefetaine Which words as so far from giuing the least inckling of the Refuters conceit that Heraclas and Dionysius should be the first authors of aduancing Bishops that they plainely declare the Bishops euer from Saint Marks time to Heraclas and Dionysius to haue been placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters as the generall aboue the souldiours And truely of the two T. C. conceit who collecteth the cleane contrarie to our refuter hath the better glosse for he imagineth that vntill Heralas and Dionysius they who were chosen from among the Presbyters were called Bishops but then godly men misliking the appropriating of the name to one in a Church ceased to call him so And he might haue added with no lesse colour out of the words that the Bishops till then had been placed in a higher degree aboue other ministers but then good men misliking their aduancement aboue their fellow ministers brought them a peg lower To these conjectures the words would seeme to them that vnderstand not the right meaning thereof which heretofore I haue declared to giue some colour of likelyhood were it not that the practize of the Church did openly proclaime the contrarie Wherefore of all collectors my Refuter shal beare away the bell For he that can collect out of these words Euer vntill Heraclas and Dionysius the Bishop was placed in a higher degree that Heraclas and Dionysius were the first that aduanced the Bishops needs not doubt to collect quidlibet ex quolibet what himselfe will out of any thing whatsoeuer His third reason that Ierome in the same Epistle doth teach the contrarie is most false For Ierome plainly confesseth the Bishop to be superiour in the power of ordination and in the end concludeth that what Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites were in the temple the same let Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challenge to themselues in the Church The Refuter hauing thus salued this testimonie of Ierome in the end rejects it For if this be true that vnlesse the Bishop haue a peerelesse power there will be as many Schismes in the Church as there be Priests then by the like reason Bellarmine may argue if there be not a peerelesse power giuen to the Pope there will be as many Schismes in the Churches as there ar Bishops but this latter consequence is naught so is the former Thus Ierome on whose only authoritie among the ancient the Disciplinarians in this cause relie when he speaketh any thing for the BB. his credit is no better with them then if he had spoken for the Popes supremacie But this is his desperate malice against the holy calling of Bishops whereby he seeketh euery where to parallele the Christian superioritie of BB. with the Antichristian supremacy of the Pope But all in vaine For though it be true in Ieromes conceit that if there were no Bishops there would be as many Schismes almost as Priests yet it doth not follow thâ—t if there were no Pope there would bee as many Schismes as Bishops For first experience teacheth how to judge of this matter for vntill the yeare 607. the Pope neuer attained to his supremacie and yet the Church was more free from Schismes before that time then since whereas contrariwise when there were no Bishops for a short season in the Apostles times in most of the Churches euery one of the Presbyters as Ierome speaketh sought to draw Disciples after him which he supposeth to haue been the occasion of instituting Bishops Secondly there is great oddes betweene BB. and the greatest number of Presbyters One Bishop say the Fathers of the Africane councill may ordaine many Presbyters but one man fit to be a Bishop is hard to be found Thirdly before there was one supreme or vniuersall Bishop there was vnitie and communion betweene all the Bishops in Christendome whose course to preserue vnitie in the Churches and to auoid Schisme was to communicate the confessions of their faith one with an other by their communicatorie pacificall or formed letters And if any were in error they sought first seuerally by their letters to reclaime them and if they preuailed not they assembled in Councils either to reduce them to vnitie or to depose them Cyprian saith that the Catholike Church is one not rent into Schismes nor diuided but euery where knit togither coharentium sibi inuicem Sacerdotum glutino copulata and coupled with the glew as it were of Bishops agreeing mutually among themselues And in another place which before hath beene alledged Therefore is the bodie of Bishops copious coupled together with the glew of mutuall concord and with the bond of vnitie that if any of our companie shall be authour of an Heresie shall endeuour to rend the flocke of Christ and to make hauocke thereof the rest may helpe c. Whereas contrariwise if there were one supreme and vniuersall Bishop whose authoritie were greater then of generall Councils as the Papists teach when he doth erre who should reclame him when he is exorbitant who should reduce him into the way when he shall draw with him innumerable troopes of soules into Hell who may say vnto him Domine cur ita facis Syr why do you so And as the Church is to be carefull for auoiding Schisme and preseruation of itselfe in the vnitie of truth which may be prouided for as it was wont yea better then it was wont where are Christian and Orthodoxall magistrates by the BB. singularitie of preeminence in euery seuerall Church and mutuall concord of them in the truth so must it be as carefull to auoid conspiring consenting in vntruth But where there is one supreme and vniuersall Bishop when he erreth and goeth astray he becommeth as we see in the Papacie the head of
a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect of the question as if he should say Bishops were not therefore they had not this power For where he addeth Diocesan that is spoken vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape especially if it be added that the supposition is not as he vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue it But suppose for a little while that the refuters and the rest of the challengers conceit were true that there were no Bishops but parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops nor to other ministers but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet neither before Timothe and Titus were sent but in the Apostles nor after but in the Bishops that is to say in Timothe and Titus and their successors then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops wherein they are superior to other ministers But both the parts of the antecedent are true therefore the consequent The former part of the
was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria that euer since his time and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn there hath beene a Bishop in a degree superiour to other Presdyters that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus c. That word afterwards therefore is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters which custome as he supposeth continued vntill one of the Presbyters beeing chosen from among the rest was called Bishop for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB. BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen he began for difference sake to be called the Bishop the Angell of the Church Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria For euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. who were not chosen from among the Presbyters the Presbyters haue alwaies called one chosen from among themselues and placed in a higher degree the Bishop euen as if an army doe choose their generall or Deacons choose from among themselues one whom they know to be industrious and call him the Archdeacon His fourth argument is this There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe which a Deacon cannot but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon by how much he is nearer to the Bishop this is the verie scope of this place and to the same are all the arguments following referred c. the summe whereof is that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops and Deacons You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures not that the office but the name of Bishop and Presbyter were for a time confounded Now let vs see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch he would say at Alexandria that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one See you not how he prooueth it when he saith that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters Was this to prooue that a Bishop and Presbyter are equall or all one or did Ierome intend any thing else but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons and that by such arguments as before I analysed We haue heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures and practise of the Church at Alexandria now at the last let vs heare the end of his speech That he I know not who might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Toto coelo errat it was not Ieromes end to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop but superiour to the Deacon For if the former had beene his intent this and the other from the practise of Alexandria had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree therefore they were equall The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination therefore Presbyters be his equals Hath not the Refuter now great cause thinke you to crake of this answere was this among all the testimonies which I alledged chosen as most misalledged by occasion whereof he might pay me mine owne and tell me that it was wherried in with â—areâ— by him that looked an other â—ay Blessed bee God that so guided me in the way of truth that among all my allegations the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one As for this nothing could bee more pregnant and pertinent to proue that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination then as I said in the sermon that Ierome himselfe euen when and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters as high as hee can aboue the Deacons doth confesse ordinatioÌ„ to be peculiar to Bishops Now whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth excepting ordination I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected that if BB. bee superiour onely in the power of ordination then are they not superiour in iurisdiction This obiection I preuented in these words Where you are not to vnderstand him or other of the Fathers speaking somâ—time to the like purpose as though the B. were not superiour in any thing else but that potestate ordâ—nis as touching power of order â—e is superior only in ordination For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis they euery where acknowledge I know some answere that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuinâ— superiour to other Ministers onely in the power of ordination but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico in that hee acknowledgeth that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes Which answere I refusing because Ierome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in generall and of the power of ordination in particular that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata concordiam sacerdotum solueret et scandala generaret made choice of this other as the more like to bee true Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome and some other fathers who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction and yet affirming that hee is superiour onely in the right of ordination or imposing hands must thus bee vnderstood as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onely therein quoad ordinis potestatem as touching the power of order they holding other things belonging to the power of order as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper to bee common to BB. with other ministers but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters because as Thomas saith ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem Hereunto the Refuter after his malepert and saucy manner answereth that I vnderstand not this distinction For saith he potestas ordinis power of order is not potestas ordinationis power of ordination but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued as Tolet sheweth But
