Bishops ouer other Ministers and so much is intended in this place To the reason if it had beene obscure hee should haue answered as Aristotle teacheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I vnderstand not For better were it to plead ignorance then to wrangle with that he doth not or will not vnderstand For I doe plainely note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians who are opposite vnto vs in this controuersie the one a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst vs who haue coyned the new-found parish discipline which commeth nearer the practise of the Brownists then of any well ordered Church of whom I spake in the former point the other a sort of graue and learned diuines such as Caluin and Beza c. who stand for that discipline which is practised in Geneua and some other reformed Churches shewing that as they doe not consent with our newe disciplinarians in the former point so they dissent from vs in the latter touching the superioritie of Bishops The refuter vnderstandeth all as a grant made by them whereof some part hee acknowledgeth to be true the rest he reiecteth as false And though in neither he doe vnderstand what was intended yet hee is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech that with one breath I blowe out both truth and falshood Neither doubteth he though meerely ignorant of that which he auoucheth to charge me with foure vntruthes denying 1. that they grant Bishops which here are called Angels to haue beene set ouer Dioceses that is to say the whole citie and countrey adioyning 2 That they teach the onely gouerning Elders to be lay or annuall 3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but presidents of the Presbyteries 4 That their presidentshippe was onely for a weeke or a moneth and that by course as being common to them in their turnes For the manifestation of the truth in all these points I shall not need to seeke further then to the writings of Caluin and Beza Sect. 14. As touching the first Caluin teacheth that in the primitiue Church when in the gouernement thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from Gods word each citie had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Doctors and that to euery citie was assigned a certaine region which should receiue their Presbyters meaning the pastors of seuerall parisnes from thence and should be accoumpied as part of that Church Euery Colledge was subiect to some one Bishop But if the countrey which was vnder his Bishopricke was larger then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop in certaine places throughout the countrey were appointed certaine Presbyters who in busines of lesse importance should be in his steed These were called Chorepiscopi because in the prouince they represented the Bishop Likewise Beza teacheth that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses was framed according to the diuision of the prouinces vnder the Romane Empier into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were precincts of gouernement which Plinie calleth conuentus iurisdictiones in the chiefe cities whereof the presidents kept their courts of iudgment of which sort Pliny reckneth 9. in Asia the lesse fiue whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse viz. Laodicea Sardes Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Neither are we saith he to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a councill or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together then from the very instinct of nature and instigation of necessitie Now saith hee in the chiefe Towne of euery Diocesse the first Presbiter who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis was called a Bishoppe in the daily common iurisdiction Praeerat caeteris tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis com-Presbyteris id est totj Diocoesi was President ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and Countrey that is the whole Diocese And because sometimes the Countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as other small Cities and Townes did neede commune inspection or ouersight they also had their Chorepiscopi that is countrey-Countrey-Bishops or Vice-Bishops For the second that they acknowledge their onely gouerning Elders to be of the Laitie it is plaine For whereas Caluin diuideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks Clerum sc. plebem the Clergie and Laitie hee plainely saith that these Elders are chosen from among the Laitie And forasmuch as being chosen they doe not become to bee of the Clergie hee must needes meane that they still continue to be of the Laitie And that hee thought they should be annuall the order of the Church of Geneua by him set downe doth declare Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together In this Citie of Geneua saith hee those gouerning Elders which in the title of the chapter hee called annuall are chosen yearely not of the baser sort of the people but out of the very order of 25.60 and 200. men which be the councills of state in Geneua 2. being chosen out of the 25.4 out of the 60. and 6. out of 200. not without the knowledge and consent of the people I say euery yeare newe are chosen or the olde confirmed So euery where saith hee in other free Churches according to the condition of the place the like choice is obserued For of the Laitie some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearely in the Low-Countreyes they are chosen for 2. yeares the halfe of them being changed euery yeare Now it may not be doubted but that those which bee of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneua being all States-men as their gouerning-Elders bee are Lay-men Againe great consideration must bee had saith Beza that Princes and Noble men and such as haue authoritie and preheminence in the Church bee chosen to be of the Seignorie And surely saith he in another place prouing that there ought to bee such Elders of the Laitie ioyned to the Ministers vnlesse some chosen men out of the bodie of the whole congregation doe sit in that assemblie whereby the whole Church is gouerned Scarcely shall the vniuersall name of that Church agree to that assemblie wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it Namely because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church should represent the whole Church His reason therefore is that as the whole Church consisteth of the Clergie and Laytie So that Senate which is to represent the whole Church must consist not onely of the Clergie but of the Laitie also And in another place he prooueth by a necessary disiunction as he thinketh that if there must bee a Presbyterie at all a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laitie Whence doe they thinke they are to be chosen if not of them whom they call Lay-men c. Thirdly that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superioritie
it may bee demanded what is truly and properly a Church vpon earth Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word that euery company of men professing the true faith of Christ is both truly a Church and also a true Church So is the whole company of the faithfull vpon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ the piller and ground of truth So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to bee termed by the name of a Church For euen as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion were one Church though containing verie many particular Congregations or Synagogues which also were so many Churches euen so the whole people of England professing through Gods mercy the true Catholike and Apostolicke faith is to bee called the Church of England For whereas some alleage that the Church of the Iewes was one because it was vnder one high Priest who was a figure and therefore ceased it is euident that it was one Church because it was one people or commonwealth ruled by the same lawes professing the same religion both before there was one high Priest and after there were through corruption more then one Neither was the high Priest in respect of his preeminence and gouernment ouer the priests and people a type of Christ for then had he as well as Melchisedeck been a type of Christs gouernment and kingly office as well as of his priesthood and consequently Christ might haue bin a priest of the order of Aaron as well as of Melchisedeck but in respect of his sacrifice for the whole people and intercession for them and his entrance alone within the sanctuary bearing the names of the twelue Tribes for Christs gouernment appertaineth to his kingdome and not to his priesthood Likewise the Christian people of any Citie and Country adioyning whether that which wee call a prouince or diocesse though consisting of many particular congregations is rightly termed a Church as the Church of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Smyrna Sardes Philadelphia c. Jn like manner the Christian people of one Towne or Village containing but one congregation which we call a parish is truly called a church as perhaps that of Cenchreae And to conclude the company of faithfull in one familie doe deserue the name of a Church as hath bin shewed Indeed that any particular Chruch of a whole Nation Citie and Country Towne Parish or family family I say being alone and not a part of a congregation but as an entire Church or parish by itselfe may bee accounted a true visible Church there is required besides the profession of the true faith wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth the ministery of the word and sacraments and eutaxy or some good order of gouernment Not that all gouernours are to be placed in euery society or Church but that the effect and benefit of the gouernment is to redound to euery particular For as well might an high Councell of State or Parliament such as was the synedrion of the Iewes which was but one for the whole Nation be required in euery Citie and a Maior and Aldermen such as be in London and other chiefe Cities in euery village as a Bishop and Presbytery in euery parish All which J haue the rather noted because some hauing first strongly conceited that there is no true visible Church but a parish nor lawfull church-officers but parishionall haue haled the places of Scripture where Ecclesia is mentioned to the confirmation of their conceit and thereupon as their chiefe foundation haue built their newfound parish discipline Whereas in very truth scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians as we call a parish can be alleaged out of the Scriptures Indeed at the very first conuersion of Cities the whole number of the people conuerted being sometimes not much greater then the number of the Presbyters placed among them were able to make but a small congregation But those Churches were in constituting they were not fully constituted vntill their number being increased they had their Bishoppe or Pastor their Presbytery and Deacons without which Ignatius saith there was no Church meaning no accomplished or fully constituted Church Neither was the Bishop and the Presbytery which at the first was placed in any Citie prouided onely for that set number which was already conuerted but they were there placed for the conuersion of the whole Citie and country thereto belonging their ministery being like to the leuen put into three pecks of meale which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe Neither was it meant that the whole number of Christians of each Citie and territory being much increased should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place but that vpon the multiplication of Christians diuision should be made of the whole Church into diuers particular congregations which after happened in all Churches accordingly But vpon this diuision there was not to euery seuerall congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery but only seuerall Presbyters assigned singuli singulis some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop The Bishop himselfe remaining as it was first intended and as the Church of God euery where throughout the world expounded that intent by their practise the Pastor or Superintendent of the whole Citie and country adioyning Neither are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to shew that there were or ought to haue been after the diuision of parishes and assignement of seuerall Presbyters vnto them any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocesse But of this more hereafter In the meane time hauing shewed that the vse of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not sauour their conceit who imagine there is no true Church but a parish the word signifying according to the vsuall phrase of the holy Ghost any company of Christians whether great or small I am now to declare the vse of the word Ecclesia paroecia dioecesis which are commonly translated Church parish diocesse in antient Writers Where I am to note that setting aside the general significatiō of the word Ecclesia signifying either the whole Church in general or the two maine parts of it in heauen and earth in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not vsed as also the largest signification of dioecesis containing the whole circuit of a patriarchall and archiepiscopall iurisdiction as the diocesse of the Patriarch of Alexandria contained all Egypt Libya and Pentapolis the diocesse of Antioch the East Countries c. In which sense the word paroecia is not vsed setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis otherwise these three words ecclesia paroecia and dioecesis are for the most part vsed as words of the same signification For as in the singular number commonly each of them doth signifie a diocesse excepting wherein the distribution of the diocesse paroecia is opposed
to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then onely it signifieth the citie and suburbs and excepting where some addition restraineth the word paroecia or ecclesia to the signification of a parish as ecclesia or paroecia cui presbyter praest so in the plurall if they be referred to one diocesse they signifie parishes or some parts of the diocesse though with this difference that dioceses doe note Parishes onely in the Country but ecclesia and paroecia commonly as well those in the Citie as in the country but referred to whole Nations or larger parts of the world they signifie dioceses But I will speake of them seuerally beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paroecia the rather because our Refuter and others of his feather finding in Eusebius the Churches of Ierusalem Alexandria Antioch c. to bee termed paroeciae straightwaies conclude that they were such Churches as we call parishes Which if they write as they thinke is a very vnlearned collection For whereas the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is diuersly vsed sometimes with reference to a Bishoppe sometimes with relation to a Presbyter in the signification of a parish it is neuer vsed as the whole Church subiect to the Bishoppe but in that sense is either referred to one Presbyter as his proper charge or if it be referred to the Bishoppe it doth signifie but one parish among many belonging to his Bishopricke But most vsually and almost alwaies in antient Writers yea and many times both in those of the middle and also of the latter age it is taken either for the whole diocesse or for the citie and suburbs whereto as the Bishops see the rest of the diocesse doth appertaine And because my aduersary shall not say I speake without booke I will bring pregnant testimonies to make good my assertion First therefore whereas one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles forbiddeth a Bishop to leaue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his owne charge and to leape into another and whâ—reas Eusebius the author of the ecclesiasticall history being the Metropolitan Bishop of Caesarea and much importuned to remoue to Antioch which at that time was the seat of the third patriarch refused that offer Constantine the great doth greatly commend him for keeping 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostolikâ— canon Which canon the Council of Nice hath reference vnto when it saith that Bishops remouing from one City to another or as wee speake from one See to another did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrary to the Canon The meaning therefore of the Canon forbidding a Bishop to remoue from one paroecia to another was to forbidde him to remoue from one Diocesse to another The councill of Antioch speaking to the same purpose retayneth the same words forbidding a Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee translated from one paroecia to another Where it were absurd to vnderstand the councell as speaking of a parish because this councell being latter then the councell of Nice it is euident that at that time there were not onely Bishops of Dioceses and Metropolitanes ouer Prouinces but also patriarches diuiding among them the Christian world And to the same purpose the councill of Sardica noting the breach of these canons among other vnlawfull practises of the Arians expresseth it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translations from lesse Cities to greater paroecias that is dioceses or Bishoprickes In the same Councell it is decreed that if any Bishoppe will ordaine in any degree of the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of another paroecia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Minister belonging to another Bishop without the consent of his owne Bishop the ordination shall be voide The councels of Ancyra and Antioch speaking of Bishops the one not receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or diocesse the other not accepting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the paroecia or bishopricke vnto which he was ordained most plainely by paroecia vnderstand the charge of a Diocesan Bishop Epiphanius excusing himself to Iohn the Bishop of Ierusalem who was offended with him for that he had as was supposed ordained a Presbyter in his diocesse answereth among other things that diuers Bishops had ordained in his diocesse without his offence Yea he had exhorted Philo Theoprobus two Bishops that in the Churches of Cyprus which were neer to them ad mea autem paroeciae videbaÌ„tur ecclesiaÌ„ pertinere eo quod grandis esset et lat a prouincia ordinareÌ„t presbyteros et Christs ecclesiae prouiderent but seemed faith he to belong to the Church of my paroecia that is Bishopricke they would because it was a great and large prouince ordaine Presbyters and prouide for the Church of Christ. Where it is testified that the Churches throughout a large Prouince were but part of his paroecia that is diocesse But I will descend to latter times wherein it was prouided that a Bishop of another City should not contrary to the canons inuade parochiam cuiuslibet episcopi the paroeciae mening diocesse of any other Bishop The third Councell of Toledo hath these words Si quid episcopi ecclesiis ad suaÌ„ parochiam pertinentibus dederint c. If Bishops shall giue any thing to Churches belonging to their paroecia that is Bishopricke Gregory the Great when he would signifie that the antient canons commanded that prouinciall synods should be held twice a yeere saith they had taken order de habendis per parochias concilijs The synod held in England An. 673. decreed that no Bishop should inuade the paroecia of another and that Bishops and other clergy men being strangers may not exercise any priestly function without the leaue of the Bishop in cuius paroecia in whose diocesse they are knowne to remaine In the Councell of Arles it was ordained that once a yeere euery Bishop should goe about parochiam suam that is his diocesse The Councell of Mentz appoint that euery Bishoppe in sua parochia that is in his owne diocesse should make diligent inquirie whether there were any Presbyters or Deacons therein that belonged to another Bishop that they might be returned to him In the Councell of Rhoan the Bishop is forbidden principalem cathedram sâ—ae parochia negligere to neglect the Cathedrall Church or chiefe seat of his paroecia that is Bishoprick To conclude the Councel held at Wormes forbiddeth Bishops quâ— parochias non habent which haue no charge of their owne to exercise their function or to ordaine in alterius parochia in the paroecia of another Bishop without the appointment of the Bishop in â—uius parochia in whose diocesse they be Whereby it doth euidently appeare that the word paroecia being attributed to a Bishop as his whole charge or circuit of his episcopall iurisdiction doth signifie a diocesse consisting of many parishes And that in Eusebius it is so to bee vnderstood it is most manifest
because hee calleth great Churches after the diuision of them into many parishes not onely in the Country but euen in the Cities by the name of Paroecia To which purpose let vs conferre a few places in Eusebius concerning the Church of Alexandria whereby his meaning when he speaketh of this argument wil easily appeare For hauing said lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of AlexaÌ„dria the rest of Aegypt he addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Bishoprick of the paroecia or Churches there in Alexandria and Aegypt Demetrius had lately receiued In the eight chapter he saith that Demetrius was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president or Bishop of the paroecia that is the Church there For so he explaneth himself chap. 26. calling him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans and what he meaneth by that speech he sheweth chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one hee vseth these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee taketh vpon him the Bishopricke or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria So that when he saith Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the paroecia or church his meaning is all one as if hee had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of such a Bishopricke as contained many Churches And in the same sense he speaketh though in the plurall number when hee mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the paroeciae or churches of Pontus the churches of Asia the paroecia of the holy catholike church Thus then wee see that in antient writers the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and paroecia corruptly parochia in Latine is vsually taken for the whole diocesse consisting of many parishes when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge § 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishoprick as wheÌ„ the whole diocesse is diuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the city or chiefe seate or see of the Bishop and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest of the diocesse in the countrie or countries thereto belonging For manifestation whereof those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Bishops of euery naÌ„tion it behoueth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them and to esteeme him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their head or chief and to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their owne charge or iurisdiction without his consent and that euery one doe deale in those things alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which belong to his owne Paroecia that is see or Church the couÌ„â—ries which be subiect onto it Neither may he that is the Metropolitan do any thing without the consent of all So shall there bee concorde and God shall bee glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost Which canon is renued and explained in the councill of Antioch the canons whereof were part of the ancient code or book of canons receiued in the ancient church recited some of them in the great councell of Chalcedon and ratified all of them in the generall councell of Constantinople held in Trullo the Emperours Palace The canon is this It behooueth the BB of euery Prouince to acknowledge the Metropolitane B. and that he taketh vpoÌ„ him the cure of the whole Prouince because there is a concourse of all men who haue businesse from all places vnto the Metropolis on mother Citie Wherefore it hath beene thought good or decreed that he should excell in honour and that without him the rest of the Bishops should doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient receiued Canon of our Fathers meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles which it reciteth as you see word for word but those things alone which concerne his owne Paâ—oecia that is his owne See or Citie and the Countries which be vnder it For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 administer according to the feare of God wherewith he is endued and hath a prouident care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole region or countrey which is vnder his Citie vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Paroecia and Citie indifferently so that hee may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but beyond his bounds hee may doe nothing without the Bishop of the Mother Citie neither may he without â—he consent of the rest Then which testimonies nothing can bee alleged more pregnant either for the signification of the word or for the proofe of our assertion that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes but dioceses Sometimes indeede the word Paroecia doth signifie that which we call a parish but then either it is vsed with such reference to a Bishop as it is plainely noted to bee but one among many belonging to his charge and is commonly vttered in the plurall number or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge To which purpose consider these testimonies The Councell of Carthage which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians speaketh as of the Bishop of the diocesse so of a Presbyter qui Parochiae praeest who is set ouer a parish The Councell of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs per parochias Innocentius the first writing to Florentius a Bishop blameth him for vsurping a parish which belonged to the diocesse of Vrsus another Bishop And elsewhere he speaketh â—â— As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis I hope I shall not neede to prooue that it also signifieth a diocesse Neither do I greatlie neede to shew that in the signification of a diocesse it is giuen to Bishops seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the varietie of the persons to whom it is attributed in the sense of a diocesse as we tearme it it is properly ascribed to Bishops The word indeede seemeth generally to signifie the circuit of any mans charge or administration who hath gouernment in the Church For as there is Ecclesia a Church of a Patriarch and of a Metropolitan of a Bishop and of a Presbyter so there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or dioecesis of a Patriarch which we may call a Patriarchall diocesse of an Archbishop which we call a Prouince of a Bishop which we call a Diocesse and of a Presbyter which we call a Parish For the two first these few examples may suffice The Emperour Iustinian appointeth that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the
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