and were Pastors thereof And secondly because if I prooue they gouerned the Presbyters who were the gouernours of the seuerall flockes then much more their iurisdiction did extend to the flockes themselues Where he saith J must prooue that the censuring the people is their onely right I answer it is sufficient to prooue their superioritie in iurisdiction which I intended and that none in the Diocese doth exercise externall iurisdiction but from the B. and vnder him A notable euidence whereof wee haue in Siluanus the famous Bishop of Troas who perceiuing those of his Clergie to make gaine of mens suits appointed others whom he thought good to bee the Judges of mens causes whereby he got himselfe great renowne And as for the power of binding and loosing in the court of conscience it is common to Bishops with all Presbyters howsoeuer in respect of the vse and exercise thereof they are subiect to the Bishop Where hee saith that Bishops haue their iurisdiction jure humano because they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order he seemeth to harpe vpon something which hee doth not well vnderstand For although the Schoolemen and Papists teach that to the power of order belongeth a character and grace which God alone doth giue in their ordination yet they grant also that the jurisdiction which is conferred to them by the will of man doth also mediately proceede from God And howsoeuer it be true that Bishops with vs are assisted iure humano to exercise their publike and externall iurisdiction and to iudge in causes ecclesiasticall by the Kings ecclesiasticall Law yet this doth not hinder but that they are authorized thereunto iure Apostolico as is manifest by the Apostles themselues by Timothie and Titus and all the ancient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who by authoritie deriued to them from the Apostles did exercise the ecclesiasticall censures ouer the people and clergy before there were any lawes of Christian Magistrates to authorise or assist them thereunto But he is pleased to see how I proue the BB. to haue been superior to the Presbyters in iurisdiction though not pleased that I speake in generall of BB. for here his Coccysme againe hath place that I should haue proued the Angels of the seauen Churches to haue had iurisdiction ouer ministers vnder them Which is a miserable poore shift indeed Was not this the thing propounded to be proued that the BB. of the primitiue Church were superior in iurisdiction doth not himselfe confesse that the ancient Churches were all of one Constitution And is not the proofe of the generall a proofe of the particular also If I should say these seauen Angels had this iurisdiction some such exception of singularity in them would with as great reason be taken as against Timothy and Titus But when I proue that BB. in generall had this superiority I doe more then proue that these seauen Bishops had it The reason which I vse is an induction The Bishop had superiority in iurisdiction both to the Presbyters that were parts of the Presbytery assisting him and to the Pastors assigned to seuerall cures Therefore he had superior iurisdiction to all the Presbyters in the diocesse But the Refuter maketh me reason thus If the Bishoppes had maiority of rule both ouer the Presbyters that assisted them and also ouer the Pastors allotted to their seuerall charges then had they power of iurisdiction But they had maiority of rule ouer the Presbyters assisting them and the Pastors c. Therefore they had power of iurisdiction Why Needes this to be proued that Bishops had power of iurisdiction which euery parish Minister hath Or doth the Refuter deny that Bishops had power of iurisdiction Or if he cannot but grant the conclusion what a folly is it to wrangle with the premises And yet for feare of granting the conclusion first hee pickes a quarrell with the proposition For though they had maiority of rule c. yet wâ—ll it not follow they had sole power of iurisdiction Whence commeth this sole I pray you that hath so oft been foisted in I feare greatly from an euill conscience resolued to oppugne and deface the truth Cannot the B. be superior to Presbyters in the power of iurisdiction vnlesse they haue as none haue the sole power of iurisdiction Then hee flatly denieth the assumption But what reason doth he giue of his deniall what euidence of truth doth he bring to proue the contrary Alas he troubleth not himselfe that way all his care and endeuour is to find out starting holes and euasions to elude the truth I proue first in generall that BB. had maiority of rule or superiority of iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the City who were the chiefe Then in particular in the next section The former I proue first by the testimony of Ierome who confesseth that of necessity a power eminent aboue all and admitting no partner at least no compeere is to be granted to the B. To this besides the poore euasion of Ieromes minority and being vnder age before answered he saith Ierome speaketh of such BB. as hee acknowledgeth to 〈◊〉 no warrant in the scriptures and to haue beene brought into the Câ—â—rch by occasâ—â—â— of schisme after the Apostles times Both which I haue before proued and shall againe proue to be manifestly false Doth Ierome deny BB. to haue warrant in the scriptures besides the places of the new testament often alledged call to mind those two on Psalme 45. and Esay 60. Where he calleth them principes ecclesia by warrant of those scriptures Doth Ierome say they were not brought into the Church vntill after the Apostles times doth not he confesse Iames Markâ— Timothy Titus and diuers others to haue been BB. in the Apostles times and that euer since S. Marke there haue beene BB. at Alexandria Secondly I alledge Ignatius whom themselues oft alledge for their Presbyteries But see what hard hap some men haue he whose authority is so good when he is alleaged by them is but a counterfeit when he is produced by me And yet those who suspect fiue of his epistles because Eusebius and Ierome mention but seauen acknowledge this ad Trallianos to be none of the fiue which are suspected but one of the seauen which are receiued This â—uasion should not haue bin vsed if he could tell how to answer his testimony otherwise Yes that he can For though Ignatius doe say that a B. is such an one as holdeth or manageth the whole power and authority aboue all yet that proueth not the sole iurisdiction of BB. God amend that soule that so oft foisteth in that sole besides my meaning and my words And yet truely Ignatius saith faire for the sole power For if the B. haue the whole power and authority aboue all why may he not be said to haue the sole power and authority ouer all what saith the refuter he alone
you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes in respect of iurisdiction that the Presbyters and Deacons though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order yet they might not exercise that power without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable which is celebrated vnder the Bishop that is in his presence or by such namely in his absence or in those Congregations where he is not present as he should permit or appoint The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuent the Refuters cauill who saith that the Church was but one Congregation whâ—rein no man had authoritie to minister the word or Sacraments but with the liking of the Pastor For that Eucharist which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the congregation where the Bishop was present it being administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize But the idle conceit of one onely Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted Where I alleged Cyprian reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution without warrant from him though he were absent therin not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum the Bishop who was set ouer them nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui Cathedrae seruantes nor reseruing vnto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire the Refuter saith the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian will serue as a poore shift for Cyprians testimonie who had iust cause to complaine that the Presbyters who in his absence were to feede the Flocke had taken vpon them to admit to the Communion c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne Is it not plaine that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of who as hee saith elsewhere were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood who were to feed the people and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people were Ministers of the word and Sacraments Againe will it serue the turne to say either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I haue proued before to haue beene a Metropolitan In the end he resteth in his first answer that Cyprian is vnder age Alas good Cyprian how hard was thy happe that thou wert not Bishop one fortie yeeres sooner that the Refuter and his consorts which now haue excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church might haue esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres The like I might haue added concerning other ministeriall functions The second Councell of Carthage decreed that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare celebrare diuine seruice and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie hee should be deposed The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed who shal performe the actions of the church meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice and the ministerie of the word and sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop The ancient Canon called the Apostles appointeth that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God vse of the sacraments that he should be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious The same hath the Councell of Antioch in the fifth Canon which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon all the BB. gaue it this acclamation This is a iust rule this is the rule of the Fathers This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice and offer the Communion c. the Councell determined if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. c. let him be anathema For a conclusion I alleged the words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the B. that is without his leaue and authority doe any thing that belongeth to the Church To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer of one congregation which I haue confuted more then once To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters in the first place I alleged Cyprian who telleth Regatianuâ— a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon that pro Episcopatus vâ—gore Cathedrae authoritate for the vigour of his Bishopricke and authority of his chaire hee might himselfe haue censured him as he thought good counselleth him if the Deacon did persist hee should exercise the power of his honor towards him and either depose him or excommunicate him Secondly Ierome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter did not virga apostolica with the apostolike and with an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessell and deliuer him vnto the destruction of the flesh Both these the refuter casteth off as vncompetent witnesses who speake but of the practise of their owne times as who should say it had beene otherwise before their times But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies some whereof I will cite anon that the ancientest Canons Councels and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church As for the Apostles times I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus The former reason if the Refuter will giue me leaue to frame it is this Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselues Apostles and were not or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers The Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reproued for the latter Therefore these Angels which before I haue proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers His answer is friuolous that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops which before hath been prooued nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters which word himselfe deuised for a shift Is it not against sense saith hee that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles If they were not subiect to him why is hee either commended for exercising
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse that ordination bring him again to his own Church Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5. Thirdly they might not so much as trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers others as Con. Agath c. 38. Epaunens c. 6. Aurelian 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon c. 11.12 Hereby the Reader will easily discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
true or false And I hope in God that which now I haue written in defence of that which they heard will not onely satisfie those which are not wilfully addicted to your nouelties but also conuict the conscience of the gainesayers whom I desire in the feare of God to take heede how they resist a truth whereof their conscience is conuicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is hard to kicke against the pricks To that which hee obiecteth concerning the mentioning of prouinciall Bishops whome I did not name before I answere that although I did not expressely and by name argue for prouinciall Bishops yet diuers of my proofes were directly of them and by a consequence from the greater to the lesse applied to Bishops as also by this reason because eeuery prouinciall Bishop is a diocesan Bishop though not contrariwise To his other cauill of not direct concluding I haue answered already 4. or 5. times But before I ended this 4. point I thought it needfull to preuent an obiection which is vsually made that whatsoeuer the office of the ancient Bishops was yet they were not called Lords as ours bee Whereunto I answered that men were not to be offended at that title for these two causes 1. Because it is a title in the holy scriptures giuen both to naturall and spirituall Fathers as I proued out of Genesis 3◠35.1 Kings 18.7.13 2. Because the title of Angels which the Holy Ghost in this place giueth to them is a title of greater honour then the other by how much the heauenly gouernours of men vnder God are more excellent then the earthly To the former besides some insulting speeches which hee will bee ashamed of when hee shall finde himselfe put to silence hee answereth that the word Lord was a terme common too all superiours as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and Dominus in Latine which I confesse to be true in the vocatiue case the words being vsed as our English Sir But otherwise where the word is to be translated Lord it is both in Hebrew and Greeke a word of like honour with our English Lord. And therefore it was a great ouersight in those which translating 1. Pet. 3. where Peter saith that Sara called Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord read that she called him Sir For her words whereunto Peter had relation were these Vadoni zaken and my Lord is olde It were something foolish to say and my Sir Yea but saith he the word Lord with vs is appropriated to men of Nobility and speciall place in ciuill gouernment To omitte that it is not so appropriated to them but that euen meane gentlemen are so called in respect of the manours which they hold it appeareth by that which hath bene said that Bishops not onely now haue but in the Primitiue Church had as speciall and as honourable a place in the gouernment of the Church as the ciuill magistrates he speaketh of haue in the common wealth Their calling also beeing more honourable I see no reason why they should be enuyed an equall title of honour To the latter reason he answereth 2. things First that the titles of honour now giuen to Bishops were also inferiour to the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giueth them and yet then they had them not nor till Poperie he meaneth the Papacie was grown to his full height His simple Reader would thinke that hee speaketh vpon certaine knowledge and cannot but beleeue him and so be deceiued by his confident speeches but he speaketh at all aduentures as his affection not as his knowledge lead him The Papacie came not to the ful height vntil the time of Hildebrād which was aboue a thousand yeares after Christ when the Pope had gotten the temporall supremacie and so both the swords The beginning of that which our writers call the Papacie was when the Pope first obtained the spirituall supremacie which was about the yeare sixe hundred and seauen If therefore I shall prooue that Bishops had as honourable titles in the first sixe hundred yeares as they haue now with vs I shall euince that not onely before the height but before the arising of the Papacie they were called Lords and by other titles no lesse honourable then Lord. But I will not desire so large a scope the most of my proofes shall be contained within three or foure hundred yeares after the death of Christ. Alexander therefore the Bishop of Alexandria writing to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople giueth him this stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To my most honourable brother Not long after Arius writeth thus to Eusebius of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my most desired Lord. The same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my Lord Paulinus Bishop of Treuers vsing also the same title more then once in the same Epistle of Eusebius of Caesaria calling him my Lord Eusebius For though these two whom I last cited were not sound in the faith yet their writing sheweth what was the custome of the Church before the Councill of Nice Not long after the same Councill Athanasius succeeded the foresaid Alexander in his behalfe the Bishops which came out of Aegypt write to the Bishops assembled in Councill at Tyrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our most honourable Lords The Synode held at Ierusalem writing also in his behalfe to the Presbyters Deacons people in Aegypt Lybia Alexandria moue thē to be thankful vnto God who hath now say they restored vnto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your pastor and Lord. About the same time certain BB. direct their letters to Iulius B. of Rome the great Patron of Athanasius vnder this stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most blessed Lord c. Gregory Nazianzene writing to Gregory Nyssen concerning a false report which had beene spread that the BB. had put him by the bishopricke saith let no man speake vntruths of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of my Lords the BB. The councell held at Illyricum writing to the Churches and Bishops of Asia and Phrygia c. hath these words we haue sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Lord and fellow minister Elpidius to take notice of your doctrine whether it bee as we haue heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Lord and fellow Minister Eustathius George the Bishop of Laodicea writeth to certain BB. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most honourable Lords The fathers of the second generall Councell direct their letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most honourable Lords Damasus Ambrose c. And in the same epistle speaking of BB. call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most reuerend and most honorable brethren The said Ambrose holding with other BB. a Synode and writing a synodicall epistle to Syricius then B. of Rome among other BB. Aper a Presbyter subscribed thereunto for his B. vsing these words Exiussudomini Episcopi Geminiani at the commandement of my L.
so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
as much in effect yea and in expresse termes had been giuen to others as to the B. of Alexandria called by some the iudge of the whole world to the B. of Constantinople called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch to Iames the B. of Ierusalem Heare B. Iewels words Clement vnto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae vbique Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem and besides all the Churches that be founded euery where by Gods prouidence These be all his words sauing that hee saith if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome he would not thus haue passed it ouer in silence Which if you compare with the refuters allegation you may well wonder at his dealing Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches is not his saying but Clements if it be truely printed in the copies which B. Iewel did follow Neither would it follow of those words alledged as they are that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches The B. of Constantinople though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone and that was his peculiar Diocese So if Clement had meant that Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him and thereof he had his denomination The Pope himselfe though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop yet is he specially Bishop of Rome and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane of which he is Bishop Howbeit in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus Sed ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbique sunt By which copy if it be true Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches but Clements Epistle is directed not onely to Iames but to all Churches c. Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue that he neither was nor might be B. of Ierusalem I promise you this maketh a faire shew if it be true But this also is a manifest vntruth For the arguments that he vseth are to proue that Peter was not Bishop of Rome Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre me But this also is vntrue For six of these eight are such as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument taken from Peters long absence from Rome after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be applyed to Iames who was resident at Ierusalem as the Actes besides other witnesses testifie Nor the fourth that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch as of Rome But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul as Irenaeus teacheth But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem but he But after he was dead Simon was chosen to be his successor Nor the sixt that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome note this to haue beene the end not to be B. there but to oppose Simon Magus But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church which during his life had no other B. Nor the seauenth that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he haue professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles neither would he haue conuenanted with Paul that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles but himselfe and Iames and Iohn of the Circumcision For Iames as he is said to haue beene B. of Ierusalem so hee professeth himselfe to haue beene the Apostle of the Iewes For besides that he writeth his Epistle to the Iewes he and Peter and Iohn gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem it is more then probable that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts he is noted as President or chiefe in that Councill and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn Nor the eight for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome say Paul was also meaning that they were both founders of the Church but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem mention him alone Neither was he founder of that Church but Christ himselfe who was the minister of Circumcision But it will be said the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem That commeth now to be tryed The first reason is this Bishops haue certaine Churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission goe into all the world hee assigned no Prouinces nor parts of the world to any Notwithstanding before they were to goe abroad he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem till they had receiued the holy Ghost who should direct them what to doe and we may be assured that he did not direct them to goe confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world some to another Howbeit when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured they were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops And this is true of Peter and of the most of the Apostles But herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned Neither did he trauaile as the rest from one Country to another being not confined to any one Prouince though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place where they rested exercising no doubt a patriarchall authority as it were in that circuit where they had trauailed and planted Churches Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus and others in other places That