The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage and president of that Councell had consented vnto was decreed by the whole Councell And that wee may know the Parishes in the Country together with the seuerall Presbyters set ouer them belong to the Diocesan Bishop euen they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocesse In the councell of Toledo Bishops are required per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas to goe yearely through all their Dioceses and Parishes And againe so to rule their Dioceses that is Parishes that they doe not presume to take any thing from their right but according to the authority of former Councels they take onely a third part of the offerings and tithes But in an other Councell it was determined that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses through his Dioceses shall take any thing besides the honour of his chaire that is 2◠shillings or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches Sometimes it is vsed for a parish Church In which sense a parish Presbyter is said in the Councell of Agatha Dioecesin tenere In the Councell of Orleans dioecesis Basilica are vsed promiscuously as Synonyma To which purpose it is said that if any man hath or desireth to haue Dioecesin that is a Church in his ground he must assign sufficient land vnto it prouide a Clerke for it CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses ANd thus much may suffice to haue spoken of the names about which the testimonies which I haue brought haue beene almost so many euidences for the Diocesan and against the parishionall Bishops Now I proceede to other arguments desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment and iurisdiction to wit whether in the Apostles times and the ages following they were Parishes as we cal them or Dioceses And first I will shew they were not Parishes and after that they were Dioceses For if Parishes then the Parishes either in the Countries or Cities were such but neyther the parishes in the Country nor in the Citie had a Bishop of their owne and a Presbytery Which is so euident a truth to them that haue read the Councels Histories and Fathers of the antient Church that it is to be wondred how men of learning and reading being also men of conscience can deny it But seeing it is denied I must be content to proue it viz. that regularly lawfully ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the seuerall parishes For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leaue seeing neither it can be preiudicious to mee what was at any time vnlawfully done nor aduantagious to him vnlesse hee will vrge a reformation according to the paterne of the Churches if there were any such which were irregularly extraordinarily and vnlawfully gouerned First therefore for Country parishes because I maintaine the negatiue and the proofe of the affirmatiue lieth vpon my aduersary I challenge him to produce some proofe if he bee able within 400. yeeres after Christ of Country parishes lawfully regularly ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment and gouerned by their owne Bishoppes such as they speake of assisted with their Presbyteries Which if hee bee not able to performe as I am well assured hee is not hee must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to bee of the same stampe with his lay-presbyters that is to say a meere counterfet But not expecting his proofe J will prooue that neither they had Bishoppe of their owne nor yet Presbyteries As touching the former it cannot be denied but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious haue desired to bee Bishoppes of their parish and their people vaine glorious haue seconded their desire But in all well ordered Churches their presumption hath been resisted and their vaine desires frustrated I doe confesse that in Africke which alwaies bringeth forth some noueltie and from whence all T. C. his newes in this cause doe come some parts of the diocesse being very populous haue obtained a Bishoppe of their owne But when when the charge was so great as that by it selfe it seemed to deserue a Bishop And how First with the leaue of the Bishop of the city in whose diocesse it was Secondly with the approbation of the Metropolitane and the prouinciall Synode Thirdly hee which obtained the honour of beeing a bishoppe was aduanced to a higher degree then himselfe had before or other country pastors haue and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least But it shall not bee amisse both to recite the decrees of the Africane councels in this behalfe though touched before and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishoppes and canons of holy Councels elsewhere In the second councell of Carthage it was decreed that the Dioceses meaning as I haue said parts of any diocesse in the Country which neuer receiued Bishoppes of their owne may haue none and that diocesse which sometimes had may still haue a Bishoppe of their owne And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a gouernour of their owne that then they may haue a Bishoppe with his leaue in whose power the diocesse is In the third Councell of Carthage it is said that it had beeen determined in many Councels that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishoppes which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue gouernours of their owne that is to say Bishoppes but with the consent of the Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom from the beginning they haue been inioied But forasmuch as some hauing obtained this honor abused it tyrannically and withdrew themselues schismatically from the communion of other Bishops and forasmuch as also certaine Presbyters lifting vp their neckes against their BB. vsed indirect meanes to allure their people that themselues might be made Bishoppes therefore it was ordained that such a people in the paroecia or diocesse which is subiect to the antient Bishoppe and neuer had a Bishoppe of their owne should not obtaine a proper Doctor meaning Bishoppe And as touching those which had attained to this honour vnlawfully and withdrew themselues from the synods of Bishoppes it was determined that they should not onely lose their diocesse but also their owne Church For it is fit the Bishops which are vnited to all their brethren and to the whole synod should iustly retaine not onely their owne Cathedra or See but also that they should possesse such dioceses And whereas some being made Bishops in part of other mens dioceses with their leaue and consent did incroach vpon parts of the diocesse not granted vnto them it was concluded that he which in the diocesse is preferred to be
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
before that time there were Bishops placed in country townes and thereupon conclude that therefore there had beene before that time parishionall Bishoppes To this obiection I answere by denying the consequence or the proposition which is vnderstood viz. that the country Bishops which had beene before ordained were parish Bishops For those Bishops because they were placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countries were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say countrie-Countrie-Bishops to distinguish them from the other Bishops whose See was in the Citie Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses much lesse in all parishes nor assigned where they were to one parish as they were Bishoppes but where the Diocesse was large were ordained in some places remote from the citie to supply the absence of the Bishop in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are wherein diuers parishes were contained These Chorepicsopi at the first had Episcopall ordination by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes For which fifteene if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes there might haue beene I doubt not fifteene hundred if not fifteene thousand But when these Countrie-Bishoppes beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes and substitutes placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Episcopall function began to encroach vpon the Bishoppes right and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie and jurisdiction beyond their commission they were by little and little restrained and when they would not be kept within their compasse their order at least as they were Bishops beeing but an humane-ordinance deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie was in most places abolished But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these countrie Bishops doth giue great light to this present controuersie it will not be vnprofitable nor I hope vnpleasing to the reader if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria wherunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed we find this difference betweene country presbyters country Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cathedrall Church of the City the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe but if they bee absent and one of them alone bee called to prayer then hee may because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse as some note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but countrey Bishops who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers they doe offer Vpon which words Balsamo noteth two things First where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons Secondly that among other vses for which they were appointed they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore which appertained to them Besides we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters belong to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city which heereafter wil more clearely appeare and that the countrey Bishop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Ministres and yet inferiour to the Bishops The councel of Ancyra which is more ancient thē the former and both of them elder then the councill of Nice perceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vpon the Bishops right determined it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons The councell of Antioch though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse to send canonicall letters as the manner of Bishops among themselues in those times was which it denied to country presbyters yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed to ordaine alleging that they might lawfully doe it because they had beene ordained as Bishops Jt therefore determined that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries called Chorepiscopi although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure and gouerne the Churches subiect vnto them and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists should satisfie themselues with preferring of them and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect But if any shall presume to transgresse this decree hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath And whereas they pretended that they had episcopall ordination and therefore as BB might ordaine Ministers to take away that pretence it determined also that the Country B. should be ordained not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops as a Bishop but as other Presbyters or Ministers of the Bishop of the City vnto which he is subiect So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops afterwards according to this decree they were but Presbyters in deede though they had the title of Bishops neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times There is an Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Damasus the Author whereof supposeth that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters because they are found to haue beene ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe therefore they are remooued from Episcopall offices Wee know saith hee there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ that is to say of the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples whence this third came we know not for neither are they Bishops because they be not ordained of three Bishops but only of one neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes neither may they be in the Citie because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop Neither will they bee called Presbyters but will be accounted more then Presbyters Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle I know not but this I am sure that Leo the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle which beareth the name of Damasus And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill whereof Isidore was President that it followeth the same almost word for word Now because my Aduersarie shall not say that what I haue alleged concerning Country Bishops is impertinent hee shall vnderstand that as the maine question concerning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued as you shall heare in due place so this present
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
the Bishop in euery diocesse had for terme of life A few testimonies therfore shal suffice in this place In the Church of Rome there were many not onely Presbyters besides the one onely lawfull Bishop but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times whereunto Presbyters were assigned seuerally the Bishop being the Superintendent ouer them all About the yeere 250. Cornelius being chosen Bishop of Rome Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians or Catharists but procureâ—â— three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie to ordaine him Bâ—shop of Rome hauing also inueigled by his subtilties certaine famous men that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius Of this fact what was the iudgement of Cyprian of Cornelius and other Bâ—shops and finally of the Confessours themselues you shall in few words heare For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers as to other chiefe Bâ—shops so to Carthage to procure the approbation of Cyprian hee disswadeth them from the schisme telling them that a Bâ—shop being ordained and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow Bâ—shops and of the people another may not by any meanes be ordained And writing to some of those Confessours hee signifieth his great griefe because he vnderstood that they contrary to the order of the Church contrary to the law of the Gospell contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline had thought it meet that another B. should be made that is to say which is neither right nor lawfull to bee done that another Church should be erected the members of Christ dismembred c. Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus and writing of these matters to Fabius the B. of Antioch he saith this Patron of the Gospell forsooth meaning Nouatian did not know that in a Catholike Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant but that there are 46. Presbyters and 108. more of the Clergie The Confessors afterwards acknowledging their fault among other things in their submission confesse that as there is but one God and one Lord so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop Now whereas Cornelius testifieth that there were besides the Bishop who ought to be but one 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome and 108. others of the Clergie if any man notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers that there were diuers Churches in Rome whereunto seuerall Presbyters were assigned will needes hold that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation I cannot let him from being so absurd Howbeit this is certaine that in the next age in Optatus his time when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches whereunto seuerall Presbyters were deputed there remained still but one only Bishop The like is to be said of Alexandria wherein as Epiphanius testifieth were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches all which at least so many as were Catholike were vnder one Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ouer them seuerally are Presbyters placed for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabitants who might each of them bee neere vnto their owne Church c. Now saith Epiphanius besides the Church called Caesaria which was burnt in Iulians time and reedified by Athanasius there are many others as the Church of Dionysius of Theonas of Pierius of Serapion of Persaea of Dizya of Mendidius of Amianus of Baucalis and others In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter in another Carpones in another Sarmatas and Arius in another namely that which is called Baucalis The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates affirming that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subiect to the B. of Alexandria committed seuerally to Presbyters as that which is called Baucalis and those which haue their names from S. Dionysius Theonas c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria was by Achilles the B. the predecessour of Alexander set ouer the Church called Baucalis And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times yet is it not to be doubted but that in euery City when the number of Christians was much increased the like diuision of parishes was made vnto which not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appointed there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop as the practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue But now suppose that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish which is most false yet forsomuch as to euery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith a certaine region allotted which belonged to the Bishops charge and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers who seeth nor that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish but a diocesse And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue For Churches containing within their circuit not onely Cities with their Suburbs but also whole Countries subiect to them were dioceses But the Churches subiect to the ancient Bâ—shops in the Primitiue Church contained within their circuit not onely the Cities with their suburbs but also the whole Countries subiect to them Therefore they were dioceses The assumption is prooued by these reasons first The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts the Citie with the suburbs and Country subiect to it For proofe whereof you heard before two most plaine testimonies The former in one of the Canons of the Apostles so called charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia and the Countries which be vnder it The other in the Councell of Antioch which reciting the same words addeth this reason For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia and doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is performe the dutie of a Diocesan hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and order all things with iudgement To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop into the Church of the Citie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Nâ—trix Ecclesia and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subiect to the same Bishop that others were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters of the citie or as in some Latine Councels they are called Ciuitatenses others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Countrey Ministers or dioecesanâ— Ministers of the diocesse Secondly
neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
of Cilicia Basil the Great of Cappadocia c. but as hauing one onely Bishop as the nation of the Scythyans hauing many cities townes and castels had all of them by antient custome one only Bishop which was the Bishop of their chiefe citie Tomis CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon prouing that the seuen Churches of Asia c. were Dioceses THese testimonies and proofes hitherto produced are so euident demoÌ„stratiue for dioceses and diocesans as that if no more could be said they are sufficient if not to perswade yet at the least to conuince the gainsaiers But if besides these the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase shall be made to returne vpon him and to driue him and his consorts like the men of Ai vpon these new forces and if the forces which hee bringeth to maintaine his quarell shall bee found to bee of no force and altogether vnable to endure the least encounter then doe I hope that our Disciplinarians themselues will be perswaded to speake no more for the new found parish Discipline But before I enter into this second conflict I am to take a suruey of his forces which I perceiue are diuided into 2. troopes the one encountering with my forces the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline In his encounter or refutations first he findeth fault that I doe not conclude in this second part what he would haue me to conclude according to his forced Analysis For answere whereof let my words be considered Serm. s. 1 pag. 17. I come now to the second which is to shew that in the Apostles time and in the ages following the Churches wherof the Bishops are called Angels or to vse their own words the visible Churches indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were Dioceses properly and not parishes This is prooued out of this place c. The assertion which I indeuour to prooue in the foure first points of my Sermon was this that the Angels or gouernors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be This assertion after I had prooued it in the first point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing their Presbyteries in the three next points I indeuour to prooue it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing that they were such as ours are both in respect of the largenesse of their authoritie to which end I shew that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point and themselues Diocesans in the third and in respect of the height of their authoritie and Preheminence that they were superiour in degree to other ministers c. which I prooue in the fourth In this second point therefore if I indeauour to prooue that the primitiue Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries and were indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment were not parishes properly but Dioceses nothing could be more directly and pertinently deliuered But the onely thing which I seeke to prooue and maintaine in this part as euery man seeth is that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries c. were not parishes properly but Dioceses And this I first prooue by mine owne arguments and secondly maintaine against theirs My arguments were two The former grounded on the text and is thus to be framed Churches whose circuit contained not onely cities but also countries adioyning were Dioceses The circuit of the 7. churches wherof the 7. Angels were Bishops and whereto other Churches hauing Bishops and Presbyteries indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like contained the cities and Countries adjoyning Therefore the 7. Churches c. were Dioceses The proposition I did not expresse but did presuppose it and take it for granted Likewise that part of the assumption inclosed in the parenthesis affirming that to the 7. Churches all others which had Bishops and Presbyteries and consequently were indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were like I also presupposed because it is not to be doubted but that the primitiue Churches indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were of the like nature and constitution And vpon this hypothesis the onely argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause is grounded affirming that it is clear by all learned I know not what that the constitution of the visible Churches was at the first one the same in al places Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoyning it is proued first ioyntly For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia then all both in cities and countries but the first is true for our Sauiour Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all vnder these 7. as being the principall and containing within their circuit all the rest Then seuerally The church of Ephesus contained a great and ample citie indeed a Metropolis or mother city and the country subiect to it the church of Smyrna a mother city the country beloÌ„ging to it the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adioyning the church of Laoidcea a mother city and the country vnder it the Church of Pergamus or PergamuÌ„ a famous city which had beene the fear of the Kings of Asia and the countrey belonging to it the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories Now let vs see how our refuâ—er cauilleth with these arguments The first he frameth thus If the churches of Asia to which our sauiour Christ writ were great and ample cities and not the cities alone but also the couÌ„tries adioyning then they were dioceses properly and not parishes But the churches of Asia were such Therefore they were Dioceses c. Of this syllogisme saith hee the assumption is on the eighteenth page and the conclusion on the seuenteenth The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied To which I answere that the consequence thereof is naught Euen so in your conceit bee almost all that you make for me But â—s your necessity or need such that you caÌ„not frame a syllogisme with hope to answer it vnlesse the propositioÌ„ haue coÌ„sequence which you may deny Let me intreat you that the proposition may be simple as euen now I propounded it theÌ„ deny it if you can Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the coâ—ntries adioyning were Dioceses This proposition will stand vnmooueable when the foâ—â—dation of your discipline wil be raced And so wil the coÌ„sequeÌ„ce which your self propouÌ„d being grouÌ„ded on this propositioÌ„ as the hypothesis therof But why is the consequeÌ„ce naught for it will not be amisse to take a breef view how he playeth with it 2. reasoÌ„s he rendreth 1. Because it presupposeth that al Churches in the world at that time were â—mple and great Cities Which as it appeareth to bee manifestly false to all that are of any vnderstanding so it and some other places in