assumption therefore which is true of the rest of the Apostles is not true of Iames and were to be denied if the Syllogisme were thus framed BB. had certaine Churches assigned to them Iames had not a certaine Church assigned to him Therefore he was not B. This assumption I haue disproued And therefore though that argument may seeme to conclude sufficiently against Peters being B. of Rome it concludeth not against Iames his being B. of Ierusalem And besides betweene Iames and the rest this difference may be noted that whereas they hauing planted Churches when they saw their time committed the same to certaine BB. so Peter and others of the Apostles committed Antioch to Evodius Peter and Paul committed Rome to Linus Paul committed Ephesus to Timothie Creet to Titus Iohn committed Smyrna to Polycarpus and diuers other Churches in Asia to other Bishops as Eusebius reporteth yet Iames abiding all his time at Ierusalem committed that Church to no other though when he was dead the Apostles committed it to Simon whom they ordayned his successour The second reason applied to Iames. If Iames were B. then by the same reason other of the Apostles were BB. But the other Apostles were not Bishops properly Therefore not Iames. Why I should not grant this consequence I haue shewed sufficient reason in setting downe the difference betweene Iames and the rest of the Apostles Therefore that reason also howsoeuer it may take place as touching Peter in whom no such difference from the rest of the Apostles can be truly noted yet it holdeth not against Iames his being B. of Ierusalem If the Refuter or any other be not as yet perswaded of this point to satisfie him in the maine point that the Apostles appointed and ordained Bishops I will be content to suppose that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem because it might be supposed and granted without any great preiudice to the cause seeing it is manifest that the same ancient Authors who testifie that the Apostles appointed Iames B. of Ierusalem doe also witnesse that after his death the Apostles who were then remayning ordayned Simon the sonne of Cleophas to be B. there as hereafter shall be shewed After I had proued that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I endeuoured to confute the opinion of the learneder sort of Disciplinarians who doe hold as before hath been shewed that Bishops were not superiour to other Ministers in degree neither had superioritie for terme of life but for a short time And to this end obiected the same conceipts that by this instance of Iames they might plainly be refuted Hereunto the Refuter replyeth that I deuise those obiections to make my selfe worke when as indeed they be the two maine points wherein Beza differeth from vs. But saith he who euer conceiued any such thought of the Apostle Iames I am sure there is not a syllable nor a letter of him at all in the place he quoteth out of Beza the more wrong he doth him c. All this adoe ariseth from the misprinting of one letter in the margent c being put for p. For in the 23. page of that book in the end of the third chapter he hath this saying though I grant that Iames the brother of our Lord was in order first in the Church of Ierusalem yet it followeth not that he was in degree superiour either to the Apostles or else to his fellow Ministers Which saying as it seemeth I should not neede to haue confuted if all the Disciplinarians were of our Refuters minde who censureth that speech as vntrue and vnreuerent But yet that he might let his Reader see that he is able to defend any thing against me he saith if a man would speake so vntruly and vnreuerently he might easily maintayne it against the answere that M. D. bringeth They must remember saith he that he was an Apostle and his honour and degree by his Bishopricke not impaired As if the question were not of him as a B. not as an Apostle His superiority in degree proceeded from his Apostleship and yet as a B. he might be superiour in order onely This tricke of fast and loose was not worth the shewing vnlesse it could haue beene done more cleanely To returne these trickes of fast and loose to such a shifting Sophister as I haue proued the Refuter to be it is plaine that Beza speaketh simply of Iames as the chiefe in the Church of Ierusalem as wel in respect of the Apostles as the Presbyters there And therefore considereth him as an Apostle as well as a B. And if he had intended any such distinction as the Refuter imagineth hee should haue conceiued that Iames his honour and degree by his Bishopricke was impaired and that the Apostles in choosing him to be B. of Ierusalem should rather haue depressed him then done him honour But they thought it a singular honour to be the Apostle or Bishop of that Church which Christ himselfe had founded And therefore as Clement noteth the chiefe of the Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn though Christ had vouchsafed to them greater honour then the rest yet would not arrogate to themselues that honour but preferred Iames the iust the brother of our Lord thereunto and when it was void againe by his death they made choise of Simon the sonne of Cleophas for the same cause because he also was the Lords kinsman The graue censure of the Refuter is that Clements speech is vnsauourie and the respect carnall which Hegesippus and Eusebius alledge Thus is hee able as it were with a breath to blowe away these worthy Authors Hegesippus Clemens and Eusebius they are not able to stand before him But why vnsauourie when the Apostles were to be dispersed into diuers parts of the world was it not a speciall honour for one amongst them without that trauaile wandring wherto the rest were subiect to be set ouer the mother Church of Christendome which Christ himselfe had founded to be the Apostle of that people which had sundry prerogatiues aboue all other Nations and in respect of that place to haue a precedence before the other Apostles as Iames had Act. 15. Gal. 2 And why carnall were not they bound in respect of that loue and reuerence which they did owe to our Sauiour Christ to preferre his neere kinsmen according to the flesh being at the least equall with others It is certaine that Iames for his admirable piety was wonderfully honoured not onely among Christians but also among the vnbeleeuing Iewes as might easily be shewed in so much that Iosephus imputeth the destruction of Ierusalem to his death as to a principall cause But saith he if it had beene arrogancie in them why not in him That which had beene arrogancie in them to haue arrogated to themselues was no arrogancie in him to vndertake being imposed vpon him Yea but if it were so great a priuiledge why might it not haue aduanced him
to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie this was the greatest honour to haue a priority and precedence in that degree Yea but I denie him to haue beene B. when I say that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem that charge which before they had in cōmon they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular but their charge was of Apostles not of Bishops As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishopricke and as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes Neither was this a clipping of his wings as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutual consent euery mans Prouince as it were circuit and charge was assigned to him But I spake not without booke deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter euery where doth but what I said I receiued from their owne and almost onely Author Ierome which he receiued also from Hegesippus Hegesippus saith he who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames saith Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust receiued the Church of Ierusalem post Apostolos after the Apostles As touching the other point though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent notwithstanding it not onely confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time and not for terme of life but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares Yea but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end as to shew the preheminence which he had was not as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine for a short time or by course but for terme of life And yet it proueth the maine point also that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse superintendent of that Church For if he were not the Apostle of that Church that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles trauaile into other parts but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares vntill his death Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church for that might haue beene otherwise performed as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither Where hee saith the Church might otherwise haue beene gouerned it is nothing to the purpose vnlesse he can shew that it was otherwise gouerned There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard But what Pastor had it if Iames who continued there and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof There is no doubt to be made but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares and of his successours euery one vntill their death Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches wee are to obserue that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vnto them c. to pag. 72. li. 17. The difference in respect of the time which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches I doe in this section explane shewing that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them as presently after the ascension of Christ they appointed a Bishop ouer the Church of Ierusalem yeelding these reasons because as yet there was neither that choise nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted before it needed to be gouerned and shewing what course they did take before they appointed Bishops namely that first they ordayned Presbyters to labour the conuersion of the people to feed them being conuerted and to attend them in common gouerning them after a priuate manner and as it were in foro conscientiae And this is that which Ierome saith that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands as was manifest whiles eyther they continued neare them or meant not to be long from them All which while Bishops were not so needfull the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie of those Churches either by their presence or by their letters and messengers And this I noted to be the cause why in the writings of the Apostles Bishops are so seldome though not so seldome as some imagine mentioned and the name with Presbyter confounded But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether either by departure from them or by death that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition in steed of Fathers that is the Apostles there shall be children borne vnto thee whom thou shall make Princes ouer all the earth that is Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church At their departure they left substitutes and at their death appointed successours to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction as vvell ouer the Presbyters as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning And these I saide at the first vvere called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Rulers Heb. 13.17 vvhich text in the auncient canons called the Apostles and in the second Epistle of Ignatius as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB. sometimes the Apostles of the Churches c. To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches as he doth to the residue of the Sermon for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon that his dealing may the better appeare And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether Bishops were not so needfull as after their departure and death which is most manifest Belike saith he they were needfull before but
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 2.16 Tit. 1.10.11 and 3.9 and iudges of their persons and conuersation 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21 Tit. 3.10 to which proofes he answereth nothing Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene of Chrysostome of Oecumenius and Gregory testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in efâ—ect with his assumption I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnder the name of that supposition and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition is this that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things which Bishops arrogate to themselues yet they were to doe them by an higher power and therefore not as Bishops Whereto I answere that they were to be done by a power vvhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal And secondly that the power Episcopal whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vnto the end The assumption it selfe hee denyeth saying these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopall function c. The reason of his deniall is this What though Bishops haue now gotten that power into their hands yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus as Bishops the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists and in generall to the Presbyters to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth To the Euangelists to administer in all the Churches of those Regions whither the Apostles sent or where they left them to the Presbyters to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty as the BB. haue Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them and generally to Presbyters c. both parts are false For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and are such as are to be obserued to the end Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them And that these things belong to the BB. I haue sufficiently proued before To make the matter plaine he bringeth in an example which is worth the hearing Suppose saith he a Democraty where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour still obseruing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be saide that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall or Monarchicall gouernement whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme in the one the Nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the seuerall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse in processe of time it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onely the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things grew worse and worse the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie together Which comparison I desire may be well considered especially by the vnlearneder sort for hereby they shall discerne what manner of guides they haue desired to follow For not to contend with him about his politicke proposition not well agreeing with the rules of policy wherein we are taught that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis doth alwayes belong to them who haue the soueraigntie in the whole comparison but especially in the reddition we may behold the trim Idea of discipline which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged For he conceiueth as if he were a Brownist or an Anabaptist that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction was in the whole congregation of euery Parish which by their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of the laity had the menaging of all Church-businesse that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were first prouided for this popular state of the Church Howbeit by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely menaging the Church affaires Lastly in processe of time this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands Now the lawes concerning Ordination and iurisdiction are still in force yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers but for the popular and golden state of euery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation Haue not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you to doate vpon such leaders as these who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages for which they haue not so much as the shew of any sound proofe Our refuter hath often times obiected against me though most vniustly that Pythagoras-like I looke to be creditted vpon my bare word but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties First it is here presupposed that euery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment was a Parish all Church officers Parishionall Which dotage I haue before refuted Secondly that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall or popular the cheife authority being in the people Which hath authority to be exercised partly by themselues partly by their Presbytery to elect ordayne depriue depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the
beene ordayned the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians This is something plaine But he asketh me why I seuered them from the consent of the ancient Fathers was it because I thought them to be of the Canon I answere that I did not seuer them but ioyne them in a copulatiue speech and if I had beene of opinion that they were of the Canon I would not haue said as I did it appeareth not onely by the subscriptions but also by the generall consent of the Fathers but contrariwise not onely by the generall consent of the Fathers but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himselfe But though it were not likely as he hath alledged out of T. C. that they were subscribed by the Apostle himselfe yet is it certaine that they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them Indeed if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would haue respected their censures but the cauillations of Disciplinarians against them who being parties in this cause are so plainely confuted by them are to be reiected Let vs therefore heare what the Refuter obiecteth against them How little credit those subscriptions deserue it may appeare by that vnder the Epistle to Titus which is quite contrary to the Epistle it selfe And why so I pray you the subscription saith the Epistle was written from Nicopolis and Paul himselfe willeth Titus to come vnto him to Nicopolis for I haue determined to winter there But if Paul had beene now at Nicopolis when he wrote he would haue said not there but here Therefore hee was but a simple fellow that was the Author of that subscription So saith this great Criticke But if you will consider with me that Paul being as vsually he was in peregrination Titus could not well tell where he was neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was therefore wrote being at Nicopolis as any discreet man would in the like case come to mee to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if hee had written as the Refuter would haue had him if hee were at Nicopolis come hither for I meane to winter here or come to Nicopolis for I meane to winter here might not Titus haue said where Paul as being vncertaine where Paul was and whether himselfe was to goe This therefore is too seely a censure though receiued from T. B. himselfe to ouerthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription in which besides the ancient Greeke copies it is also testified in the Syriack that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis Athanasius speaking of that Epistle to Titus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis for there he wintered Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus Sedulius likewise this Epistle hee wrote from Nicopolis and Theophylact. argument in Epist. ad Tit the Authors of the Centuryes cent 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers First Eusebius reporteth out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories vvhich vvere before his time that Timothie had first the Bishopricke of the Church at Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Creet Secondly the auncient Author of the booke de diuinis nominibus dedicating the same to Timothie Bishop of Ephesus if it be Dionysius Areopagita himselfe who liued at the same time with Timothie doth beare an vndeniable witnesse to this truth or if it be another vsing his name yet he plainely signifieth that in his time it was a thing generally receiued that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Thirdly Dorotheus saith that Timothie was by Paul ordayned the B. of the Ephesians he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians Fourthly Ambrose testifieth the same Paul instructeth Timothie being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church And againe he entreateth Timothie his fellow Bishop c. Againe Timothie was a B. Hence it is that Paul directeth him how he should ordaine a B. Likewise of Titus he testifieth that the Apostle consecrated him B. Fiftly Ierome noteth that Timothie receiued the grace which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect when he was ordayned B. And wher Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministery Ierom vnderstandeth it of his Bishopricke And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall Writers which is in his first Tome it is testified that Timothie was ordayned of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Sixtly Chrisostome writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon◠saith what meaneth this were there many Bishops of one City in no wise but so he called the Presbyters For then were the names common and a Bishop was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Deacon or minister For which cause writing to Timothie being a Bishop fulfill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy ministery For that he was a Bishop he saith doe not hastily impose thy hands vpon any man againe with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery but Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop in another place hee giueth this reason why Paul wrote to Timothie and Titus and not to Syluanus or Silas or Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had already committed the Churches to them but the others he still carryed about with him And on the fourth to the Ephesians hee giueth instance in Timothie and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certaine places Seauenthly Epiphanius saith that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop the diuine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter when he saith to Timothie being a Bishop receiue not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter c. Eightly Primasius saith Timothie was a Bishop and Pauls Disciple That grace was the blessing which Timothie when he was made Bishop receiued by imposition of hands Ninthly Theodoret saith that Titus was the Apostle that is Bishop of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians And out of him Oecumenius citeth these words Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was by Paul ordayned Bishop of Creet And in another place why did Paul hauing other Disciples as Silas and Luke and others write onely to Timothie and Titus We answere Because to these he had committed Churches but the others he had still with him Tenthly Sedulius this Timothie was B. in Ephesus as it is said in the booke of histories And on these words stirre vp the grace which was giuen thee by the imposition of hands that is iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum by thy ordination into the Bishopricke 11. Gregory the great hence it is
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the
may further appeare by these reasons For vvhere Paul vvriteth to the Bishops and Deacons at Philippi here saith Ierome by Bishops wee vnderstand Presbyters For in one Citie there could not be more Bishops then one Which plainely sheweth hee thought that although Presbyters had the name yet they had not the office of Bishops and that although there might be many in one Citie which had the name yet there could be but one that had the office of a Bishop Againe on 1 Tim. 3. he saith it is demanded vvhy the Apostle made no mention there of Presbyters but comprehended them in the name of Bishops because saith he the degree of Presbyters is the second and almost the same with that of Bishops My second answere vvas if Ierome must be vnderstood as speaking of the office that then wee are to distinguish of those words Diuine disposition as including onely those things which be eyther directly and immediately of Diuine institution or are Diuini iuris of Diuine right as being perpetuall and immutable but not as excluding Apostolicall ordinances For Ierome besides that he hath plentifully testified that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles hee doth also expressely call this function Episcopall an Apostolicall tradition But this testimonie the refuter thinketh to elude because in the writings of the Fathers the precepts and obseruations of their forefathers though indeede not ordayned by the Apostles are called Apostolicall traditions Which answere may haue place in such traditions as haue no testimonie or proofe that the Apostles ordayned them but for this matter in question vve haue had plentifull and pregnant proofes and euident testimonies not onely of other authors but of Ierome himselfe plainely auouching that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles and particularly relating the persons vvhom the places where the time vvhen the Apostles ordayned them If neither of these answeres will satisfie the refuter then must he be forced to confesse that Ierome was inconstant in this question holding one while that Bishops were of Apostolicall Institution and another vvhile that they were not And if Ierome vvere vnconstant vvhich is the worst that can be obiected against this cause and vvherewith I would be loath to charge him then let it be considered whether those testimonies which he hath in more places