possible but that if these churches did containe ample Cities with the countries such as we cal shires belonging to them they were not dioceses but parishes although your assumptiō should bee granted namely that these churches contained not only the cities but countries notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against For though these were dioceses yet others might be parishes Such a froward aduersary I haue met withall who in other places accusing mee for not concluding what these churches or the angels of thē were here findeth fault that J cōclude what they were But both his accusations are alike vniust seeing the constitution of them and all others indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment was the same and what is said of the one is to be vnderstood of the other His second reason why the consequence is naught because it doth not appeare neither is it true that euery one of these Churches was diuided into diuers seuerall ordinary asblies all of thē depending vpon some one as the chiefe without power of ecclesiastical gouernment apart in themselus Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion is not the deniall of the conclusion an euidence that the answerer is confounded and is not confusion a manifest signe of one that writeth against his conscience resolued not to bee perswaded though his conscience be conuicted As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion that they were not Dioceses because they were not diuided c. it containeth three branches First that they were not diuided into diuers ordinary assemblies Secondly If they were yet they did not all depend vpon some one as the chiefe Thirdly That they had the power of ecclesiastical gouernement in themselues These assertions would haue beene proued by them that are opponents and will needes perswade vs to admitte of their parish Discipline But I am well assured that they are notable to proue any one of them And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions and to put them to proue them yet because I desire from my soule to satisfie our opposites in this cause as Brethren and because they containe the very grounds of the parish-discipline I will briefly disproue them For as touching the first I haue often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of the churches which were not diuided into parishes to those that bee Would they haue the Church of a City and country belonging to it to bee all but one congregation assēbling ordinarily in one place If they would thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted But though they would the ancient christians would not who when their multitude was increased in all places of the world were diuided into diuers particular assemblies If they would haue them diuided as of necessity they must then let them tell mee whether wee that doe and of necessity must consist of diuers congregations are to follow the example of any ancient church as it was before it was diuided or as it was after it was diuided If the former then are they absurd againe If the latter then haue I that which I desire They will say perhaps that each congregation after the diuision was as that one before Nothing lesse Let them proue that and I will yeeld in the whole cause The one before had a Bishop and a Presbytery as they will confesse which were to attend the whole flocke but after the diuision not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery but one of the Presbyters assigned to it the rest remaining with the Bishop who as before assisted with his Presbytery had a generall superintendencie ouer them as well diuided as vndiuided and was but one in euery diocesse as well after the diuision as before Which is so manifest a truth so confirmed by testimonies before cited so testified by the generall consent and practise of the Christian world not one instance to be giuen to the contrary as that it cannot but conuince the conscience I hope also it will perswade For tell mee I pray you were not parishes distinguished in Constantines time and before as well as now Yes questionlesse Were any other assigned to them seuerally then seuerall Presbyters euen as they be now That also is out of doubt Was it euer or at any time otherwise after the diuision of parishes No without question There remained but one Bishop and one Presbytery for the whole citie and country as well after the diuision as before And that is so euident a truth by that which hath bin said that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer denie it But it will be said that the Churches before they were diuided were not dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuit of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the diuision of parishes as after Euen as the subiect of the leauen is the whole bach in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpe though the loaues bee not yet diuided yea though but a little of the dough bee yet after it is newly put in seasoned If you aske mee how J know this I answere First because the whole Church of God euer since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuit of euery Church hauing from the beginning included not onely the citie but the country thereto belonging Secondly because that diuision of Churches which was three or foure hundred yeeres after Christ with their limits and circuits were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning as before hath been testified by diuers antient Councels Thirdly because it is confessed by Beza and testified by Doctor Rainolds and others that the distribution of the Church did vsually follow the diuision of the common-wealth insomuch that those countries which were subiected to the ciuill iurisdiction exercised in any citie were also subiect ordinarily to the ecclesiasticall and as they were accounted of the same county or prouince in respect of ciuill gouernment so of the same Church or diocesse in regard of spirituall And as the Church followed the ciuill distribution at the beginning so also if there were any new citie erected by the authority of the Emperour it was decreed by the Councell of Constantinople following therein the canon of their forefathers that the order of ecclesiasticall things should follow the ciuill and publike forme Therefore though these Churches had not been diuided into seuerall congregations yet had they each of them been dioceses But now I adde that at the time of writing the Reuelation which was almost an hundeed yeeres after the birth of Christ it is more then probable that they contained diuers congregations For when Paul had continued but two yeeres at Ephesus the holy Ghost restifieth that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare
the Bishop of Samosata to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly calleth himselfe the B. of Caesarâ—a This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes plainly prooueth also that they were not Bishops of any one parish but of all the Churches in the Citie and of the whole diocesse My assertion therefore that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie but the countrey also adioining would according to the true meaning thereof haue beene consuted if hee had beene able and not the words fondlie cauilled with But not contended heere with he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning as if I had said that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Christians Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more I meane vntill Constantines time Neuerthelesse this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute And therefore full soberly he goeth about it telling vs that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants nor it was not then in Ephesus as it is now in London And very learnedly out of hâ—s reading telleth vs that Polycarpus was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude in the sight of his people when euery body knoweth that in all Cities and Countries for the space of almost 300. yeeres the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles If any man aske how it may bee said that the Church contained the Citie and Country when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in either of both I answer as before that the circuit of the Church or diocesse was the same when there were few and when there were many yea when all were Christians Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a few the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country as well when all were Christians as when but a few which J prooued before by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times which ought without comparison to preuaile with vs aboue the authoritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vs who are not so singular for learning as they are singular in opinion whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places and in all ages since the Apostles times is intolerable Yea but saith hee the Church of Smyrna writing of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse it was seated chiefely in the Citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is said to bee in the head and God who is in all places to be in heauen or but that part which did inhabit the Citie you are not to maruell if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City are called a Church seeing the companie of Christians in a parish or in a familie deserueth that name Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it And thus much may suffice to haue spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee Now are wee to examine the second M.D. saith he perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength sought to fortifie it by two reasons This is my aduersaries vsuall though odious fashion sophistically to argue euery assertion of weaknesse for which I bring proofe when rather the proofe if it bee good as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any doth argue the weakenesse of their iudgement who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued and the strength also of the assertion which is armed with such proofe The former reason he propoundeth thus If our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen and some of them mother Cities then were they great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but the Countries adioining But our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen c. To let passe his vnmannerly gibing not worth the mentioning and to referre you to the manner how this Syllogisme is to be framed before mentioned let vs see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashioned He denieth after his vsuall manner both the proposition and the assumption So hard is my happe that scarce any one proposition or assumption which hee frameth for me may be acknowledged to be true and yet so hard is his happe that he is not able to prooue any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue The proposition hee would confute by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that therefore all the rest depended vpon these as children vpon the mother To which he addeth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in denying the former part of the assumption viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case If the Emperour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia should haue written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent saith he that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe of them which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case might a man conclude thereupon that all other Townes and Cities of Asia were subiect to the gouernment of these seuen But say I put the case that the Emperor so should doe with that intent which is and also hath beene vsuall in such cases that is to the intent that what hee writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction would it not strongly proue that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them Come we to our selues When the King or his Counsell would haue any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County from them to the high Constables of euery hundred from them to the Constables of euery towne and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred and much more to the gouernours of the County In like manner when the Archbishop would haue any thing imparted to euery parish hee directeth his letters to the Bishops they to the Archdeacons they to the officers
in 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
that they were of ancient assigned to seuerall Presbyters all of them which were Catholique or orthodoxall beeing vnder the Bishop Neither should this seeme strange that the Churches in Alexandria were subiect to the Bishop seeing the rest in Aegypt were vnder his iurisdiction Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria but commoÌ„ to others especially who were Bishops of mother Cities Ignatius was Bishop not onely of Antioch but of Syria as you heard testified by himselfe Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons was Bishop of the Churches in France And to omitte others as Diodorus the Bishop of Tarsus to whose charge was committed the nation of the Cilicians Amphilochius who gouerned the whole nation of the Lycaonians Photinus Bishop of the Churches in Illyricum Agapetus Bishop of the Churches which were vnder Synada c Eusebius testifieth of Titus and in the next age after of Philippe that hee was B. of the Churches in Creet Theodoret saith the like and of Timothe that hee was Bishop of the Asians whose metropolis was Ephesus It is manifest saith Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed the rest of the Church or that whole nation of Asia To these testimonies of Eusebius and Theodoret I name so many as were cited in the sermon the refuter answers First that Eusebius liued 230. yeares after Timothy and Titus and Theodoret 330. What then the question is not whether the witnesses liued in the first 200. yeares but whether within that time there were diocesan Bishops It is a very vncharitable and vnlearned part that I say no worse to imagine that Eusebius and Theodoret would of their owne heads testifie these things and not by the relation of those which liued in former ages especially seeing Eusebius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is recorded in histories But suppose the testimonies of these 2. were not sufficieÌ„t what will he say to that cloud of the ancient most autheÌ„tick witnesses which with one coÌ„seÌ„t do testifie that Timothy was B. of Ephesus those parts of Asia and that Titus was B. of Creet But of this more heereafter In the meane time let it bee acknowledged as a point of intollerable impudency that in a matter of fact so agreeable with the scriptures I meane especially the Epistles to Timothy and Titus written to them as to Bishops any of vs should deny credit to the constant generall and perpetuall consent of the ancient writers whereof some liued 13 or 1400 yeares before vs. 2. Yea but if these testimonies be true Titus and Timothy were Archbishops So is Titus called in the subscriptioÌ„ of that Epistle And that they were Metropolitanes appeareth by all their successors who were Bishops of Gortynae and Ephesiuâ— the one Metropolis of Creet the other of Asia How D. Bilson denieth this let the reader see page 409. of his book the other which the refuter citeth beeing misalledged where he citeth Chrysostome and Ierome testifying that to Titus was committed a whole Iland and the iudgement of so many Bishops Theodoret that to Timothe Paul committed the charge of Asia Now if there were Metropolitan Bishops in the Apostles times who besides their own peculiar diocesse had the ouersight also of other Dioceses Bishops it should not seeme strange that there were Diocesan Bishops who besides their cathedrall churches had manie parishes and Presbyters subordinate to them To which purpose Epiphanius also was alledged who saith that each Bishop had diuers churches vnder them to whom many other might be added as that of Optatâ—â— that in the city of Rome where was but one onely Bishop were aboue forty Churches the Epistle of Constantine to Eusebius mentioning those diuers Churches which were vnder him and signifying as the multitude of Christians did encrease so the number of Churches was to be multiplied the testimony of Theodoret the Bishop of Cyrus who affirmeth that it was his lotte to be pastor of 800. Churches for so many parishes saith hee hath Cyrus Yea but Epiphanius was 390. yeares after Christ. Will any wise man therefore inferre that in the first two hundred yeares it was so Good sir sauing your wisedome you shall seldome reade in ancient records of enlarging of dioceses but of the contracting of them by erecting new Bishopricks very oft It was testified before that the circuits of dioceses were from the beginning of the Churches and therefore what circuit was of any Bishopricke in Epiphanius his time the same ordinarily if not greater was in the first 200. yeares Serm. sect 3. page 24. As touching countrey townes they were indeed conuerted after the cities c. to page 25. ad lin 8. In this section I proue the latter part of the former assumption concerning country parishes viz. that the Bishop of the citie was ouer them also which I proue by this Enthymeme The B. and the Presbytery of the City in all places acknowledged tâ—em to belong to their charge Therefore the Bishop was ouer them as being part of his Diocesse The antecedent I proue by their care ouer them both before they were conuerted and after Before because they labored their conuersion after because the Bishop out of his Presbytery assigned to each of theÌ„ a Presbyter not a Presbytery or a B. 2. Where the diocesse was large he substituted a Chorepiscopus or country B. Of these points the last our refuter wery conscionably concealeth all the former very learnedly he denieth He denieth I say 1. That the Bishop and Presbytery of the city acknowledged the country to belong long to their charge Which as it is a most ignorant conceit as hath beene proued before so would it haue beene most precious to the church of God if the BB. and Presbyof those times had so conceiued Now that both they and the country churches so conceiued as J said the vniuersall perpetuall practise of the church of Christ subiecting in al places the country parishes to the Bishop of the city doth ineuitably proue 2. That they did not labour their conuersion by vertue of their office but were to attend those who were conuerted As if the Bishop and presbytery had beene ordained onely for those fewe that were at the first conuerted and were not rather as leauen put into the meale to season the whole lump I would gladly know therefore who after the death of the Apostles and apostolicall men which laboured in the cities were appointed or prouided for the conuersion of the country towns If it were not the office of the Bishop and Presbytery of the city to which they were subiect much lesse was it the office of others who being neither Apostles nor Euangelists were tied to their own charges might not by the most ancient canons of the church exercise any mysteriall function out of their owne bounds Besides the bounds of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction followed the ciuill ordinarily so that those countries were
subiect to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which were subiect to the city it self And therfore as they were actually vnder the Bishops charge after their conuersion so were they intentionally before This is a point clearly confessed by Caluin as you shall heare So is the third though this learned man deny it viz that Presbyters were by the Bishops of the city assigned to country parishes out of the clergy of the city For the clergy of the city was the seminary of the ministery for the whole diocesse Neither was there any other ordinary meanes to supply the Churches which wanted Schollers of their own fitte â—o be ministers country parishes had not vniuersities there were none learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected vnlesse the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them But hereof I haue spoken before As touching the last that where the diocesse was large the Bishop in certaine places appointed Chorepiscopos as his substitutes who together with their charge remained subiect to the Bishop of the city which is a thing most notorious and confessed by Caluin and Beza being also a most euident proofe that the churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan as J haue shewed before our refuter passeth it ouer in silence with what conscience let the refuter Iudge Passing therefore by this which in no wise he was able to answer he oppugneth the 3. point bringing an instaÌ„ce of his owne and taking exception against my proofe We haue saith hee a plaine instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth A plain instance to what purpose that Cenchrea had a Bishoppe and a presbytery and not a seuerall presbyter assigned to it that when it wanted a presbyter it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth It is euident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subiect vnto it as were al other townes and villages in those parts and as the rest so it euen by his own confession receiued the gospell from Corinth That it euer had a Bishop it is incredible for by the lawes of the church those churches which at the first had Bishops were to haue them stil. Let him shew that euer it had a Bishop or a presbytery or that it was not subiect to the Bishop of Corinth as well as other towns and villages of Achaia that ordinarily it receiued not their presbyter from Corinth from whence by his owne confession it receiued the Gospel and I wil yeeld to him If none of these things can be necessarily proued nay if none of them be probable or likely how could he say that this was a plaine instance to the contrary And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been obiected to no purpose vnlesse it be to confute himselfe Against my allegation of the councell of Sardica hee taketh great exception obiecting two contrary things vnto me whereof if either were true the one would take away the other The former is subtilty and craft as though I went about to delude my auditors at Lambith and readers euery where For saith he when was this Councell held was it not about the yeere 347. almost 150. yeeres after the time in question If I had alleaged that canon only to testifie the practise of the Church at that time not permitting Bishops in country townes and villages there had been some small colour for this obiection and yet but a colour seeing they doe not as you shall heare prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been And therefore the practise of the Church for multitude of Bishops now was as it had been before sauing that by this canon order was taken for erecting Bishoprickes where none had been but not for dissoluing of Bishopricks where any were But it was the iudgement and determination of that Councell which chiefely I alledged which was that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or towne And therefore nothing was in this respect to bee innouated but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them so they should continue The iudgement of these men I hope was not much inferiour to theirs who liued in the first two hundred yeeres This being a councel of three hundred orthodoxall Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the councell of Nice among whom was Osius the famous confessour and Athanasius then whom there hath not bene a more famous Bishop for piety wisdome learning and soundnesse in religion since the Apostles times whose iudgement also in this particular was approued as hath bene shewed by the decrees of other councils by the iudgment of other fathers by the practise of all churches and neuer gaine said or misliked by any in the former ages nor yet by the reformers of the church in our age according to the pretended discipline T. C. and perhaps some one or 2. others excepted Now I would gladly know what either reasons our refuter hath to confute their iudgement or testimonies to ouerweigh their authority There was therefore no subtill purpose in mee to delude any in this allegation but an euill conscience in him that sought with so friuolous an euasion to elude so plaine and pregnant euidence The other thing which hee obiecteth is simple follie in alledging a Canon which as he saith maketh so much against mee For saith hee what greater proofe can there bee that villages or little cities or townes vsually had BB. ouer them euen till that time viz. the yeare 347 then that the councill of Sardica was faine to make such a decree against it For the vntruth of which obiection his ignorance must bee his best excuse It is plaine that in that canon direction is giuen chiefely for erecting of new Bishopricks authorizing the Metropolitane and the other Bishoppes of the prouince if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop to erect a new Bishopricke but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or townes for which they iudged the ministery of one Presbyter to be sufficient Besides the councill of Nice had decreed that the priuiledges of all churches should bee preserued and the councils of Africke more then once determined that what Church soeuer had in former times had a Bishop should still haue a B. and the ancient custome of the church was euer held as a law among them in this behalfe So that I hold it for a certaine truth that what Church in the end of the first 400 yeares had not a Bishop the same had none in the beginning and what Church soeuer had in the first 200. yeares a B. was at the end of 400. yeares acknowledged to haue right to a B. Indeed I doe confesse that the people of countrey townes sometimes being vaineglorious haue desired a Bishop of their owne and the ministers beeing ambitious and as it is