deliuered dogmatically and historically for the superioritie of Bishops himselfe being a Presbyter are not to ouerweigh those fewer which hee vttered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the heate of disputation as a partie in the cause maintaining the dignitie of Presbyters himselfe being a Presbyter against eyther the indignities offered them by the Bishops or the insolencie of Deacons vvho sought to ouerpeere them Thus haue I proued that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and consequently of Diuine institution The VI. CHAPTER Prouing directly that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution Serm. Sect. 13. pag. 92. I will in the last place directly yet briefly proue that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution c. to protection of their persons pag. 94. THe refuter hath more then once charged me that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be held iure diuino implying thereby that it is generally and perpetually necessarie Wherefore least he should be taken in the manner as a wilfull deprauer of my assertion hee leaueth out all that which I haue deliuered to explane my meaning and beginneth this section at the middle of a sentence vvhere the explication endeth Such shifts may deceiue the simple for a while sed mendacia diu non fallunt but lyes will not beguile long as Cyprian saith If he had meant to deale truely hee should haue begunne this section at the diuision pag. 91. in the end where by a distinction of that vvhich might be Ieromes meaning I take occasion to passe to the direct proofes that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution But because I did foresee that this my assertion would be vnderstoode as if I held the function of Diocesan Bishops so to be diuini iuris as that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie for the being of a Church and that no other forme of gouernment may in no case be any wayes admitted therefore both in the text and in the margent I explaned the assertion which I hold shewing plainely in what sense I maintaine the calling of Diocesan Bishops to be of diuine institution All which though the refuter passed ouer in silence yet I thinke it needfull to repeate that both my sinceritie and his fraudulent dealing may appeare My words in the Sermon were these If his that is Ieromes meaning should be that the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters though it be an Apostolicall tradition as himselfe calleth it yet notwithstanding is not directly of Diuine institution although there be small difference betwixt these two as I vnderstand Diuine institution because what the Apostles did in the execution of their Apostolicall function they did by direction of the holy Ghost so that they might truely say both of their ordinances it seemed good to the holy Ghost and vs and of the partyes by them ordayned attend the flocke ouer which the holy Ghost hath made you ouerseers notwithstanding for more euidence I will in the last place directly yet briefely proue that the Episcopall function is of Diuine institution or that Bishops were ordained of God In the margent also fearing least my meaning would not plainely enough appeare to preuent the cauils of those which be aduersaries to the cause vvhich I maintaine I noted these words Though in respect of the first institution there is small difference betweene an Apostolicall and Diuine ordinance because what was ordained by the Apostles proceeded from GOD in vvhich sense and no other I doe hold the Episcopall function to be a Diuine ordinance I meane in respect of the first institution yet in respect of perpetuitie difference by some is made betweene those things which be Diuini and those which be Apostolici iuris the former in their vnderstanding being generally perpetually and immutably necessarie the latter not so So that the meaning of my defence plainely is that the Episcopall gouernment hath this commendation aboue other formes of Ecclesiasticall regiment that in respect of the first institution it is a Diuine ordinance but that it should be such a Diuine ordinance as should be generally perpetually immutably necessarily obserued so as no other forme of gouernment may in no case be admitted I did not take vpon mee to maintaine With what conscience therefore the refuter hath laid the maintenance of that assertion to my charge and omitted the explanation of my defence in this place the Reader may easily iudge especially if hee remember that where hee thought any aduantage could be taken out of this explanation of my defence there hee taketh notice of it as namely page 90. of his booke where hee supposing that I auouch a necessitie of
retayning the gouernment of Diocesan Bishops hee vseth these words Who would haue thought to haue heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another gouernment good and lawfull pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of diuine institution then as being ordayned by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sinceritie as themselues call it is maintained Now that Bishops were ordayned of God I proue by this argument as the refuter hath framed it If God ordayned Timothie Archippus and the Angels of the seauen Churches Bishops then were Bishops ordained by God But God ordained them Bishops Therefore Bishops were ordained by God As touching Timothie I argued thus By whom was he ordained Bishop By Paul I confesse as the instrument but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination For he was made B. by prophecie 1 Tim. 4. How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is by Prophecie saith Chrysostome by the holy Ghost Paul stirring him vp putteth him in minde who elected and ordained him as if hee had said God hath chosen thee hee hath committed his Church vnto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou wert made Bishop not by humane suffrage but by Prophecie that is by Diuine reuelation saith Theodoret that is spiritu sancto iubente by the commandement of the holy Ghost saith Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made and not at randome Whereunto you may adde the testimonie of Caluin Per Prophetiam quomodo quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur Neque enim delectus tantuacute m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio To this argument the refuter answereth nothing but that which I haue plainely and fully confuted before that Timothie was not a Bishop though Caluin as you see confesseth that Timothie by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors For if hee were a Pastor it is not to be doubted but he was a Bishop That Archippus was ordayned Bishop of God I proue thus Because Col. 4.17 Paul vsing the same exhortation to him vvhich hee gaue to Timothie the Bishop of Ephesus namely that hee should fulfill his ministerie hee addeth which thou hast receiued in the Lord and therefore by Gods ordinance and as it vvere at his hands The refuter hauing framed the argument thus Hee that receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord was ordained a B. by the Lord. Archippus receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord Therefore hee was ordained Bishop by the Lord He denyeth the proposition because neither is all Episcopall ministerie proper to a Diocesan Bishop else the Apostle would not haue made a B and Presbyter all one neither is that office onely in the Lord. Of which reasons the latter is meerely impertinent and friuolous For who euer said or thought that the office of a Bishop onely is in the Lord neither is the former to any purpose seeing he knoweth that by Episcopall ministerie I vnderstand the function of a Diocesan Bishop and therefore should not haue denyed the proposition but haue distinguished of the assumption saying that hee did not receiue the Episcopall ministerie meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop For proofe whereof it sufficeth to mee that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth Bishop of Collosae which was a Citie seeing I haue manifestly proued before that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops As touching the Angels I argue thus Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church and were signified by the seauen starres which were in Christs right hand had Diuine both institution and approbation The Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seauen churches and were signified by the seauen starres which vvere in Christs right hand Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine both institution and approbation The proposition I proued because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God and starres vvhose both preheminence of dignitie is noted in this life for the starres are the crowne of the Church and also prerogatiue of glorie which they shall haue in the world to come And finally they who are signified by the seauen starres in the right hand of Christ are such as Christ doth both approue and protect The assumption I went not about to proue now because it was proued at large in the former part of the Sermon And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose is that they were not Diocesan Bishops For that which he addeth besides is but the vttering of his spleene and emptying his gall against Bishops to whom he cannot abide such is his malice that the titles of Angels and starres which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giueth to the Bishops of the seauen Churches and which himselfe acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers should be applyed to Bishops It is true that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preheminence they be attributed to Bishops For as I haue said before when in a Church where are many Ministers who are all tearmed Angels the Bishop onely is called the Angel of the Church this title doth note his singular preheminence And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were starres the seauen Bishops onely of those Churches are signified by the seauen starres vvhich Christ held in his right hand Now if these seauen Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I haue manifestly proued them and all the Bishops of the auncient Churches to haue beene then must the refuter be content to endure both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches and the starres which Christ held in his right hand and consequently also that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Diuine institution And thus passing by his rayling as not worth the mentioning I proceede to the conclusion of my Sermon The VII CHAPTER Defending the conclusion of the Sermon and shewing that the chiefe Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopall gouernment The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus hauing proued this doctrine arising out of the Text that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution it remaineth that we should from thence gather some vses to our selues both for the informing of our iudgement and reforming of our liues c. to now let vs pag. 97. THe vse which serueth for rectifying the iudgement is contained in this section and it is first propounded and afterwards maintained against two obiections The vse is this that