contrary which order Beza misliketh not but sometimes wisheth it were restored then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches then now they doe In the meane time as their Church is a diocesse and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse so the President for the time being is diocesan But whether that be so or not once Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points It may be saith he for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres But the conscience must ground it selfe vpon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God As though we were destitute thereof and they contrariwise for their discipline had the precept and practise of the Apostles Which well may they take for granted but neuer will bee able to prooue and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement ioined with a good conscience what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles For if any man shall say that all the Apostolicall Churches and all the godly Fathers and glorious Martyrs did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed I doubt not to say of such a man that as hee is void of modesty so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vs will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged the title whereof is this Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy The which as he saith in the beginning will represent vnto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution For although the Bishops of those times made many canons whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word that you may easily perceiue that they had almost nothing in this behalfe dissâ—nant froÌ„ the word of God This is a good testimony you will say giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church but doth hee testifie that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto that shall you now heare And first concerning the Presbyteries hee saith as before I alleaged euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers c. The Refuter repeateth the words which I cited out of Caluin thus that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers Thereof giuing this censure Crafâ—ily or carelesly is this spoken The former if wittingly hee left out onely the latter if he did not heed it Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders No man can be so ignorant or so shamelesse as to say that Caluin was of opinion that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onely either in the Apostles times or in the age following What shall become of mâ—â— now no man being so ignorant and shamelesse I hope to salue both presentlie I confesse good sir that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17 I confesse also that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church he saith coldly and in few words the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church he giueth full testimony to the truth For can any man vnderstand Caluin as saying they had any other Presbyery besides the colledge of Presbyters in euery Church Doth not Caluin plainly say euery citie had their colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers Yes that he doth but the word only was either craftily or carelesly omitted Heare then the words of Caluin Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium qui pastores erant ac Doctores Nam apud populuÌ„ munus docendi exhortandi corrigendi quod Paulus episcopis iniungit omnes obibant quo semen post se relinquerent iunioribus qui sacra militae nomen dederant crudiendis nanabant operam Euery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching exhorting and correcting which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes and also that they might leaue a seed behind them they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort who had giuen their names to serue in the sacred warfare that is the younger sort of the Clergy Thus therefore J reason The Colledge of Presbyters according to Caluins iudgement consisted onelie of Ministers The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters Therefore the Presbyterie of each City according to Caluins iudgement consisted onely of Ministers The assumption is euident The proposition himselfe proueth when hee saith omnes all of them exercised the officâ— of teaching c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. c. What can be more plaine For where there are none but Ministers there are Ministers only where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people which Paul inioyned Bishops and instructing the younger sort of the clergy there are none but Ministers Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching c. there are Ministers only As touching the second Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following Vnicuique ciuitaâ—i erat attributa certa regio qua Presbyteros iude sumeret velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur To euery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country which from thence should receiue their Presbyters and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church What can be more plaine that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning that both citie and country made but one Church as it were one body whereof the head was the citie the other members the parishes in the country that the Presbyteries were only in cities and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter when they wanted from thence Who therefore to vse his owne words could be either so ignorant as not to see or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses How doth he auoid this Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses But doth he not meane dioceses when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church No doth he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities of which the Bishops were Presidents As for country parishes they had not Presbyteries but seuerall Presbyters and those they had as Caluin saith from the Presbytery of the citie Besides when he maketh the citie and country to be
but one body it cannot be doubted but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body and the rest of the parts subiect vnto it Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse where it was large as the Bishops deputy in the country subiect to him But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe let the Church of Geneua framed thereby testâ—fie Which is as much a diocesse now as when it was vnder a Bishop there being but one Presbytery vnto which all the parishes are subiect But let vs heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to haue acknowledged in this behalfe He neither nameth dioceses nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church but onely acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen to be not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience being conuicted with euidence of truth but desirous to make a shew of opposition when they know not what to say against it Doth not Caluin plainly say that to each cittâ— was attributed a certaine region and that both were one Church as it were one body To what purpose doth he then say that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake c. Is not his answere in effect this Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses and that the Bishops had vnder their charge both the citie and country adioyning for that also he confesseth in the next point but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of that is I confesse he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point as you say but yet in the fourth which also you confesse he dissenteth from you Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly when he saith not a diocesan but a titular Bishop For was not the Bishop a diocesan if his Church was a diocesse if he had vnder his charge both the city and country adioyning Yea but he was not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to haue been only President of the Presbytery like to the Consull in the senate of Rome which you call a titular B. wherein being the fourth point he dissenteth from vs yet doth he acknowledge that vnder his Bishopricke was contained both the citie and country and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse be not a diocesan Bishop His testimony therefore to the third is cleere especially if you adde that which followeth concerning the Châ—repiscopi or country Bishops For Caluin saith If the country which was vnder his Bishopricke were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in euery place rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place Which is a most pregnant testimony both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan For if euery parish had sufficient authority within themselues what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnder his Bishopricke Why doth he say that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey But what saith the Refuter to this he confesseth not ingenuously but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerua as if it stuck in his teeth that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose But that somewhat is as good as nothing for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops O impudency neither doth he speake of the Apostles 〈◊〉 of which all the question is for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of gouernment All the question concerning the Apostles times doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares And if nothing will settle the coÌ„science but what is alledged from the Apostles times what haue you to settle your conscience for your opinion who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times nor afterwards But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter seeing I haue heretofore proued that the circuit of euery Bishops charge was from the beginning as great if not greater then afterwards And if nothing may be in the Church but as it was in the Apostles times then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity because none was then and as well might they alleage that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith because none was in the Apostles times as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church because it was not so in the Apostles times Thus haue I manifestly proued that Caluâ—â— giueth testimony to the first point and in the two latter that he wholly agreeth with vs. So doth â—eza as I haue shewed before testifying the Churches were dioceseâ— and that in the chiefe towne of euery diocesse the first Presbyter who afterwards began to be called a Bishop hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times was set ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and countrey that is the whole diocesse And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection or ouer sight they had also their Chorepiscopi that is countrey or vice-vice-Bishops Yea but saith he being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vs it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all seeing he affiâ—meth withall that they were but humane ordinances and aberrations from the word of God That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree which is the fourth point wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vs and from the truth supposing it to be of custome and humane constitution that the â—â—futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment when as he plainely testifies that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the gouernment that there 〈…〉 it almost dissâ—nant from the word of God Doâ—◠〈◊〉 where say or insinuate that it is an aberration from the word of God either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region being portion of the same Church Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey It will neuer be shewed And now are we come to his conclusion containing a most vaine braâ—ge proceeding either from pitifull ignorance or extreme vnconscionablenes That hauing answeared my arguments in such sort as you haue heard and wanting indeed proofs worth the producing he shal not need the vntruth of this third point is so euident to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion And so I leaue him
order and iurisdiction yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it For though euery Minister as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis yet it doth not follow that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions the one of the power of order and of iurisdiction for euery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply but the power of iurisdiction as he is praelatus or pastor The former he hath giuen him in his ordination the latter in his institution By the former hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments and to doe other â—spirituall actions peculiar to his order which another man who is not of that order neither can doe nor may haue leaue to doe But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation as the Pastor therof vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop who hath the charge of the whole diocesse A presbyter therefore though he haue potestatem ordinis may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation which are part of the Bishops charge vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis in his institution Againe we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise execution of it For although euery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper yet the exercise of their power is and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop to be permitted directed restrained and suspended by him This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop for the exercise of their power which euer hath beene practised in the Church doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery as the refuter malepertly speaketh nor themselues to be no ministers But plainly proueth the contrary as I haue shewed For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony His words be these Dandi baptismum ius â—abâ—t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus c. The cheif Preist which is the Bishop hath the right to giue baptisme Then the presbyters and deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church which being safe peace is safe Otherwise euen laymen haue right Where Tertullian sheweth that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops Presbyters deacons as belonging to the power of their order though for the honour and peace of the Church the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority otherwise that is extraordinarily and in case of necessity the lay man euen without the Bishops leaue hath right in Tertullians iudgement to baptize Where he saith That in Tertullians time who was himselfe a Presbyter Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers and much lesse in Ignatius time I hope he wil râ—call this foule error proceeding from extreme ignorance when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary And whereas the last testimony which I alledged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy he answereth two things the first That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times then those Ignatius loued in by that very word clergy apprâ—priated therein to the ministers which is of a far latter breed He should haue done well to haue shewed how late the breed is For I am well assured that Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius And Origen before him mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity Tertullian who liued in the same century with Ignatius distinguisheth each company of Christians as sometimes into gregem duces the flocke and the guides ecclesiâ— ordinem laicos the order of the Church meaning those which were in orders and the lay people so sometimes in ecclesiaÌ„ cleruÌ„ the assembly and the clergy The clergy also or guides he distinguisheth into these three degrees Deacons Presbyters Bishops The antient Canons called the Apostles often mention those of the clergy as opposed to the laity But if I should say that S. Peter vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense when writing to Bishops whom he calleth Presbyters himself their Compresbyter he willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not exercise lordship ouer the clergy I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient Writers and as I am perswaded to the truth Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus was first taken from that place of Peter who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament wherein it is oft said that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites For therefore are they called Clerici saith Ierome vel quia de sorte sunt Domini vel quia ipse Dominus sors i. pars clericoruÌ„ est Either because they are the Lords portion which notatioÌ„ some late writers do mislike not without cause the people also being Gods inheritance or because the Lord is their portion which is agreeable with the scriptures His other answer is that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy yet they were not Ministers for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not if he say no hee is worthy to be hissed at if yea who were these Ministers if the Presbyters and Deacons were not Besides it is plaine that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers which were trained vp in learning the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe being the seminary of the whole diocesse out of which not only euery parish both in the Citie and Country was to be furnished with Ministers but also the Bishop himselfe in the vacancie of the See was to be chosen Moreouer ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters Deacons for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon Herâ— the Presbyters deacons out of the inferior orders as of sub deacons or readers c. Wherby it is most euideÌ„t that presbyters deacoÌ„s were not such as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church hauing attained degrees
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
as well say that as one Presbyter in euery parish is superiour to the rest according to their conceipt so one Pastor which is the Bishop in euerie diocese is superiour to the other Pastors c. But indeed the superioritie of Bishops is so far from breeding the Papacy as the cause or originall that it was not so much as any direct occasion thereof Yea so farre vvas it from breeding the oecumenicall B. of the whole world that it did not breed the Patriarckeship in the maine parts of the world nor yet the superioritie of the Metropolitanes in the seuerall prouinces For the superioritie of Metropolitanes did arise as Beza supposeth from the very light of nature directing and force of necessitie vrging men to that course but as I rather thinke from the institution of the Apostles after whose times the first originall of them cannot be shewen For although actually they were not Primates till in the seuerall dioceses of the prouince Bishops were ordained yet the euent plainely sheweth it was from the beginning intended that the Bishop of the mother citie should be the chiefe in the prouince And you haue heard before how in the Apostles times Ignatius the B. of Antioch was the Metropolitane B. of Syria and in the age following Philippe the Metropolitane B of Creet and Irenaeus the B. of Lyons was the Metropolitane of the churches in France And although not long after the Patriarches were acknowledged and in the councill of Nice established in a godly policie as Caluin Beza and Zanchius confesse yet neither did the superioritie of Bishops breede them nor they the Papacy The true originall of the superioritie of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches in their circuites was the patterne of ciuill gouernment in the Romane Empire diuided into certaine precinâ—ts which the Church did follow Whereas therefore to each citie the countrey adioyning was subiect the Apostles first placed Bishops in the cities committing to their charge not only the citie but countrey subiect to it which wee call a Diocese wherein from the beginning there was neuer more lawfully then one B. and whereas in euery prouince wherein were many Cities there was one Metropolis or mother citie where the ruler of that prouince was seated in like manner so soone as Bishops were placed in the seuerall cities they acknowledged the B. of their mother citie their primate and chiefe B. of the Prouince And as the whole Empire was diuided among certaine gouernours who were called praefecti praetorio whereof one was placed in Rome hauing the gouernment of Italy Affricke and part of Illyricum A second in Alexandria hauing the rule of Egypt Lybia Pentapolis c. A third at Antioch ruling Syria and other countreyes of the East A fourth in France gouerning France Germanie Spaine and Britaine so the diuers prouinces subiect to the praefecti praetorio at least the three former were subiected to the Bishops of the same sees who afterwards were called Patriarches whose Patriarchal authoritie was ratified in the Councill of Nice to wit that according to the auncient custome the B. of Rome should haue the care sub vrbicarum prouinciarum as Ruffinus reporteth that Canon that is as I suppose of the prouinces belonging to that pretorian prefecture that the B. of Alexandria should haue the gouernment of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the B. of Antioch the regiment of Syria and other countreyes in the East After Constantinople was built and made the seat of the Empire diuers countreyes were subiect to the prefecture and consequently to the Bishopricke thereof Neither as I said did the superioritie of Patriarches though perhaps larger then was absolutely needfull because the Ecclesiasticall causes of euery prouince might be sufficiently determined in the prouincial Synodes notwithstanding I say it did not breede the Popes supremacie Which did arise from another occasion which was this The Bishop of Constantinople considering that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had that prerogatiue which they had because they were seates of praefecti praetorio and Rome because it had beene the seate not onely of the praefectus but of the Emperour himselfe though at that time in respect of ciuill gouernment it were subiect to the Exarch of Rauenna for which cause the Archbishop of Rauenna contended with the B. of Rome for the superioritie and with all remembring that Constantinople vvas the seate of the Empire contended therefore that as the Emperour who had his seate at Constantinople was the Monarch of the world so himselfe might be acknowledged the vniuersall B. or oecumenicall Patriarch The which ambition though it were condemned by Gregorie the B. of Rome as Antichristian for there is no vniuersall B. or head of the whole Church but Christ yet his successor Boniface the third did imitate and exceede Alledging that Rome whereof hee was Bishop was the ancient seate of the Empire and that the Emperour though hee remained at Constantinople yet hee was the Romane Emperour At length with much a doe and contention obtained of the Emperour Phocas not only that he should be called an Oecumenicall Patriarch for that title the B. of Constantinople hauing once vsurped enioyed it as well as hee and doth retayne it to this day but that his See should be head of all Churches And this was the true originall of the Popes supremacie Serm sect 12. pag. 89. Secondly they vrge Ieromes inference in that place Presbyters at the first ruled the Church by common counsell therefore the BB. and they ought to rule the Church in common still The refuter denyeth this inference to be Ieromes or that any hath vrged such an inference from him When indeed the inference plainely is Ieromes and is that which among all their obiections is to best purpose obiected by the Disciplinarians Ierome had said before that in the writings of the Apostles Episcopus and Presbyter is all one and that before factions did arise by the instinct of the Diuell some saying I am of Paul c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters c. Of those speeches when hee had made a briefe recitall haecpropterea c. he maketh an inference to this effect that for as much as Episcopus and Presbyter were all one at the first therefore both Presbyters should know themselues to be subiect to the B. and BB superiour to the Presbyters by the custome of the Church c. And for as much as at the first the churches were gouerned by the common councell of the Presbyters as vnder the Apostles that therefore the B. being set ouer the Presbyters should not altogether exclude them but should in communi EcclesiaÌ„ regere rule the church in common imitating Moses who when hee had in his power to rule the people of Israel alone chose seauenty with whom he might iudge the people Which obiection being better then any the refuter hath made in this booke I will not let it passe without some
answere 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
his booke doe plainely bewray that hee doth not knowe what is the hypothesis or thing presupposed in a connexiue proposition The which that hee may know heere after let him dispose his connexiue proposition in an enthymeme and what part of the syllogisme is wanting let him vnderstand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded And if that hypothesis bee false let him know that the consequence is naught But if it bee true as alwaies it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certaine and manifest then is the consequence necessary As for example let his connexiue proposition be disposed in this Eâ—thymeme The 7. churches contained within their circuit not onely the Cities but the countries adioining Therefore the seuen Churches were dioceses That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogisme which is vnderstood viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not onelie cities but the countries adioyning were dioceses Which being a certaine and manifest truth the consequence was necessary But if I should say thus Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countreys adioyning were dioceses Therfore the 7. churches were dioceses in this consequence the assumption were presupposed viz. that the circuit of euerie of the seuen churches contained both the citie and country adioyning Which parts of Syllogismes omitted in Enthymemes if the refuter would adde to make vp a simple syllogisme either in his arguing or analysing hee might spare both himselfe and his aduersary a great deale of superfluous trouble about his consequences Hee must therefore vnlearne that art if he would not be accounted a trifler of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogisme that hee may haue a consequence to cauill with But so farre is the proposition which hee propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities that it doth not so much as presuppose those seuen in Asia which it mentioneth to be such That is not presuppoâ—ed in the proposition but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition but the simple proposition which I said was the hypothesis thereof If it be â—aid that what I say of the seuen churches I would haue vnderstood of all other churches and so seeme to presuppose though not in my proposition yet in my argumentation that which the Refuter doth obiect I answere that as in other places I am not to bee blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seuen so neither here for concluding from these seuen to all others For the forme and constitution of all the Primitiue Churches being one and the same as the Refuter confesseth it is euident that what is truely said of other Primitiue churches in respect of their constitution is verified of these seuen And what is verified of these seuen may bee truely affirmed of the rest Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities that was spoken concerning fiue of these in Asia it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery or were as you speake and meane indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Neither can you giue instance in any one to the contrary Yes that they can T. C. hath an instance this disputer also hath one instance pag. 57. and one in this place and in some others And yet all is but this Some church was not a City as for example Cenchrea He might haue said Cenchrea Their reason is thus explicated Cenchreae was not a City Cenchreae was a Church Therefore some Church was not a City J distinguish of the word Church For I denie not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church much more in a village or towne But the question is of such a church as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery and had as they speake the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernement Such a Church was seated onely in Cities or great towns answerable to Cities And therefore if they meane as they doe or else they might aswell hold their peace that in Cenchreae was such a Church I deny the assumption Cenchreae was subiect to the church of Corinth as al other towns thereabouts and neuer had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her owne Yea but she had a Deacon Suppose that were so what then seuerall Deacons and seuerall Presbyters were placed in parish Churches where was neither B. nor Presbytery nor the power which they speake of of Ecclesiasticall gouernment And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse namely Phoebe Of whom also it may be doubted whether Paul calleth her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that ministred to the Church in Cenchreae in respect of an office imposed vpon her to minister to the needy to entertaine strangers on the churches cost or in regard of her voluntary ministring to the faithful there of her own substance For if she were as Bullinger and diuers before him report nobilissima ditissima foemina a most noble and most wealthy woman it is not like that she was a widow maintained of the church but one which like to Mary Ioanna Chusa Susanna mentioned in the Gospell which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministred to Christ of their goods did maintaine and relieue the poore of the Church there and giue entertainement to Christian trauellers of her owne cost In which respect Paul saith of her that she had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a patronesse of many yea of the Apostle himselfe Neither is it likely that a widdow maintained of the church as hauing little or nothing of her owne should haue such busines in Rome or as it is thought at the Emperours Court as that the Apostle should write to the faithfull in Rome to assist her in her affaires But it may be you desire to heare some further reason of his deniall of that consequence you shal heare it For saith he though it were granted that these 7. were great Cities the Countries adioyning â—et there might be diuers others which were small c. See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes What if there were and that is more theÌ„ might be other smal churches as indeed there was none such as we speak of but they were seated in the Cities neither was any so small but if it were indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernment it was of the same constitution with those which were greater What is that to this consequence If these Churches contained ech of them not onely the City but the country adioining then they were not Parishes properly but Dioceses His answere if it bee well weighed is an exception against the conclusion As if hee should say though I would fain wrangle with your propositioÌ„ but caÌ„not for how is it
the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles Well Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres afterwards sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time hee maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Saint Peter likewise had preached and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia to whom among others hee directeth his first Epistle After the death of Peter and Paul because those Churches were as Paul had foretold much annoled with heretikes Saint Iohn by the direction of the holy Ghost went into those parts preached the Gospell for many yeeres ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was To the ministery of the Apostles adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them and disciples which they had instructed by whose ministerie not onely many particular Christians but some Churches were brought to the faith As that of Colossae which was in the confines of Phrygia bordering on this Asia in Pauls time planted by the ministerie of Epaphraâ— as their founder watered by the ministerie of Archippus as their Bishoppe Now I appeale to the conscience of euery indifferent Reader whether it bee not vnlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres And so much for the first of his assertions the other two I will ioyne together For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church both of the citie and country as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches and but one Presbytery if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie and not onely they but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie all which I haue by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already then did the seuerall congregations and parishes which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia cathedra episcopi or the cathedrall Church neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake as I haue also proued before I come to the assumption wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes were not onely the cities but the countries adioyning that is as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe But saith hee Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing and the Church another But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple c. As touching this foule imputation that I may beginne with it J thanke God I am free both from desire and intent of dazâ—ling the eyes of the simple But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence to vphold and maintaine the truth against the nouelty of your inuentions and the subtilties of your sophistications wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple So much of that by the way If hee discerned the speech which I vsed to bee improper had hee not so much neither Art I meane either Rhetoricke or Logicke nor grace I meane charity as either to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope or to explane my speech by such an enunciation as the nature of the arguments doth require When it is said in my text the seuen starres are the Angels will he say who euer heard that starres were Angels Or when Christ saith This cup is my bloud that is shâ—d or the new Testament in my bloud will he say who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament When I said the Churches are the cities and the country could he neither vnderstand me as speaking after that most vsuall metonymy of the Christian people in the citie and country nor yet explane my words as the nature of the argumeÌ„ts contained in the speech doth lead him If I should say a man is not onely body but soule also or the body is not one member alone but many you would vnderstand me thus Man consisteth of body and soule the body consisteth not of one member alone but of many Or thus Whole man containeth these two parts the bodie containeth not one member alone but many Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is that is containeth not only the City but the Country But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11 and hee shall finde that the seuen Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose These few testimonies may suffice Eusebius saith that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the great Citie Rome and Dionysius the B. of Alexandria The first Councell of Constantinople mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the great Citie of Alexandria Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba Alexander Bishop of Alexandria c. to the Councell of Sardica Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia and in like maner all the rest stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops or vnto Bishops Ignatius stileth himselfe thus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Antioch Leo in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome sometimes Vrbis Romae of the Citie of Rome Basil writeth to Eusebius
at the first was conuerted Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters when few others were conuerted intend the conuersion of more then those fewe and was it not their office theâ— to labour their conuersion Jf they were not to labour their conuersion how were they to bee conuerted Nay if they did not labour it how were they conuerted Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flocke or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe the rest beeing his assistants as the Presbytery When therefore more were conuerted then could well assemble together in one ordinarie congregation were not the congregations diuided Vpon this diuision was there a Bishoppe and presbyterie assigned to euerie seuerall congregation or onely a Presbyter the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie hauing a generall superintendencie ouer all not onelie to attend those who were already conuerted but also to procure the conuersion of the rest and still as people in diuers places were conuerted to furnish them with a Presbyter and to guide and gouerne both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to bee a seuerall Church and his institution to bee their Minister To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the diuision of parishes and after that as either before there was ouer one congregation a Bishoppe and presbyterie so there should after to euery particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbyterie or after as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their seuerall charges was to attend them so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should haue beene prouided properly for that number alone which was conuerted and they should not haue thought it to belong to their charge to seeke or to labour the conuersion of the residue I say to thinke this argueth the parish-disciplinarians to bee of shallow iudgement and the parish-discipline to consist of vndâ—sgested fancies Vpon the proposition therfore and the assumption before propounded this conclusion notwithstanding al his cauills doth follow Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Serm. sect 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c. to page 19. l. 5 The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proued may thus be framed When the Churches were not diuided into seueral parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but werein coÌ„moÌ„ to atteÌ„d the whole flock feding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they were able both in citie and country then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes but to dioceses In the Apostles times the churches were not diuided into seuerall parishes c. Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and euident truth for when there were no parishes distinguished how could the Presbyters be assigned to seuerall parishes And if they were appointed to labour the conuersion of all which belonged to God both in citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses For can hee thinke that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country and which after also were conuerted belonged to one parish Is it not euident that after their conuersion they were diuided into many both in citie and countrey And what though at the very first all the Christians in the citie and countrey if they had beene assembled together would haue made but a small congregation were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all Was not the circuit of the Church as before hath beene prooued and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were conuerted The assumption also is that which the Refuter himselfe holdeth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times Howbeit I except the Church of Alexandria as after you shall heare But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both yet he wrangleth with both and as a man confounded yet resolued to contradict though against the light of his conscience he denieth the conclusion and contradicteth himselfe The proposition after his perpetuall manner hee propoundeth connexiuely If the parishes were not distinguished c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes c. The force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses he suppresseth leauing out the words of greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God so farre as they should be able both in the citie and in the countries adioining And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes he answereth not only he maketh a flourish with the shew of regestion which kinde of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus Howsoeuer the world goeth the consequence must be denied that is resolued vpon though he haue nothing to oppose against it Yes he hath two things to oppose the first a question What if euery one of the Churches then were but one parish As if hee should say What if the maine question betweene vs bee true in that part which wee hold viz. that the Churches were parishes and not dioceses Where are you then Why but I prooue they were not parishes because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses And come you now with this question What if they were Yea but I will prooue they were You will neede your proofes in a fitter place Yea but in the meane time I disprooue your consequence You will say something perhaps to bleare the eies of the simple but you doe not indeede denie and much lesse doe you disprooue the consequence The deniall of the consequence were this Though it bee supposed that parishes were not distinguished and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conuersion of all both in Citie and Countrey yet it doth not follow that they were appointed to dioceses and not to seuerall parishes and not this nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish This is to denie the maine conclusion which is already prooued Yea but the proofe of this deniall disprooueth your consequence The consequent perhaps which is the conclusion but the consequence it cannot without supposing as it doth not those things which are supposed in the proposition thus Though there were no parishes yet they were assigned to parishes though they were appointed both for Citie and Country yet they were not appointed for dioceses You deny therefore as a man amazed the maine conclusion the consequence of the proposition you touch not But let vs see how he disproueth the conclusion though his argument come out of time and be here vsed only for a poore shift It may thus be framed
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
late been most vrged or of outfacing the truth with vaunts of diuers testimonies and reasons which are scarce worth the answering blaming also me for bringing but one reason for them when himselfe after all his brags bringeth but one and that not so strong though you adde thereto the testimonies which he vaunteth of In the obiection which J bring for them he putteth such confidence that if he can make it good against me whereof he doubteth not such is his tried valor all my labour about my Sermon will proue nothing worth No doubt he would appeare to be some tall man if he durst shew his head But let vs heare his dispute for he hath taken the obiection out of my hands because I did not vrge it strongly for them obiecting no more then J knew my selfe able to answere and yet all that he addeth is but losse of time in multiplying of words First he premiseth a syllogisme concluding the maine question that the Churches in the Apostles times hee should haue added as I did and the age following for themselues in their question include two hundred yeeres were not dioceses properly but parishes If the Presbyteries and presidents therof in the great Cities â—ere assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place then the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes But the Presbyteries and presidents thereof in the great Cities were assigned but to one particular ordinary congregation assembled together in one place Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times and in the age following were not dioceses properly but parishes The consequence of the proposition is cleare by that I answered a little before where I said that adâ—cesse must needs consist of distinct congregations But if this proposition haue no better hypothesis to support it I may deny it seeing I haue proued before that there were dioceses in the first conception of the Churches before distinction of parishes So that the addition of this syllogisme hath made his cause somewhat worse then it was before The assumption is thâ—â—â—râ—â—â—d If all the Christians in any one great Citie did make but one such congregation then both the Presbyteries and presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation hee should say to one particular ordinarie congregation assembled together in one place But al the Christianâ— in any great Citie vnderstand in the first 200 yeeres did make but one such congregation Therefore both the Presbyteries and presidents therof of were assigned but to one congregation The former syllogisme for breuity I omitted desiring in few words to bring their argument to the issue presuming that any man might from my conclusion deduce the maine question after this manner They were prouided but for one particular ordinary congregation assembâ—ing together in one place Therefore not for a diocesse The second which containeth the issue I propounded as forcibly as he hath done But my aduersary is one of those disputers who when the consequence of an Enthymeme is denied make it good by a connexiue syllogisme When as an Enthymeme for disputation is by somuch better then a connexiue syllogisme by how much it is shorter the consequence being thesame with the connexion of the proposition the antecedent all one with the assumption and the consequent the very same with the conclusion of the connexiue syllogisme Such disputers are good to waste paper and spend time But to the point I deny as before both the consequence and the antecedent of the Enthymeme so now both the proposition and the assumption of his syllogisme The proofe of the consequence hee slubbereth ouer for his faculty is better in denying consequences then in prouing of them For saith hee seeing the deniall is vpon this ground that the Prestbyters were appointed not onely to take charge of them that were conuerted but also to labour the conuersion of the rest which we haue shewed to bee false it wil remaine good notwithstanding But I haue proued that it is an vndigested fancy rare conceit of shallow if not giddy heads which see no further then their nose end to imagine that the Apostles intending as they cannot deny the conuersion of the citie and country did place in the citie a Bishop and Presbytery to take charge only of that small number which at the first was conuerted but chiefly from hence to infer that euery particular parish should haue the like Bâ—shop and Presbytery The antient Church of God in all places vnderstood the Apostles intent as I expound the same And therefore when all both in citie and country were conuerted to the profession of the faith they acknowledged the generall care and inspection ouer them all to belong to that one Bâ—shop of the citie and themselues as I said in the Sermon to be part of that Church and neuer did vnlesse it were in time of schisme or heresie set vp another B. and Presbytery within the diocesse but euery congregation contented it selfe with a learned Presbyter if it could bee so well prouided for And this is so manifest a truth that I doubt not to pronounce him void either of a sound iudgement or good conscience that shall deny it This consequence therefore will neuer bee made good And therefore the Refuter might haue saued his labour if it were ought worth which he spendeth vpon the assumption vntill he had proued the proposition Yea but this consequence belike might haue been made stronger For he did wisely saith he to digge the pit no deeper but that he might be able to fill it againe so could hee not haue done had â—e gone as low as we doe who thus frame our reason All the Christians in any one great Citie and the townes about it vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes did make but one particular ordinary congregation assembled in one place Therefore both the Presbyters and Presidents thereof were assigned but to one congregation I mislike not his addition of the townes about so he will bee pleased as hee addeth them to strengthen his consequence so not to forget as I doubt he will to take them into the defence of his antecedent But where he speaketh of his digging deeper others as good Pioners as hee to vndermine the state of our Church went no deepeer and I durst not adde more to their antecedent as he hath done lest I should make it too absurd But what meaneth that parenthesis vnlesse there were distinct Churches in those townes I feare to be circumuented with this inclosure Belike there were more congregations then one in the cities and townes as he said before Cenchrea was a distinct Church from Corinth and then how shall all both in citie and country be said to bee but one congregation Tush wee haue a bush for that gap We will except all other congregations but that one and so they being excepted all will bee but one Ridiculum caput As if
other greater Cities but chiefly which was omitted by the Refuter betweene the short time of a few weekes and the continuance of 200. yeeres Jf at Ierusalem within a few weekes the Christians were become many thousands how may wee thinke they were increased before the end of 200. yeeres in Rome Alexandria Ephesus Antioch and such like Cities So that I doubt not but the consequence is strong enough containing an argument from the lesse to the greater though I prooue none of those foure things which hee would haue prooued as first that all which were conuerted in Ierusalem at that time remained members of that Church Which maketh not against the consequence but rather for it seeing those which remained not in Ierusalem were by persecution dispersed to other Cities to helpe forward the plough of Christ there Secondly that all the great Cities had the like meanes to that of Ierusalem which needeth not to be proued seeing the meanes which had beene vsed and the miracles which had beene wrought at Ierusalem were also effectuall in other places and are at this day besides the like meanes of their owne Thirdlie though the meanes were alike that yet the effects were answerable which also needeth not to be prooued seeing wee know by the report of the best Writers how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time Fourthly that there was neuer any apostasie in any of those Churches with which Paul in his conceit doth seeme to charge them of Asia 2. Tim. 1.15 Which exception also is friuolous seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities Rome Alexandria and Antioch but euen these seuen of Asia were famous in those times for the profession of the faith Thus you see how he seeketh all the corners of his wit to finde if it were possible some starting hole whereby to escape the force of this consequence But these points are not worth the standing on Only whereas now hee chargeth the second time all them of Asia with apostasie from the faith because S. Paul saith that all who are in Asia had forsaken him hee must be admonished to reforme his iudgement For first Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia but onely of all those Asians of note who had beene in Rome since his imprisonment of which number saith hee are Phygellus and Hermogenes Neither doth hee speake of an apostasie from the faith but of their forsaking him in his affliction as the Disciples had shrunke from our Sauiour Christ for else when hee saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle In my first Apologie no man stood with me but all â—id forsake me wee might in like manner collect that all were Apostares from the faith But what kinde of desertion Paul meaneth whereinto those of Asia did fall it appeareth by the contrary practise of Onesiphorus whom he commendeth in the same place who often refreshed Paul and was not ashamed of his chaine but when he was at Rome hee was so farre from shrinking from Paul that hee most diligently sought him out and found him The others of Asia of whom hee complaineth when they were in Rome shrunke from him as being ashamed or afraid of his chaine Thus Chrysostome expoundeth it that Paul when hee was apprehended was forsaken of his friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is likely there were many then in Rome from the parts of Asia but none saith hee stood to mee no man would know me all were estranged from me Theophylact likewise When Paul was apprehended of Nero hee was forsaken of all the faithfull in Asia who from Asia had gone to Rome with him Oâ—cumenius in like manner When Paul was apprehended of Nero his friends of Asia did forsake him for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul or otherwise faithfull men but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 withdrew themselues and as we say drew their neckes out of the collar after Nero had laid hold on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those in Asia that is those of Asia It is likely saith Theodoret that some of those which in Asia had beleeued were at Rome but auoided the companie of Paul for feare of Nero. As for the assumption viz. that the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes was great it maketh nothing saith he for him or against vs. Which is a strange speech seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred and which being granted their assertion cannot be true But heere againe hee telleth vs of the great parishes about London saying that they of Ierusalem did all meet together as well as they Which is spoken against reason and against sense for first it was not intended that they of Ierusalem should meet as those of London which be of one parish after their multitude was increased Secondly neither might they being vnder persecution meet in great multitudes as those of London which through Gods goodnes enioy peace and liberty Thirdly neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes But where I said it was not intended when their multitude should bee great that they of Ierusalem should assemble together as they who are of one parish about London that needeth some explanation The parishes about London and euery where from the beginning are each of them one among many seuered from the rest with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinarie set congregation hauing one Presbyter and not a presbyterie much lesse a Bishop assigned to them whereas contrariwise the Church of Ierusalem whereunto Iames was appointed Bishop assisted with a presbyterie of Ministers was neuer intended to be one parish among many but to bee a mother Church which should by Gods blessing beget others to bee seuered from it in particular assemblies and yet to remaine subordinate and subiect vnto it as children to the mother It was neuer meant neither in Ierusalem nor in any other Citie that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set ouer no more but one particular congregation or that as more congregations should bee constituted euerie one should haue a Bishop and a presbyterie But they were prouided for the people of God that either then were in the Citie and Countrey or after should bee which as it increased was to be diuided into seuerall Congregations whereunto Presbyters seuerally were to bee assigned all being members of one bodie subiected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church which was as it were the head of that bodie The Refuter not contented thus to haue cauilled with my argument doth also threaten as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands to turne the poem of it such is his crueltie to the very heart of my cause But his minaces are but words and his words but winde for this is all he can say or doe If the Christians