as the Episcopall function hath been manifestly proued to be lawfull and good as being the ordinance of God so we would all be perswaded to acknowledge it But the refuter is like the deafe Adder that stoppeth her eare he will not be perswaded though he be conuicted For though he braggeth that this answere of his doth manifest that I haue not brought any one good proofe in the whole Sermon yet this defence of mine will make it euident that he hath not been able to disproue any one of my proofes which he hath gone about to answere for the most part with sound learning but to elude with shifts and cauillations But some will say this is not all that you vvould perswade vs vnto that the function of Bishops is lawfull and good but when you say it is of diuine institution you seeme to meane that it is diuini iuris and consequently that not onely it is lawfull but that it onely is lawfull and that all Churches are so perpetually and necessarily tyed vnto it as that no other forme of gouernment is warrantable in the Church of God My resolution of this doubt I signified before Serm. pag. 92. that I did not hold it so to be diuini iuris as that necessarily it were to be obserued alwayes and in all places and so himselfe confesseth pag. 90. of his booke And therefore when he said my resolution was obscure and doubtfull for doubling I leaue to him he was disposed to cauill I referre indeed the consideration of this inference to our Disciplinarians who hauing conceipted the Presbyterian platforme to be described in the scriptures doe therefore vrge the same as perpetuall and vnchangeable signifying that if they will be constant in their iudgement they must by the same reason acknowledge the Episcopall gouernment which hath warrant in the word to be perpetuall and vnchangeable Which conceipt of theirs hath perhaps beene the cause vvhy they haue giuen out to make my Sermon odious among their followers that I maintaine the Episcopall function to be diuini iuris as being commanded of God and perpetually imposed vpon all Churches Neuerthelesse I plainely declared my resolution to be this that although we be well assured that the forme of gouernment by Bishops is the best as hauing not onely the warrant of scripture for the first institution but also the perpetuall practise of the Church from the Apostles times to our age for the continuance of it notwithstanding vve doubt not vvhere this may not be had others may be admitted neither doe we deny but that siluer is good though gold be better vvhich obiection and answere I inserted of purpose into the Sermon to preserue the credit of those reformed Churches vvhere the Presbyterian discipline is established and that they might not be exposed or left naked to the obloquies of the Papists To which my charitable endeauour the refuter opposeth himselfe as being alwaies ad oppositum without regard either of my charitable intent or of the credit of the reformed Churches labouring tooth and naile to perswade his reader that I contradict my selfe and that in the conclusion of my Sermon I did ouerthrow what before I had builded But as alwayes hitherto so now also he hath shewed his malice to be greater then his strength For though hee chargeth me as hauing often and peremptorily auouched the perpetuall necessitie of the gouernment of the Church by Diocesan Bishops yet neither often nor once neither peremptorily nor at all neither the perpetuall necessitie nor any absolute necessitie at all is vrged in any one of the allegations which hee so hotly as it were with fire and towe obiecteth The first which is obiected out of pag. 33. hath beene explained before For when I said that as the gouernment by Bishops was first ordayned for the preseruation of the Church in vnity and for the auoiding of schisme so it is for the same cause to be retained I did not meane any absolute necessitie of retaining it but that as at the first it was ordained as being thought fit expedient and needfull to auoid schisme so it is fit expedient and needfull for the same cause to be retained Neither doe I see how hee can inferre this perpetuall necessitie which he talketh of out of pag. 72. where I said the Epistles to Timothie and Titus are the very patternes and Presidents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle informeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function touching ordination and iurisdiction For although Paul giueth his directions primarily to Timothie and Titus and to all such as should haue the like function that is to say Bishops yet if this forme of gouernment be changed those which shall exercise the like authority must follow those directions as being giuen though primarily and directly to Bishops yet secondarily and by consequence to those who though they were not Bishops should haue the like authority And to the like purpose is that alleadged out of pag. 74. and that we should not thinke as some doe that these things were spoken to them as to extraordinarie persons whose authoritie should dye with them but to them and their successors to the end of the world he straitly chargeth Timothie that the commandements and directions which hee gaue him should be kept inuiolable vnto the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ and therefore by such as should haue the like authority vnto the end And presently after for the authority which was committed to them is perpetually necessary without which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination and therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus Here I appeale to the refuters conscience whether he be not perswaded of the truth of both these sentences Can he deny the authority which was committed to Timothie and Titus to be perpetually necessary which is the summe of the second sentence or if it be perpetually necessary that some were to haue it to the end of the world which was affirmed in the former sentence If he had learned the distinction betwixt potestas modus potestatis whereof I spake before the power or authority it selfe being the perpetuall ordinance of God the manner or forme of gouernment wherein that power is exercised being mutable hee would not so hotly haue vrged these allegations Yea but that pag. 79. is aboue all shew of exception saith hee where hee saith the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors as being ordinary and perpetually necessary not onely for the well being but also for the very being of the visible Churches How this speâ—ch is to be vnderstood I distinctly shewed before not thinking I protest of this obiection made by the Refuter For when I said their function
against Gods commandement We doe here protest and we would haue it so recorded that we would willingly preserue the Ecclesiasticall and Canonicall policy if the Bishops would cease to tyrannize ouer our Churches This our minde or desire shall excuse vs with all posterity both before God and all Nations that it may not be imputed vnto vs that the authority of Bishops is ouerthrowne by vs. I would to God it lay to me saith Melancthon to restore the gouernment of Bishops c. By what right or law may we dissolue the Ecclesiasticall policy if the Bishops will grant vs that which in reason they ought to grant and though it were lawfull yet surely it were not expedient Luther was euer of this opinion whom many for no other cause I see doe loue but for that they thinke they haue cast off their Bishops by meanes of him and haue obtayned a liberty which will not be profitable for our posterity Would to God saith George Prince Anhall that those which carry the names titles of Bishops would shew themselues to be Bishops indeed I wish they would teach nothing that is disagreeable to the Gospell but rule their Churches thereby Oh how willingly and with what ioy of heart would we receiue them for our Bishops reuerence them obey them and yeeld vnto them their Iurisdiction and Ordination Which we alwaies and M. Luther both in words and in his writings very often professed If they would bring vnto vs such an Hierarchy saith Caluin wherein the Bishops shall so rule as that they refuse not to submit themselues to Christ that they so depend vpon him as their onely head c. Then surely if there be any that shall not submit themselues to that Hierarchy reuerently and with the greatest obedience that may be I confesse there is no Anathema whereof they are not worthy In the articles agreed vpon by Melancthon Bucer Caluin and other learned men it is said for the auoyding of Schismes there was a profitable ordination that a B. should be chosen out of many Priests who should rule the Church by teaching the Gospell and by retayning the discipline and who should gouerne the Priests themselues Afterwards also there were degrees made of Archbishops aboue them of Patriarches c. These Ordinations if those that gouerne doe their duety as preach ouersee the doctrine and manners of their Churches correct errours and vice practise Ecclesiasticall censures c. are profitable to preserue the vnity of the Church And in their additions to the said articles As concerning ordination we especially approue the ancient custome of the Church c. This difficult and necessary charge for the Church it is to be wished reformation being made that the Bishops would take vpon them And we heare that our learned men haue expresly so yeelded ordination to those Bishops if first there may be a reformation In a Treatise made by Bucer with the aduise of the said learned men and offered to the Emperour it is thus written we must endeuour that that forme and distribution of Ecclesiasticall gouernment which the Canons doe prescribe to Bishops and Metropolitanes be restored and kept The same Bucer speaking of Bishops and Metropolitanes and of their authority ouer the Churches and Ministers within their Dioceses and Prouinces he saith this was agreeable to the law of Christ c. And in another place Now by the perpetuall obseruation of all Churches euen from the Apostles times we doe see it seemed good to the holy Ghost that among Priests to whom the procuration of Churches was chiefly committed there should be one that should haue the care charge of diuers Churches and the whole Ministery committed to him and by reason of that charge he was aboue the rest and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly vnto these cheife rulers of Churches And againe In the Apostles times one of the Priests or Pastors was chosen and ordayned to be the Captaine and Prelate ouer the rest who went before the rest and had the care of soules and the administration of the Episcopall office especially and in the highest degree And this he proueth by the example of Iames Act. 1. and after concludeth in this sort The like ordination hath beene perpetually obserued in other Churches likewise as we may learne out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories and the most ancient Fathers as Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius and others It were a most profitable order for the welfare of the Church saith Iacob Heerbrandus a very learned man if euery particular Prouince had her Bishops and the Bishops their Archbishops These few testimonies among many doe sufficiently discouer with what minde the Refuter desired me to lay them and all the rest aâ—ide and to giue eare to his allegations as more worthy to be heard Let vs therefore heare them and let the Reader iudge with what conscience hee either reiected the former or alledged these And first though he saith hee will passe by an Epistle of one Oram written vnder the name of Lucifer to the Pope and his Prelates yet because he entreateth the Reader to turne to it in the booke of Martyrs as fitting belike our Bishops hee is worthy not to passe vnpunished when hee comes to light For that letter being a meere inuectiue against the horrible enormities of the Popish Prelates speaking nothing at all of their office but that they were the successours of the Apostles in referring the Reader vnto it what was his intent but that he should apply the things spoken of their greiuous enormities to our Bishops then which hee could not offer a greater villany to them I desire the Reader that hath any moderation in him to read that Epistle and by his intended application thereof to our Bishops to iudge of our refuters spirit though he professeth in the last page how greatly he reuerenceth the Bishops persons In the next place to let you thinke hee hath great store euen whiles hee quoteth either not Protestants or such as were not of our age of whom alone the question is hee saith he will passe by also that which is written by defensor pacis part 2. c. 15. and well might hee passe by him for though he hold that the Priestly Character is the same in Priests and Bishops yea in the Pope himselfe and that they haue the same essentiall authority which is the power of order and likewise in imitation of Ierome holdeth that Episcopus and Presbyter at the first were one c. Notwithstanding he no more disalloweth the superiority of Bishops then either some other Papists who haue contended that for as much as order in that it is a Sacrament hath reference to the Sacrament of the Altar which the Priest doth offer and make his maker as well as the Pope himselfe that therefore Bishops and Presbyters be of one order or then Ierome who though he saith Episcopus
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
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