in Ierusalem were not so many but that still they continued one parishionall assemblis meeting together in one place then the Christians of other Cities might be and did so in like sort But the antecedents is crue therefore the consequent Of the consequence hee saith no reasonableman can make any doubt and so taketh it for granted wanting reason to prooue it Me thinkes there is great reason why I should not onely doubt of it but plainely denie it for when he saith At Ierusalem they were not so many c. hee should haue said when and that still they continued c. hee should haue said how long that being compared with other Cities at the same time and of the like continuance the reason of his consequence might appeare There bee three reasons to be giuen why the Church at Ierusalem should not bee at the end of one hundred or two hundred yeeres so great as in other Cities First the persecution begunne with the martyrdome of Steuen and continued vntill the destruction of Ierusalem vpon the beginning of which persecution all the faithfull in Ierusalem except the Apostles were dispersed into other parts Secondly â—he reiection of the Iewes for the generality of them when the Gentiles were to be called 3. The destruction of Ierusalem by Titus about the yeare 72. and finall extirpation of the Iewes out of Ierusalem by Aelius Hadrianus about the yeare 137. who called it Aelia after his owne name prohibiting any â—ew to come any more within that City So that if it were true that the number of the Christians in Ierusalem within the first 200. yeares had neuer exceeded the proportion of a parishional assembly yet hereof it would not follow that the number of Christians in other Cities should for 200. yeares continue so smal No reasonable man therefore would looke to haue that consequence granted him The Assumption also is false The Church of Ierusalem whereof Iames was Bishop neuer was a Parish so far was it froÌ„ continuing so still But as the people both in the City and Country were vnder one high Priest so was it intended that all the Christians both in the City and countâ—y should be vnder the Bishop of Jerusalem and so continued vntill the destruction thereof Afterwardes because that City being destroied Caesarea was made by the Romans the Metropolis of Iewry it came to passe the church following the common-wealth that the Bishop of Caesarea was the Metropolitan The Bishop of Ierusalem hauing the Bishopricke of the City the places adioining Howbeit in processe of time the Christians honouring the place granted the prerogatiue of the 4. Patriarchship to the Bishop of Ierusalem or Aelia reseruing to Caesarea the Metropolis her owne dignity Nether is it probable that the Church at Ierusalem after they once came to the number of 5000 as quickly it did continued with great increase vntil the death of SteueÌ„ did ordinarily meete all in one place We reade of some Panegyricall meetings as it were in Salomons porch and in the temple such as be the meetings at Paules Crosse or at the Spittle but their ordinarie as it were parishionall meetings were by coÌ„panies in more priuate places Nay I say further that the meetings either of the 12. Apostles who neuer were intended to be members either all or any of them of one parish with the Disciples Act. 6.1 or of some of them with the Presbyters and whole assembly Act. 15.22.26 which places are by the refuter alleadged were not parishionall but rather Synodicall As for those other places in the Acts some of them are ignorantly some absurdly alleadged In the 2. of the Acts he quoteth three places viz. the two first verses 6. 44. In the first it is said that when the day of Pentecost was come they were all with one accord in the same place All that is all the Apostles whose mutuall society and conuersing together is noted So doe some old Manuscrpts reade saith Beza 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the Apostles For to them alone had Christ promised that they should bee baptized after a few dayes with the holy Ghost and to that purpose hee commaunded them to stay at Ierusalem expecting the performance of this promise Luke also sheweth who they were verse 14. saying that Peter stood with the eleuen and the people who wondred at them seem to inâ—inuate saying are not all these men of Galilee Is it not strange then that the conuersing of the Apostles together in one house should be alleadged as an example yea patterne of a parishionall assembly Or if by all were ment the 120. Disciples assembled before the descending of the holy Ghost how doth it proue either that they were a parishionall assembly wherein the 12. Patriarches of Christendome were met or that they continued for an 100. or 200. yeares so small a company as a parishionall assembly seeing within a few dayes yea the very same day they grew to bee many thousands In the 6. verse it is said that when this voice or rumor was spread in the streetes concerning the Apostles speaking with variety of tongues great multitudes of people flocked together not of Christians to make a parishionall assembly but of all sorts to behold this wonder whereat when some had wondred and some had scoffed by Peters sermon 3000. of them were conuerted In the 44. verse Luke saith that all they which belieued were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and had all things common and sold their possessions c. Where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth either signifie they conuersed together in one place and kept company one with another and so speaketh not of their assemblies for vers 46. hee speaketh of their meeting in the temple where they could not meet alone wherein nationall rather then parishionall meetings vsed to bee assembled or else it signifieth they were in one that is they were ioined together in heart and affection as it is said Act. 4.32 which sense Caluin preferreth There remaineth Act. 21.22 where the Presbyters of Ierusalem who were with Iames their Bishop when Paul came to him tell Paul that it cannot be auoided but the multitude would come together hearing that he was come Vnderstanding by the multitude either the multitude of the people of Ierusalem as well those which belieued not as those which did for they direct him to goe into the temple there to shew himselfe to be an obseruer of the law or the company of beleeuers onely who when they would flocke together to see him should find him in the temple conforming himselfe to the law of Moses But to the absurditie of alleadging these places this is added that none of them reach any thing neare the time which we speake of For the 2. of the Acts speaketh of that which was done within a fortnight after Christs Ascension The 6. before the martyrdome of Steuen the 15. aboue 20. yeares the 21. about 15. years before the destruction
yeeld there be prouinciall Churches then I must confesse there be no diocesan or if I will needes hold there be diocesan Churches then I ouerthrow the prouinciall So that what may soeuer we looke saith he I see nothing against vs but all for vs. Thus hath he brought himselfe into a fooles paradise where I leaue him to feed vpon his owne fancies and to solace himselfe with the conceit of his imagined conquest CHAP. VII Prouing the third point of the Sermon that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops Serm. sect 1. Now these Presbyteries in the Apostles times as the Presbyterians confesse had c. ad lin a fine 4. THe Refuter hath acquitted himselfe in his owne conceit so valiantly and victoriously in subuerting my former assertion concerning dioceses which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building that as he lookes for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces the foundation it selfe being so weake and tottering so he promiseth to himself assured successe in ouerthrowing the rest But if my building be founded as it were on a rocke against which his maine forces could not preuaile at al but like the waues and billowes of the sea though they beate against it with great noise returne backe with froth and fome as I hope it appeareth to euery indifferent and iudicious Reader then may I promise to my selfe the like successe in withstanding his future assaults And the better hope J doe conceiue hereof because he seemeth to confesse that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches were dioceses that then the other points will follow of their owne accord But that I haue so demonstrated that I neuer expect any sound answere thereto As for this point which now I haue in hand it is not onely demonstrated already in the proof of the former but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom My purpose therefore is to bee as briefe in propugning this truth as hee is in oppugning the same J will therefore omit his friuolous cauill which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding what he according to his forced Analysis would haue concluded because the Reader cannot but discerne that I directly conclude what before was propounded viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishoppes which I proue in the Sermon by degrees first seuerally before the diuision of parishes and after the distribution of them both in the city and in the country then iointly both before and after For hauing concluded the former point with these words that the Churches contained many particular congregations vnto all which there was but one Presbytery or Colledge of Presbyters assigned and hauing here signified that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians each Presbytery had a President which S. Iohn calleth the Angell of the Church and the Fathers a Bishop I proue from that which hath already been proued that the President of the Presbytery the Angell of the B. of the Church was not a parishionall but a diocesan Bishop But before I come to the proofe contained in this section I am to note how those last words of the former part which are very materiall are by this refuter passed ouer in silence For it would be knowne whether there were in Cities where were many congregations yea in whole dioceses any more Presbyteries or Colledges of Presbyters then that one belonging to the mother Church in the Citie If to shew either his ignorance or want of good conscience he shall say there were as indeed that is their assersion that in euery parish both in citie and country there ought to bee a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders let him giue but one approued instance to proue his assertion in the first foure hundred yeeres and I will yeeld that where was a parish Presbytery there was a parish Bishop If Calum and the reformers of other Churches according to the pretended discipline had been of that iudgement they would not haue appointed one onely Presbytery for many parishes If he shall confesse that in a whole circuit which wee call a diocesse there was but one colledge or senate of Presbyters consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the citie which is a most certaine and vndeniable truth then must he confesse his platforme of parish discipline to be a meere nouelty and an vndisgested fancy hauing no warrant of scriptures nor testimony of antiquity and contrary wise that there was but one Presbytery and one Bishop set ouer a whole diocesse Hee that catcheth at euery word yea at the least letter whereat hee hopeth to haue the least aduantage as at the terme pagani in this passage and at the little letters in the word Cretians would not swallow vp in silence such pregnant arguments if silence were not his best answere But though he would not see that argument yet in my propounding of the question here to bee concluded hee hath spied a syllogisme which I did not intend out of that which I propounded in axiomaticall disposition as taking it for granted But the Refuter maketh me reason thus The presidents of the Presbyteries were diocesan BB. The Angels of the seauen Churches were presidents of the Presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the seauen Churches were diocesan BB. Which is the hansomest syllogisme he hath bestowed on me as yet neither wil I refuse to maintaine any one part of it if he will be pleased to take notice of that which euen now was proued that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocesse So the proposition will be manifest that the presidents of Presbyteries which were prouided for whole dioceses whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might haue been added to the proposition out of my words The assumption I haue made good before by the confessions of Caluin and Beza But he beginneth with the assumption saying that he hath good cause to doubt of it and that I doe but threapen kindnesse on them when I talke of their Confessions For plentifull proofe whereof I referre you to that which before hath been alledged out of Caluin and Beza But what will not this Refuter quarrell with for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth that is to say parishes hauing euery one a Bishop and a Presbytery of gouerning Elders would any man doubt either that the Bishop was called the Angell of the Church or that he was president of the Presbytery Now to the proposition saith the Refuter for answere whereto in one word I say it is false let vs examine the proofe of it and then frameth a syllogisme the conclusion whereof is this therefore the Bishop who was set ouer a whole diocesse and who was President of the Presbytery allotted to a whole diocesse was vndoubtedly a diocesan Bishop Was this the proposition which he denied or was he so vnreasonable to deny it What
can be more euident But hee seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made To returne therefore to mine owne analysis In this section I proue that the antient Bishops were diocesan Bishops euen before the diuision of parishes by three arguments which for breuity sake I ioined together The first If the Churches whereof they were BB. were dioceses and not parishes then were they diocesan BB. But the Antecedent is true as hath already been proued in the second point Therefore the consequent The second If the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles time nor ministers appointed to peculiar titles or seuerall cures then there could be no Parishionall Bishops in that time But the former hath already been proued Therefore the latter is true The assumption is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I said before that is as true for the most part For it admitmitteth some exceptions as namely the Church of Alexandria and perhaps some others wherein I acknowledgeâ— the parishes to haue been distinguished in the Apostles times but so as seuerall Presbyters being assigned to them there remained one Bishop ouer all The third If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses and not to seuerall parishes then the Bishops who were Presidents of those Presbyteries were not parishionall but diocesan But the first is true as hath been already prooued Therefore the second To all three he answereth by denying the assumption the truth whereof dependeth vpon the proofes of the second point which haue been so many and so manifest as I hope to heare no more of the new-found parish discipline Serm. sect 2. pag. 22. Howbeit in the end of the Apostles times parishes began to be distinguished in Cities and afterwards in the Country c. to page 24. line 3. Here I prooue that after the diuision of parishes the Bishops were diocesan albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument which standeth thus Those Bishops who were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country viz. after they were distinguished Therefore the antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The proposition is most euident The assumption standeth on two parts first that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the citie after they were diuided The second that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the country after their diuision The former I proue in this section by induction of particulars the latter in the next The Analysis being here mistaken by him I wil not meddle with that which hee hath thereby taken occasion to speake besides the purpose because heere I finde him more modest then hitherto he hath shewed himselfe neither will I shame him with his owne friends when for an euasion he supposeth that in the primitiue Church some Ministers might haue more Churches vnder them like our double beneficed men and pluralists euen those that haue tot quot and yet be no Bishops Onely I will touch those things which contradict that which I haue deliuered And first he obserueth a contradiction in my speech I said that parishes in cities were not for the most part distinguished in the Apostles times Here I â—ay that in the end of the Apostles times viz. about the yeere one hundred they began to be distinguished at Rome by Euaristus the Bishop there A shrewd contradiction J promise you especially if you consider that all the Apostles but S. Iohn were dead before this time and that this was in the very end of S. Iohns time Yea but after I say that Titus was Bishop of the Cretians I cry you mercy I should haue said Cretans and yet by his leaue the Geneua translation and others read Cretians and Timothy of them in Asia therefore parishes were distinguished in the Apostles times Neither is this a contradiction for although Timothy was Bishop of Asia and Titus of the Churches in Creet yet it followeth not that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Creet were distinguished They were both by Pauls direction as well by letter as example to ordaine Presbyters in the seuerall cities but that they placed any in the country or assigned the Presbyters to seuerall cures in the Cities wee reade not To returne therefore to my proofes The induction standeth thus In Rome and Alexandria and so in other cities the parishes being once diuided were assigned to seuerall Presbyters the Bishop remaining superintendent ouer them all Therefore the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the cities after they were once diuided As touching Rome I shew that the parishes were first distinguished by Euaristus about the 100. yeare and not a Presbytery but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as hath beene prooued heeretofore At Alexandria I proue that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches within the first 200. yeares But what I say concerning Alexandria might well haue beene spared for that is his vsuall censure of such proofes as he knowes not how to answere because that Church is excepted against as the beginner and breeder of diocesan gouernment Excepted against why what was done in Alexandria which all the Churches in the world did not practise so soone as the parishes were diuided But what if this order began in S. Iohns time what if by S. Marke who died fiue or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul let Eusebius alledging the reports of them that went before him be witnesse viz that Marke being sent into Aegypt did preach the Gospell there and was the first which did constitute the Churches in Alexandria it selfe Then euer since S. Marks time there haue bene Churches in Alexandria which all from the beginning were subiect to the B. Of these Churches as J alledged in the sermon was Iulianus Bishop in the first yeare of Commodus viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus Demetrius was Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches in Alexandria And againe more fully that in the 10. yeare of Seuerus Laeâ—us was president of Alexandria and the rest of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the Churches there Demetrius had lately receiued the Bishopricke after Iulianus In the third yeare of Philippus after Heraclas had beene sixteene yeares Bishop Dionysius receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishopricke of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria So it is said of Peter the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria of Alexander that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop one of the Churches which were many at Alexandria for the Arians Valens by his letters signified that Athanasius might safely retaine the gouernment of the Churches What these Churches were Epiphanius before in part declared signifying
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
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
â—â—daciousnes of wicked men be feared that what they cannot doe by right and equity they may â—ccomplish by rash and desperate courses actum est de episcopatus vigore de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church But more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople and also in the writings of Ierome Euery Bishop saith the Councell of Antioch hath authoritie of his owne See both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies and to haue a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to gouerne all things with iudgement The Councell held in Trullo decreed that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function that they should retaine their eminent dignitie and authoritie so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes and that they may vse within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authoritie of their Prelacie and that all their administration be firme and lawfull But what saith Ierome He hauing intreated of the other degrees of the Clergie at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church qui ordo episcopalis est which is the order of Bishops the power whereof he setteth downe in these words Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites that is Presbyters and Deacons c. Hee gouerneth the Church of God he sheweth what euery one ought to do he condâ—mneth he receiueth he bindeth hee looseth that which was bound hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God meaning heauen hauing nothing meaning no ecclesiasticall order aboue him c. But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters haue both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse and also in respect of the deriuation thereof The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience the Bishops publike and in the externall Court also The Presbyter gouerneth the people onely of one flocke the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese but the Presbyters also themselues The Presbyters receiue institution vnto their iurisdiction from the Bishop and exercise it vnder the Bishop of the Diocese who hahauing as the Councell of Antioch and Ierome say the care of the whole Church or Diocese admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis into part of their care by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron and are the successours of the 70. Disciples as diuers of the Fathers doe teach but the Bishops answer to Aaron and are the successors of the Apostles as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome who saith that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles and of Irenaeus that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors deliuering vnto them their owne place of gouernment To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all Of these points I purpose not saith he to say any thing in this place because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction must presently be disputed the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice auâ—ided these allegations which he knew not how to answer and very featly rid his hands of them But if the Reader shall vpon examination finde that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred hee must needes thinke that their cause of sinceritie as they call it is not very sincerely handled Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction let vs now descend vnto particulars The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church or the persons Whatsoeuer things saith the Councell of Antioch appertaine to the Church are to be gouerned husbanded and disposed by the iudgement and authoritie of the Bishop to whose trust the whole people is committed and the soules of the congregation And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning for as what was at the first giuen to the Church was laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards what was contributed was committed saith Iustine Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishop Heereof you may reade more Conc. Gangr c. 7. 8. Concil Tol. 3. c. 19. 4 c. 32. Balsam in Concil Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33. As touching persons they were distinguished at the first into Clericos Laicos vnto whom afterward a third sort was added viz. Monachi monasticall persons who though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men as they count them yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop The great Councell of Chalcedon determined that no man should build a monastery any where or house of prayer without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie and that those which in euery Citie or Countrey did leade a monasticall life should bee subiect to the Bishop See more c. 8. Conc. Afric c. 47. Agath c. 27. 58. Theod. Balsam saith that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop then to the Gouernour of the monasterie As touching the Laitie I said Serm. sect 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof c. Not neede saith the Refuter Yeâ— you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano as indeede it must be seeing they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order The Refuter is to be borne with if hee talke at randon seeing he is as it seemeth out of his element The thing which I was to prooue if it had beene needfull was that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish and that priuately the Bishop gouerneth the people of the whole diocese and that publikelie the which I held needlesse to prooue because before it was prooued that they had the charge of the whole Diocese
odious and absurd assertions to me But why is not the maiority of rule in the Bishoppe hence proued and the subiection of Presbyters to him as to their ruler to bee guided and directed by him seeing they are charged to doe nothing without his direction and warrant what can bee more plaine forsooth the like Phrase is vsed Can. 35. and Conc. Antioch c. 9. where BB. are enioyned to doe nothing without the sentence of the Archbishoppe nor he in their Parishes without the sentence or appointment of them all If therefore the Maiority of rule in BB. may be proued from this Canon then in like manner from the other two Canons the maiority of rule not onely in Archbishops in those dayes ouer BB. but also of Bishops in their Parishes ouer the Archbishop But the consequent is false in both the parts of it the former for there were no Archbishops in those dayes the latter because BB. had not authority ouer Archbishoppes therefore the Antecedent also is vntrue Here the refuter vnder some shew of learning hath bewraied much ignorance For first as touching the proposition his reason is vnlike and his allegation out of the 34. Canon is vntrue The Bishoppe of euery natioÌ„ mâ—st agnize him that is the first or Primate among them and esteeme him as the chiefe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not said as in the Canon by me cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply as the refuter citeth it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there no difference betweene these two speeches to doe nothing simply and to do nothing more or exceeding their own bounds For that this is the meaning of the Canon the words following doe plainely declare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that they doe onely those things which appertaine to their own See and the countries vnder it But more plainely in the Councel of Antioch that the rest of the Bishops doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing more then those things onely which concerne euery mans owne Church and Countries which bee vnder it And that you should not vnderstand them as the Refuter doth without vnderstanding they adde for euery Bishoppe hath authority of his owne City both to gouern according to the feare of God which hee hath and to haue care of all the Country as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to administer euerything with iudgement And yet I doe not deny but that the Metropolitanes are superior to their Comprouinciall Bishoppes in the power of Iurisdiction although all Bishops whatsoeuer are equall in the power of order Neither should the Bishops by the like reason be superiour to the Archbishops in their parishes as he ignorantly addeth For the Canon doth not speake of the seuerall Bishops in their Dioceses which hee absurdly calleth Parishes but of the whole Company of them assembled in a Prouinciall Synode saying that he must doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of them all Howsoeuer therefore either the Metropolitane or any other of the Bishoppes in their owne seuerall Dioceses might doe those things which concerned their owne proper charge yet prouinciall businesses which exceeded the bounds of any one mans charge were to be dispatched in Prouinciall Councels wherein the Metropolitane was to be acknowledged as the chiefe and President thereof who called them together and moderated the assembly but so as the Bishops might doe nothing without him seuerally so he might doe nothing without them all iointly and as hee was superiour to them seuerally so was hee inferiour to them all iointly that is to the Synode The Assumption likewise in the former part of it is false and the reason of it also For there were Metropolitanes in the first two hundred yeares and they were superiour in the power of iurisdiction to their Bishops But before he will let this testimony passe hee hath one point of ignorance more to shew and that is because Archbishoppes are mentioned c. 35 alias 34. therefore these Canons were none of the Apostles nor any others aboue an hundred he will not say whatsoeuer hee thinkes two hundred yeares after them For Archbishops were not hatched so reuerentlie he speaketh a long time after all men being iudge The antiquitie of these Canons I haue touched before shewing that within little more then two hundred yeares after the Apostles time they were then accounted auncient Canons But to the point If hee speake of the name Archbishoppe it is not mentioned in the Canons called the Apostles if of the office of a Metropolitane which is meant in the aforesaid Canon I haue proued before that it hath beene euer since the Apostles times Those learned men which hold Archbishops to be of a latter edition by that name vnderstand Patriarches and those of 2. sorts being either so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Patriarches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem or such as are more vsually called Archbishops or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernors of large prouinces beeing in a degree betweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches which seeme to haue beene ordained in the first Councell of Constantinople as Socrates witnesseth Hence it is that Isidor saith Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est i. in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitis atque Episcopis and the same distinction is noted in the Councill of Chalcedon and in the Code and constitutions of Iustinian and in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour c. To the same purpose I alledged the ancient Councell of Arles that Presbyters may doe nothing without the knowledge and consent of their BB. and of Ancyra the most ancient approued Councill that is extant Non licere Presbyteris ciuitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare nec sine authoritate literarum eius in vnaquaque parochia aliquid agere That it is not lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie to doe any thing of importance without the Bishops appointment noâ— to do any thing in any parish without the authoritie of his letters To these J adde the first Councill of Toledo Sine conscientia Episcopi nihil pâ—nitâ—â— Presbyteri agere praesummunt Let the Presbyters presumâ— to doe nothing at all without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop And forasmuch as for a poore euasion he alledgeth that these Councils by me cited though the ancientest that are extant are vnder age which ill becommeth him to object who hath no witnesses to the contrarie before this present age I will therfore produce one or two more who liued in the Apostles times and conuersed with them Ignatius therefore in an Epistle which the Refuter hath before cited saith that neither Presbyter nor Deacon ought to doe any thing without the B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither let any thing seeme reasonable vnto you which is done without his warrant To him I will adioyne a testimony of Clement wishing the Reader to credit it
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
giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop Indeed if we were so madde as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall there were something in his speech But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts in the prouinciall synodes especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled it is apparent that although I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone But that which hee saith of my ascribing the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops that is the supreme and the loudest lye and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false Doe I or any of vs say that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop and prouinciall Synodes doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Archbishops as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Churches and those prouinciall the one of Canterbury and the other of Yorke doe wee not all with one consent acknowledge the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes and the greatest authoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes yet the ratification of them we submit to the King according to the Practise of the ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings in so much that they and all our Church-lawes are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawe Now then if neither I take all authoritie from the pastors nor giue all to the Bishops nor ascribe vnto them◠sole nor supreme authoritie what haue the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcryes but the manifestation of their owne manifold vntruthes Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB. Neither did I say that they are such but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders they would seeme to set vp not onely a Popeling but an absolute Popeling in euery parish a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church which wee deny to our Bishops and were it not that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him as the Pope hath of Cardinals hee would bee more then a pope And againe whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes which by their superiors are imposed vpon them their pastors with their Elders and people hauing as the Pope saith he hath a supreme immediate and independent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical and therefore for making of Ecclesiasticall lawes they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall If therefore each parish hath as they say it hath sufficient authoritie within it selfe for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall immediately deriued from Christ then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him no more doe they They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best and to perswade thereto but they will not be ruled by them As for the Kings supremacie in causes Ecclesiastical how it may stand with their maine assertion wherein they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall I will not dispute Serm. Sect. 3. pag. 5. Concerning the secōd viz. what was the preheminence of these BB. in the Churches in respect whereof they are called the Angels of the Churches others more wise and learned then the former granting they were BB. of whole cities the countries adioyning that is to say of Dioceses notwithstanding the sway of the gouernement they ascribe to the Presbyteries of those Churches consisting partly of Ministers and partly of annual or Lay-presbyters making these Angels or Bishops nothing else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or presidents of those Presbyteries and such presidents as were not superior to other Ministers in degree c. to pag. 6. in their turnes Of the two points seruing to shew by way of explication of the text what manner of Bishops were meant by the Angels the latter I propounded in this section to be examined A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians who are as I said more wise and learned then the former who though they grant that which the former denied yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or ancient Bishops had in the Churches So that in this section are 2. things first the proposition of the second point concerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches secondly a reason thereof To the proposition he answereth that they had this name Angels in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fellow Ministers as he saith I imply here and plainely but vntruely affirme afterwards In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes Whereof the former is an errour that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery For though to be called Angels generally agreeth to all Ministers yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called the Angell of that Church is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling but a peculiar stile belonging to one who had singular preheminence aboue the rest that is to say a Bishop So saith D. Raynolds in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it yet among those sundry was there one chiefe whō our Sauiour calleth the Angell of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop As touching the latter where he saith that I doe here imply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy ouer other Ministers and afterwards doe affirme it plainely that plainely is a plaine lie Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome Superioritie indeed belongeth to
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
were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses From whence the principall question of this part is thus to be inferred The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but Dioceses therefore the churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement were not parishes but dioceses This consequeÌ„ce the refuter graÌ„teth in graÌ„ting the connexiue propositioÌ„ of the syllogisme which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed The antecedeÌ„t which is also the propositioÌ„ of the syllogism if the assumption bee added I proue by 2. arguments The first concluding thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countreys to labor so far as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God were appointed to dioceses and not to parishes This propositioÌ„ I omitted also as taking it for granted As for his cauils against his owne proposition which he framed for the nonce to cauill withall they are not worth the refuting For besides that he absurdly cauilleth with me as thogh I had said that al in the city country were in S. Iâ—bus time conuerted he alleadgeth that there is no necessity that they which were conuerted should be of the same church with theÌ„ who did conuert them As for example they of Ceuchrea receiued the gospel from Corinth and yet were a distinct Church For it is called the church of Câ—nchrea RoÌ„ 16. 1. But I spake of them which did accidentally conuert others but of such as by whose meanes the conuersion of the city and country was originally intended And I say that they whose ministery was intended for the conuersion of the city and countrey to their care or charge both for the first conuerting of theÌ„ gouernment of theÌ„ being conuerted the city country beloÌ„ged As for Cenchreae though it be called a church as euery company of christians may so be termed yet it was not such a church as they speak of indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernement but subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church of Corinth Now followeth the assumption But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries therto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments is set down p. 18. the one the end inteÌ„ded by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities which was the conuersion of the nation for which themselues first preached in the chiefe cities the other is the 〈◊〉 or as they call it causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their hope by the ministery of the Presbyters placed in the city to conuert them which belonged to God both in city country grounded on the force of the gospell restified by our Sauior The words are these for it is euident that the Apostles when they inteÌ„ded to conuert any 〈◊〉 they first preached to the chiefe cities therof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had conuerted some their manner was to ordaine Presbyters hoping by their ministery to conuert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adioyning so many as did belong to God The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leauen which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉 seasoneth all These words thus set downe at large be the assumption of the syllogisme which he hath framed for what cannot he bring within the compasse of his syllogisms and therof he maketh 3. parts About the first he saith hee will not striue viz. the Apostles beginning to pâ—each in the chiefe cities of euery nation which though he think I caÌ„not proue is most easie to bee proued because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conuersion of nations as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures other ancieÌ„t records that they took that course As Paul inteÌ„ding the conuersion of Asia where hee staied three yeares continued in Ephesâ—s all the time intending the conuersion of Macedonia went to Thessalonica Philippi of Achaia to Corinth c. The second also he franckly yeeldeth that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had conuerted some to the truth But the 3 which is indeed the assumption it selfe and which is inferred on the former as I set them downe that if the Apostles intending the conuersion of the nation as they began themselues to preach in the cheefe cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent hoping by them to conuert both city and countrey then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conuersion of all belonging to God both in city and country the assumption I say it selfe he doth deny saying it was the office of those Presbyters to attend vpon the flock that is the company already conuerted but that it can neuer be shewed nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conuersion of the residue either in citie or country By which few words the deepe wisedom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. They conceiue that churches in the first constitution of theÌ„ when there were but a few conuerted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted al being conuerted to the profession of the faith parishes distinguished pastors being seuerally assigned to certain particular ordinary set coÌ„gregatioÌ„s 2. That the flocke ouer which they were set was onely that number of christians already conuerted and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God But our Sauiour calleth the elect not conuerted his sheepe And the Lord in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet conuerted 3. That their proper office was to attend them onely which were already conuerted not to labor the conuersioÌ„ of the rest As thogh the Apostles intended by their ministry the conuersion and saluation of no more then of those few which at the first were conuerted But for the better manifestation of their wisedome they shall giue mee leaue to appose them with a few questions The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained were they not ministers of the word Caluin confesseth it and if you should deny it I haue manifestly proued that they were not lay nay that there were not any lay presbyters Were not the presbyters many in some places more in some fewer according to the proportion of the cities or countreys where they were placed were these many Presbyters who at the first were sometimes as many as those who were besides conuerted the Apostles conueying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit on them whom they had first conuerted who thereby were inabled for the ministry as Acts 19.6 Were they I say being many intended onely to attend that smal number which
you had said all the congregations of Christians both in citie and country were but one vnlesse there were more then one I promise you you haue digged well and haue hedged your ditch with a strong enclosure But why had you not the like hedge or wall rather for the citie vnlesse there were distinct Churches in the citie for then all had been cockesure This hedge for the townes and this wall for the citie would haue sufficiently fenced the antecedent But then the consequence had been ridiculous and as it is now propounded with this inclosure in the antecedent is altogether as weake as it was before For to what purpose are the townes added if the parishes be excepted And by this inclosure the antecedent it selfe is bewraied of falshood For if there were in the citie and country more distinct Churches or parishes as here is supposed and these all subordinate to one as I haue manifestly proued before then all these will make a diocesse I say therefore againe that though their antecedent were true yet the consequence were to be denied Serm. sect 5. pag. 19. But the Antecedent is not onely false but also vnreasonable and vncredible c. 20. lines to one day The reason whereby I disprooue the Antecedent is by the Refuter framed after his fashion and propounded at large It shall suffice to turne his proposition into an Enthymeme thus The number of the Christians in the greatest Cities was very great hee should haue said greater then could ordinarily meet in one assembly the times such for persecution as would not permit them ordinarily to meet in great multitudes and the places of their meeting priuate and vncapeable of any great multitude I say such multitudes Therefore in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in any great Citie and the townes about which he should haue added did make more then one particular congregation ordinarily assembling in one place Did not I tell you that hee would forget to adde to the Cities the Townes about them which hee did adde to his Antecedent to make the former consequence good but dares not adde it now for feare of marring all But what doth he answere to it as it is First hee cauilleth and meerely cauilleth with the consequence obiecting such things as hee is perswaded in his owne conscience neither were in the primitiue Church nor ought to haue been Themselues doe teach that parishes ought to bee so well compact and trussed together as that all of the same Church may conueniently and ordinarily meet together and also that where the multitude is greater then that all can well meete together they ought to diuide themselues into diuers congregations And now he telleth vs of great parishes either in the suburbs of London or in some parts of the land which were at their setting out nothing so populous as now they are both which sorts being so mightily increased in respect of the number of their parishioners himselfe I dare say is of opinion that they ought to bee diuided And therefore ought not but that hee meant to cauill to haue supposed the practise of the primitiue Church which hee and his consorts doe alwaies vrge as a precedent for imitation to bee sutable to those instances which though hee giueth yet hee and all his partners doe vtterly mislike as swaruing from the practise of the primitiue Churches And where he saith M. D. doth mistake the matter whiles hee thinketh that wee hold that all and euerie of the Christians in the great Cities did or could alwaies meete in the same place hee vtterly mistaketh me in so conceiuing though I am not ignorant they hold very strange things but this J conceiue you to hold that each visible Church was and still ought to bee a particular ordinary constant congregation of Christians which not onely may conueniently but also must necessarily if they bee not by sufficient causes hindered assemble together ordinarily to praier and to the ministery of the word and Sacraments And I say that in respect of the number or rather innumerable company of Christians which T. C. himselfe thinketh to haue been greater in those times then now in respect of the times wherein they liued raging with persecution and in regard of the places vncapeable of such multitudes it is vncredible yea impossible that all the Christians in the greatest cities and countries about them should make but one particular congregation ordinarily and constantly meeting in one place Neither doth that further his cause which hee professeth to be their assertion that the Christians which dwelt in and about any great Citie and were called the Church of the Citie were members of one body for not onely they but also those that dwelt in the remotest parts of the Country though distinguished into many particular congregations did not hold themselues to bee entire bodies by themselues vnlesse they were schismatickes or heretikes but all members of the same outward body and visible Church whereof the mother Church in the citie was the chiefe or head by which they were denominated and also distinguished as now they are from other Churches Hauing thus cauilled with the consequence hee proceedeth to the antecedent which is the assumption of his syllogisme denying euery particular branch thereof And first for the number hee would examine my proofes but what should hee speake of proofes when all I say is but vpon imagination Verily for ought I see my imaginations are better reasons then your strongest proofes And that here appeareth where you weaken my imagination J will not say falsifie it by propounding it after your maner But could a man professing sincerity so cast off all shame as to affirm that all I say is but vpon imagination when of that which I say there are foure proofes set downe in the Sermon first by comparison of the lesse to the greater secondly an instance of Rome thirdly the testimony of Cornelius fourthly the testimony of Tertullian The first he propundeth thus If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes after Christ was very great then was it great in such cities But the former is true Therefore the latter It is your fashion to make my consequences not to exceed the proportion of your owne imagined ability in answering them My reason standeth thus If the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem was verie great within a few weekes after the ascension of Christ then in all likelihood the number of Christians in greater cities hauing the like though not alwaies so great meanes was within two hundred yeeres increased so much as to exceed the proportion of one particular assembly ordinarily meeting in one place But the former is true for at the Feast of Pentecost 3000. were conuerted in one day and shortly after their number was growne to 5000. which afterwards daily and mightily increased therefore the latter In my argument as you see comparison is made not onely betweene Ierusalem and