said in the councill of Carthage lifting vp their necks against their Bishoppes haue inflamed their desires but these attempts were esteemed vnlawfull and therefore as in councels they were prohibited so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed But hereof also I haue spokeÌ„ before Yea but saith hee this canon was not vniuersally obserued as may appeare by the oft renewing of it in other councils and the practise of the Churches to the contrary afterward Here J aske him first when this was done for will he prooue that the irregular and vnlawfull practises of vaineglorious people and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ were the lawfull and ordinary practises of the purest churches in the first two hundred yeeres Secondly whether it were lawfully done or not if yea then doth hee contradict the iudgement of approued councils the authority of orthodoxall Fathers the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ hauing nothing to oppose therto but vain surmises vnlikely likelihoods If not why are they alledged shal irregular vnlawful practises be commended as paterns for imitatioÌ„ But let vs heare his instances which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village called Coman If I say no how will hee proue it Eusebius is alledged lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approued men BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla one of Montanus his truls mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoticus of or from the village Comana whose mouth Themiso stopped noting the place not wherof he was Bishop but whence he came or where he was borne for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia saith Caesar Baronius ex vicâ— Comana in Armenia oriâ—ndus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia borne at the village Comana in Armenia Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius Apollonius reporteth the same story which Nicephorus also reciting vseth these words Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus wheÌ„ Maximilla begaÌ„ to prophecy at Pepuza a place which Montanus called Ierusalem indeuored to coÌ„uince her euil spirit but was hindred of those which were her fauourits meaning Themiso Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupoÌ„ Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter but thogh Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Peter cals himself being more then a Presbyter as BB. vsually cal one another Consacerdotes yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe And thus the village the little village Coman hath lost her Bishoppe For little the Refuter added of his owne to make his instance the greater The second Was not Mares he should haue said Maris Bishoppe of Solica Of Solica Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerke hath learned his letters no better for though the first letter be not vnlike an S. yet is it the D. vsed in that print as hee might haue learned of a Deacon in the same page But this sheweth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand not consulting with the author Theodoret saith that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha which hee saith was but a small towne vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I will speake of when I come to Nazianzum which also is termed so For saith Theodoret Eusebius beeing desirous to install Maris a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of vertues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Episcopall throne he came to Dolicha by which phrase it appeareth he did not ordaine him the Presbyter of a parish but such a Bishop as others were at least of that time being the fourth century after Christ So farre hath our refuter also ouershotte his marke For though Dolicha were but a small city or towne as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be yet that hindreth not but that it might haue a diocesse belonging thereto as wel as ours haue though perhaps not so great The third Asclepius of a small towne in Africke For this T. C. quoteth Ierome tom 1. catalog Gennadij vir illustr Gennadius indeed saith that he was vici non grandis episcopus But Ioannes de Trittenhem in his booke de scriptorib ecclesiast saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus so that although his seat was no great town yet his diocesse was that whole territory But when was this about the yeare 440. so farre doth my aduersary who complaineth of my ouershooting my marke when J alledged the councill of Sardica ouershoot me for when he wil scarse suffer me to shoot tenscore he as if he were shooting for the flight shoots 22 euen tweluescore beyond the marke I say vnto him it was not so froÌ„ the beginning But by councels of Africk held towards the end of the fourth century permitted namely that in part of the diocesse belonging to the B. of a city new Bishoprickes might be erected if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto it were agreed vpon by the prouinciall Synode But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way in granting popular requests against the canons of other receiued councels and ancient practise of the Church that Leo the great Bishop of Rome was faine to write vnto the Bishops of Africke to stay that excesse The fourth What was Nazianzum but a small towne where that famous Gregory the Diuine was B For which T. C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City what if Gregory the Diuine were not B. of Nazianzum Nazianzum though Socrates make mention of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meane city yet he calleth it a citie and though somwhere it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a little city or towne yet was it such a city that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitane BB. not that I thinke it had any other cities or Bishopricks subiect vnto it I will not stand to argue that question whether Gregory the Diuine were Bishop of Nazianzum For although diuers good Authors affirme it yet I beleeue Gregory himselfe who saith he was not B. but onely coadiutor to his Father there He was by his dear friend Basil the great made Bishop of Saâ—â—â—â— partly against his wil and afâ—er was made Bishop of Constantinople but leauing both the former being seized vpon by Anthimuâ— the Bishop of Tyana who placed another there the latter resigning it into the hands of the councill of Constantinople which preferred Nectarius to bee his successor hee returned vnto Nazianzum where finding the See void obtained of Helladius who was the Bishoppe of Caesarea after Basil that Eulalius might bee ordained Bishoppe there But I will not dispute this
question seeing it is confessed that Nazianzens father was B. of that diocesse These bee all the instances which T.C. bringeth in this cause excepting one more out of the canon law which our refuter thought not worth the obiecting But his inference hereupon is worth the obseruing Al this M.D. could not choose but know if he had read but somuch as M. Cartw. 2. reply with as good a mind as hee did D. Bilson Whereto I answere that I read with resolution to yeeld to the trueth whersoeuer I find it But God hath giuen me so much iudgment as not to be perswaded by meere colours such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to bee and such as in this treatise I haue prooued many of them to bee and so will the rest if the Refuter shall vrge them or take vpon him to maintaine them Hauing so substantially answered the substance of my argument hee taketh occasion to shewe his learning in giuing a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani then I did I said and I am sure haue read it in some learned author that they are so called because the people who liued in the country villages which are properly called pagani a pag◠and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pomp. Festus saith quia eadem aqua vterentur remained for the most part heathenish after the cities for the most part were conuerted to Christianity Hee thinketh the heathen were called pagani because they are not Christs Souldiers induced so to thinke because Tertullian saith Apud hunc tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis Which hee englisheth thus as well a faithfull Souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan Which if it were Tertullians meaning as well Christians as infidels should be called Paganes But Tertullian is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 darke and writeth as it seemeth aboue some mens capacity With Christ saith Tertullian as well a belieuing pagan is a souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan meaning by Pagan according to the vse of the Romanes him that is not a Souldier Whereas therefore among the Romanes and all warlike nations those who were Souldiers were greately honoured as the vse of the word miles and armiger with vs doth shew and contrariwise those who were not Souldiers were of base esteeme called Pagani perhaps in some such sense as Villani with vs that is to say villaines clownes boores Tertullian disswading Christians from going to warre vnder infidels perswadeth thē not to be moued with this respect of being honoured if they be souldiers and dishonoured if they be not for saith he with Christ a faithfull man though despised in the world as a pagan is highly esteemed and honoured and also an vnfaithfull man though honoured as a souldier or cheuallier in the world is of base account with Christ. But how heathē people should from hence be called Pagani I know not vnlesse christians were also called milites or cheualliers for Pagani here as a base terme signifying villains or clownes or boores is opposed to milites as a name of honour Serm. sect 4. pag. 25. Thus then parishes were distinguished both in the cities countries and seueral presbyters particularly assigned c. to promiscuously pag. 26. In this section I proue that the BB. both before after the diuision of parishes were diocesan and first I answere an obiection for wheras some might imagine that Bishops before the diuision of parishes were parishional after diocesan as being set ouer many churches I shew which before hath bene proued that the circuit of the Bishops charge or diocesse was the same before the diuision of parishes which it was after c. And to this purpose I declare that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the country subiect vnto it And wheras some vnderstand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a parish according to the vulgar vse of the English word I shewed that in the best authors euen after the diuision of parishes it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs My reason standeth thus To whose iurisdiction both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the city suburbs though containing manie parishes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the whole country belonging to the same citie is subiect he is ouer the Churches both in citie and country and consequently a diocesan But to the iurisdiction of the antient Bishoppes both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the citie and suburbs and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the country thereto belonging were subiect Therefore the antient BB. were ouer the Churches both in the citie and country and consequently were diocesans The proposition is of vndeniable truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so vnderstood as I prooued before The assumption J proue by two most pregnant testimonies the one being one of the ancient canōs called the Apostles the other a canon of the councell of Antioch whereof I haue also spoken before But to them we may adde the next canon called the Apostles which is also recited in the councell of Antioch That a Bishoppe may not presume out of his owne limits to exercise ordinations to Cities and Countries not subiect to him And if he shall be conuinced to haue done this without the consent of them who hold those Cities or Countries let him be deposed and those also whom he hath ordained This syllogisme being too strong to be refuted his best course was not to see it Notwithstanding he cauilleth with some points therein For whereas his chiefe proofe before was that the Church of Antioch of Ephesus of Ierusalem of Alexandria c. were each of them but one particular congregation c. because Eusebius calleth each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby abusing the Reader as if Eusebius had by that name ment that which we cal a parish here he disauoweth the authority of Eusebius alledged according to his true meaning vnlesse he had said it was of that signification in the end of the Apostles time and the age following Which is a silly shift seeing Eusebius speaking of the Churches of whole Cities in the first two hundred yeeres euen of such as he had expressly mentioned as containing many Churches he calleth them by that name As at Alexandria he acknowledged the Churches to haue beene instituted by Saint Marke and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards yea after the number of them was increased vnder the name of the paroecia in Alexandria as I haue shewed before And where besides Eusebius I quote Epiphanius and the Councell of Antioch he saith It is to no purpose to cloy the Reader with multitude of allegations concerning the decrees or practises of latter ages Which also is a very friuolous exception seeing it is easie