word all to bee taken collectiuè or distributiuè if in the former sense then his meaning should be that all Christians in the world whether they dwelt in cities or countreys did on the Lords day meet in one place which is absurd If the latter then he meaneth all them distributiuely who whether they liued in the cities or countries belonged to one congregation As if one of vs speaking of the custome of our times should say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Sunday so called there is a comming together of all into one place who doe dwell in the cities or the countries that is all in euery place that belong to the same congregations And that it is so to be vnderstood it appeareth by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cities propounded in the plurall nuÌ„ber For his meaning neuer was that the people of diuers cities did meet ordinarily together the note of disiuÌ„ction â— or added to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cuntry doth signifie that those of the country did not al meet with theÌ„ of the City for then he would haue said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that al did meet in their seuerall congregations whether they liued in the cities or couÌ„tries His other testimony is of Platina affirming that Dionysius about 160. yeares after Euaristus did first diuide and set out parishes and therefore hee referreth him Damasus to Onuphrius to be reconciled But well may this refuter with shame enough hide his head who shameth not so oft to falsifie the authors which hee quoteth This is that which Platina reporteth of Dionysius that he being made B. straightwaies diuided the Churches and coemiteries which were the places of christian meetings in the city of Rome to the presbyters but he saith not that he first did it neither was it his mening for he had said the same before of Euaristus Abroad also saith he in the country he distributed parishes dioceses so couÌ„try parishes are called to the end that euery one should be content with his bounds limits Agreeable hereunto is the report of Dionysius himself if it be himself in his epistle to Seueruâ— the B. of Corduba For wheras Seuerus had asked his directioÌ„ what course was to be takeÌ„ coÌ„cerning parish churches throghout the prouince of Corduba he wisheth him to follow that which he had lately done in the church of Rome ecclesias vero singulas singulis presbyteris dedimus seueral Churches we assigned to seueral presbyters diuided to theÌ„ the churches coemiteries ordained that euery one shold haue his proper right in such sort as that none may inuade the lands bounds or right of another parish but that euery one should be content with his owne boundes and so keepe his church and people committed to him that before the tribunall of the eternall Iudge he may giue an account of all committed to him and may receiue glorie and not iudgement for his deeds Now these reports are easily reconciled with the afore cited testimony of Damasus For as Onuphrius also hath obserued Euaristus first diuided the parishes to the presbyters the nuÌ„ber wherof by Hyginus not loÌ„g after was augmeÌ„ted an 138 After whoÌ„ nothing was altered vntill the time of Dionysius an 260. who increased the nuÌ„ber of the parishes which afterwards were multiplied by Marcellus about the yeare 305 c. Besides thogh Euaristus first diuided the parishes in Rome yet Dionysius might be the first that set out the couÌ„try parishes Which distinction if it wil salue their credits who haue said that Dionysius first diuided parishes I wil not be against it His 2. answere is that if Euaristus did any such thing he diuided the titles to only gouerning elders c. A likely matter For the titles were the sacrae aedes the places of metings vnto Gods worship in which the Presbyters or as Dionysius calleth theÌ„ sacerdotes the Priests were ordained to feed the people coÌ„mitted to them with the ministery of the word sacraments and goe before them in the worship of God But of lay elders I haue sufficiently spoken before if any thing wil suffice to perswade men that there neuer were any such in the church of God My 3. proof is the testimony of Cornelius the B. of Rome who as he saith there were 46. Presbyters at that time in the Church of Rome 108 others of the clergy 1500. poor people maintained al of them by the contributioÌ„ of christians so he calleth the Christian people in Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great innumerable people Did the B. and 154. clergy men attend one parishionall assembly only was there 1500. poor christians besides 154 of the clergy together with the B. maintained of one parishional congregatioÌ„ was an innumerable people the people of one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place This testimony saith our refuter is quite besides the purpose a fift part meaning 50. yeres beyond the time we speak of The limitatioÌ„ of the time wherto they haue coÌ„fined the primitiue church was deuised for a poor shift because they knew there was not the like euidence for the 2. century as for the 3. Otherwise what reasoÌ„ can be reÌ„dred why there should be diuers parishes vnder one B. in the year 250. if it were not so in the year 200 especially seing they which of purpose haue written of these things do professe that there was no differeÌ„ce in the nuÌ„ber of the parishes in that time 10. years after What reson can be giueÌ„ why the christian people which was innumerable in the yeare 250. should haue been in the yeere 200. the people of one particular parish especially seeing good authors before the year 200 doe acknowledge as much as if they had said that then they were innumerable To which purpose in the 4 place I quoted Tertullian whom J needed not if we wil beleeue the refuter to haue cited seeing saith he he speaketh vnlimitedly of the christiaÌ„s in the Romane Empire saith nothing herein that wâ—e deny nor ought for M.D. profit By his good leaue therefore I will recite the words For after that hee had professed that christians then contrary to the iudgement and practise of the Papists now thought it vnlawfull for them to auenge themselues on their persecutors he saith For if we should shew our selues to be open enemies not secret auengers should we want either number or strength we are aliants froÌ„ you et vestra omnia implenimus and we haue filled al places that are yours cities Islands Castles towns assemblies c. only your temples we leaue vnto you If we should but depart away from you the losse of so many citizens would amaze you Without doubt you would be astonished ad solitudineÌ„ nostraÌ„ at the solitarines which our abseÌ„ce would make you would seek the reliques of a dead city wherein you might rule more enemies then citizens wold remain
haste touching only vpon the points as a dogge by the riuer Nilus not daring to stay by it yet so brag he is that he would seem to haste away not for feare but rather in disdain as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertineÌ„t as the former part of this section or so needlesse as the latter For this is his vsual guise to cast off those points of the Sermon which indeed are most materiall as impertinent or needlesse The former is impertinent because it is not prooued to belong to those seuen Angels nor within the first two hundred yeeres Which is a meere euasion vnlearned and J greatly doubt also vnconscionable Doe I not plainely note that these seuen Angels had this singularity of preeminence when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth that whereas there were many Presbyters who also were Angels in euery Church yet there was but one who was the Angell of ech Church For to his obiection of their not being diocesan Bishops I haue answered before And for the time doe I not affirme that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus Titus in Creet Epaphroditus in Philippi Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times As for the rest of my witnesses they doe either testifie de iure which in their iudgement is perpetuall or if they speak de facto it is of that which was in the Apostles times Cornelius the worthy martyr who was Bishop of Rome about the yeere two hundred fifty auoucheth that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters c. This testimony is reiected because it was giuen fifty yeeres after the date which were but an euasion if it did testifie de facto onely But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure of what ought to be I hope that which ought not to haue been in Cornelius his time was not lawfull before vnlesse the Refuter can shew that before Cornelius his time plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawfull § 5. The Councell of Nice whose testimonie I also alleaged was of this iudgement that there ought not to bee two Bishoppes in one Citie For hauing decreed that when the Catharists that is Puritans or Nouatians returned to the Catholike Church those who were of the clergy should retaine their degree as hee that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue and likewise a Bishoppe for euen the Puritanes or Catharists themselues had their Bishoppes if there were not another alreadie in the Catholike Church But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholike Church alreadie then it is manifest before hand that the Bishoppe of the Church shall haue the honour of the Bishoppe but hee that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall haue the honour of a Presbyter vnlesse it please the Bishop to communicate vnto him the honour of the name But if that like him not he shall finde him out either a Chorepiscopus that is a country Bishops or a Presbyters place that still he may be retained in the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there may not be two Bishop in one Citie Which words in Ruffinus are the tenth Canon Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopi Augustine also vnderstood though somewhat too late that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice that there should be any more Bishops in a Church then one For how soeuer whiles he was ignorant thereof he was drawne to take vpon him the Bâ—shopricke of Hippo whiles Valerius was aliue yet when himselfe was old and desired that Eradius might bee his Coaâ—â—utor whom also he nominated for his successor yet he thought it vnlawfull that whiles himself liued he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius liued saith he I was ordained Bishop and I sate with him both of vs being ignorant that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice But what was reprehended in me shall not be blamed in him Or as Possidonius speaketh Quod sibi factum esse doluit alijs fieri noluit In the next place I bring the testimonies of Ierome Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which I confesse liued after the two hundred yeeres but they testifie that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one And the like hath Primasius on the same place To all this hee answers that he will not greatly striue about mens deuices which noâ—withstanding he can neuer proue to bee humane and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels in Timothy in Titus c. was no humane deuice But though he will not striue yet he alleageth that little which hee was able and that also more then himselfe doth beleeue to be true For he obiecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiasticall story reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time Founders they both were of the Church of Rome as Irenaeus testifieth and hauing founded the Church ordained Linus Bishop but that either of them both and much lesse that both at once were Bishops of Rome the Refuter himselfe doth not beleeue To what purpose then doth he alleage that which himselfe is perswaded to be false Would he haue his Reader beleeue that to be true which himselfe beleeueth to be vntrue That which he quoteth out of Athanasius that there were diuers Bishops in some one Church though I cannot finde it may be true in time of schisme and diuision as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops c. His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe is very childish as though when he saith that Paul ordained in euery Towne or Citie Presbyters and Bishops his meaning were that in euery Citie he placed more Bishops then one If I should say there are Bishops placed in euery Citie or diocesse throughout England J should speake truly and yet my meaning would be that in euery diocesse there is but one Where I say that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preseruation of the Church in vnitie and for the auoiding of schisme so is it for the same cause to be retained he would seem half amazed that I who do not deny other formes of gouernment to be lawfull pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopall function to be of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof pag. 92. should now plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan BB. for the preseruation of the Church in vnity c. But the Readâ—r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing
which themselues doe bring to proue them and also that by such an answere the superiority of Bishops is sufficiently auoided But to conclude this point whiles the Refuter goeth about to proue that Antioch which was the Metropolis of Syria and the chiefe Citie of all the East was but a parish Church and the Bishop of Antioch who was also as Ignatius testifieth of himselfe the Bishop of Syria and as Theodoret saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chiefe or prâ—â—ate of all the Bishops in in the East to haue been but a Parson of a parish Church the Reader will hereby learne what conceit to haue of his learning and iudgement and what credit to giue to his new-â—angled opinions Serm. sect 11. pag. 47. Now the Presbyters were subiect to their B. both as their ruler to be guided c. to page 50. med Hauing in generall shewed the Bishops superiority in iurisdiction ouer the Presbyters euen those of the Citie in this section J proue it more particularly by the parts of gouernment which are both to rule and direct as also to censure and correct I shew therefore that the Presbyters of the Citie were subiect to the Bishoppe both as their ruler to be guided and dâ—rected by him and also as their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him Where the Refuter if he would needs be analysing and syllogising should haue framed this argument To whom the Presbyters were subiect both as to their ruler to be guided and directed by him and as to their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him he was superior to them in the power of iurisdiction and maiority of rule To the B. the Presbyters were subiect both as to their ruler to be guided and directed by him and as to their Iudge to be censured and corrected of him Therefore the B. was superiour to the Presbyters in power of iurisdiction and maiority of rule The proposition of this syllogisme is of euident vndeniable truth The assumption consisteth of two parts the former concerning the rule of direction the latter concerning the power of correction which I doe in order proue by euident testimonies whereunto he opposeth nothing but cauilling shifts and euasions By way of analysis he saith thus The former proofe of the assumption touching the Bishops maiority of rule was generall concerning diocesan and parishionall Presbyters Now follow the reasons for each of them in particular and first for the Bishoppes iurisdiction ouer the diocesan in regard of direction Where I desire him to tell vs what he meaneth by diocesan Presbyters whether such as assisted the Bishop in the diocesan gouernment If yea hee dreameth of that hee cannot proue To omit the commendation of his skill in analysing which is not great his resutation heere is as you plainely see not onely a dreame but the dreame of a dreame He saith I dreame of diocesan Presbyters when himselfe belike did dreame so Where speake I one word of diocesan Presbyters where doe I once name them Is the Refuters conscience no better then still to father vpon mee vntruths for his owne aduantage doth he not thereby bewray what a cause he maintaineth which cannot be vpheld but by forgeries Neither if J had spoken of diocesan Presbyters would I haue vsed the word in that sense For as parts of the diocesse in the country are sometimes in the Councels called dioceses so are Country Ministers called dioecesani qui per dioeceses ecclesias regunt which in the Councell of Neocaesaria are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Country Ministers and are opposed to the Presbyters of the Citie who are there called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and else where ciuitatenses Presbyteri Of whom it may bee truly said that the Colledge or company of them was the Presbytery which being not assigned to any one parish was prouided to assist the Bishoppe in the feeding and gouernment of the diocesse as I haue prooued before and in that sense might be called dioecesani But let vs see his reason saith the Refuter If the 40. Canon of the Apostles saith he I said the ancient Canon if the Councels of Arles and Ancyra Tertullian Cyprian and Ignatius affirme that BB. had maiority of rule for direction ouer Diocesan Presbyters then they had such maiority But all these affirme so therefore they had so The former part of my aforesaid Assumption that the Presbyters of the City were subiect to the B. as their ruler to be directed by him I proue first in generall because they might doe nothing of importance without his direction or consent then particularly in respect of those things which did belong to the power of their order For as touching the former if the Presbyters might doe nothing without the B. nothing without his appointment or consent then were they subiect to him as their ruler to be guided and directed by him But the former I proue by these testimonies whereto more may be added therefore the latter cannot be denied Of the Syllogisme which he framed hee denieth first the Consequence of the proposition not shaming to affirme that although the ancient Canon called the Apostles though the auncient Councels of Ancyra and Arles though Tertullian Cyprian and Ignatius doe all testifie the maiority of rule in BB yet it would not follow that they had it It will follow then that the ancientest Councels and Fathers deserue no credit which whosoeuer shall affirme doth much more without comparison deserue not onely no credit but no audience nay no sufferance he is not to bee endured But what pretence hath hee to discredite their authorities forsooth none of them excepting Tertullian and Ignatius liued in the first 200. yeares As if all truth were confined within that periode or as if some of the Fathers which succeeded as Cyprian by name deserued not as much credite as they As for Cyprian hee came 40. or 50. yeares after and the Councell of Ancyry some 50. or 60. yeares after him No doubt but great alteration in discipline and Church-gouernement was or could be pretended to haue been in the Church before Constatines time whiles it was vnder the Crosse. But let the Refuter esteeme of these authorities as hee pleaseth there is no modest or moderate Christian but will preferre the affirmation of any of these especially in a matter of fact before the negation of a thousand such as the libelling refuter After he hath thus eleuated their authority hee cauilleth with their testimonies denying also the assumption And first to the ancient Canon forbidding Presbyters Deacons to doe anything 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the appointment and consent of the Bishoppe hee frameth such an answere as euery word whereof almost doth argue extreame either vnconscionablenesse or ignorance Hee saith It doth not proue they had maiority of rule or sole soueraignty ouer them Sole soueraignity O defiled conscience which ceasest not to ascribe such
such Archbb. as are aboue Metropolitanes were not ordayned by Christ and his Apostles as D. Bilson who also is alledged as hauing beene of the Refuters minde because he citeth Ierome in Tit. 1.1 ad Euagr. Some that there were two sorts of Elders as Iunius Some vnderstanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began not of the Apostles times but afterward as Iunius These are all his witnesses besides some with whose names onely without their testimonies he thought best to make a simple flourish Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the forme of a Syllogisme concluding the contradictorie to my assertion viz. that some auncient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernement by BB. was not generally and perpetually vsed it would appeare to euery one how ridiculously our refuter argueth As for example Danaeus Musculus Iunius c. doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was not generally receiued Therefore some ancient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie so much Yea but you speake of sound Writers in generall will he say and so I conclude Therefore some sound Writers doe testifie so much But it is plaine say I that I meane the ancient But to his argument such as it is I answere first that if these Writers had testified that which is contayned in the antecedent yet had not they beene competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteene or fifteene hundred yeares before their time the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause But indeede not all no nor any one of his witnesses doth testifie that in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment of Bishops was not generally receiued but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion are most ridiculous As for example in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same Therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment by Bishops was not receiued Bishops were ordayned not by Gods law c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred yeares and so of the rest But some body will say though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose and I must needes confesse that your Refuter did grossely abuse his vnlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them notwithstanding some of the allegations contayne assertions contrarie to some points in your Sermon Of whom in steed of answere if I should aske this question whom hee conceiueth to be aduersaries to vs in this cause he would answere those that stand for the pretended discipline And who be those Caluin Beza Danaeus lunius Sadeel and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alledged If they be aduersaries in this cause is it to be wondred that they haue deliuered contrary assertions and if they be parties in the cause are their testimonies to be admitted Verily he might better haue alledged M. Cartwright and M. Trauers then some of those whom hee did cite being more parties in the cause then they as not onely hauing written in defence of their discipline but liuing where it is practised but that hee knew the simple Reader vvho cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties vvas ignorant that these outlandish Writers vvere aduersaries vnto vs in the cause to vvhose assertions seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men vvho are on our side vvhom the Refuter vvould reiect as parties I oppose the testimonies of antiquity and the reasons contayned in this booke desiring the Reader in the feare of God to giue credit without partiality to that side on which there is better euidence of truth And thus hauing turned ouer and as I suppose ouerturned more then fiue leaues vvhich hee blotted vvith these testimonies I come to his examples of vvhich hee hauing not any one betweene the Apostles times and ours therefore giueth instance in the Churches of our time and in the time of the Apostles But marke I pray you vvhat vvas my assertion vvhich hee vvould seeme to contradict Was it not this that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to proue that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by Bishops vvas not generally receiued No saith hee vvhat say you then to the Churches of Heluetia France lowe Countries c. in our time and to the Church of Corinth Cenchrea Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times Marry this I say that the Refuter is a very trifler vvho pretending to giue instance of some Church vvithin three hundred yeares after the Apostles times contrarie to my assertion thinkes to satisfie his Reader eyther vvith examples of some Churches in our age or of those in the Apostles times vvhereof this present question is not I confesse that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishoppes excepting that of Ierusalem Notwithstanding before the death of Saint Iohn the Churches had not onely Bishops but diuers of them a succession of Bishops and such were two of those which he nameth to wit Antioch and Ephesus for at Antioch there were Bishops successiuely in the Apostles times Evodius and Ignatius And at Ephesus before the Angel to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1 Timothie About the yeare one hundred seauenty and foure Dionysius was B. of Corinth and before him was Primus who was of the same time with Anicetus Anno one hundred fifty sixe before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time as Hegesippus recordeth As for Cenchrea that neuer had a peculiar Bishop of her owne but was subiect as other Townes and Parishes of Achaâ—a to the Bishop of Corinth As touching the Churches after the Apostles times the Refuter hath nothing to obiect but what before he hath alleadged out of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian in whom there is not a word against Bishops Iustin Martyr speaketh but of one gouernour in each Church whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the B. saith Beza speaking so plainely for the singularity of preheminence of one B. in each Church that T. C. who would perswade that in the seueral Churches there were more Bishops then one saith that euen in Iustines time there began to peepe out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospell as that the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was common to the Elders with the Ministers of the word was it seemeth appropriated vnto one And whereas this place of Iustine was alleadged to proue the Bishops superiority ouer the Presbyters for euen Beza confesseth hee was the President of the Presbyterie who afterwards was called a Bishop hee answereth if it should be granted that Iustines President had superioritie ouer the Ministers yet how fondly is it concluded that it is Lawfull because it was And as I
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
signification of paroecia C. Tolet. 3 c. 20. a Carth. 4. c. 102. b Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 25. 26. c Inn. â— ep 8. ad Flor. d Epist. l. ad Decent c. 5 §. 11. The significations of Dioecesis Sozom l. 8. c. 3. Ius Graecorom p. 89. a Cod. lit tit 4. de Episcopali audientia The Diocesse of a Patriarch §. 29. Sancimus graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nouell 123. c. 22. b Hâ—rcalea was the Metropolis of Thracia vnto which Byzantium had beene subiect c Cesarea was the Metropolis of Palestina d In s Graecorâ—m p. 100. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g Theod. l. 4. c. 23. h Epiph. haer 68. i Ioan. Diac. in vit Greg. l. 3. c. 13. The Diocesse of an Archbishop k Conc. Chalcâ— 8. 17. l Chalc. c. 28. m Socrat. l. 5. c. 8. n Lib. 3. Epist. 3. o Li. 1. c. 7. §. 9 § 12. The Diocesse of a Bishop p Conc. Const. 1. c. 2. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. s Conc. Afric c. 65. Carth. Graec. c. 101. t Conc. Carth. 2 c. 11. Dioecesis taken for the country and parts of the Diocesse therein u Con. Afric c. 84. Conc. Carth. grae c. 118. * Con. Afric c. 38. Carth. graec 72. Carth. 5. c. 5. x Carth. grae c. 14. y Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5. z Conc. Carth. graec c. 57 siue Cart. 3. c. 46. Afric c. 23. a Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 35. b Ibid. c. 32. c Conc. Braccar 2. c. 2 d Conc. Agat c. 53. 54. e Aurelian 3. c. 18. f Aurel. 4. c. 32. Conc. Carth. gr c. 54. 101. §. 2. Decrees of the councils of Africke Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5. Conc. Carth. 3. c. 42. et 43. Carth. gr 54. l Ibid. c. 46. Carth. gr c. 57. m Conc. Afr. c. 65. Carth. gr c. 101 n Cart. gr c. 54. § 3. Decrees of Fathers o Clem. ep 1. ad Iacob p Anaclet ep 3. c. 2. q Leo ep 87. ad episc Afr. c. 2. The decrees of councels r Conc. Sardic c. 6. s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 u Con. Constant in Trull c. 2. x Conc. Laodicen c. 56. alids 57 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so Balsam and some manuscripts and latin translations read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 y Phot. Nomecan lit 1. c. 19. z Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4. z Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4. So Burchardus readeth decret lib. 5. c. 32. §. 4. That Chorepiscopi or country BB. vvere not parish BB. a Conc. Neocaes c. 13. b Ibid. c. 14. c Theod. Bals. in Conc. Neocaesar d Conc. Ancyr c. 13. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. f Conc. Antio c. 8. the Latins call them for matas literas g Con. Antioc c. 10. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Damas. epist. 4. de Chorepiscopis k Conc. Neocaesar c. 14. l Leo epist. 88. m C. Hispal 2. c. 7. §. 5. The second argument taken from Country Bishops n Con. Nic. c. 8. o Conc. Rhegiens c. 1.2.3.4 §. 6. Parishes had not Presbyteries p Conc. Sardic c. 6. q Leo epist. 87. r Conc. Carth. 4. c. 102. s Conc. Eliber c. 77. The parishes had not the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment t Conc. Carth. Gr. c. 54. siue Carth. 3. c. 42. u Iustit l. 4. c. 4. §. 2. § 7. The parishes of the Cities had not seuerall Bishops x Lib. 3. cap. 3. a Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. b Cypr li. 2. epist. 11. c Li. 3. epist. 2. d Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. e Epist. Cornel. apâ—d Cypr. l. 3. epist. 11. f Contr. Parmen l. 2.40 quod excurrit basilicas c. g Haeres 69. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i L. 5. Orthod fid c. 1. § 8. The Churches which had Bishops set ouer them were dioceses k Caâ— Apost 34. l Conc. Antioch c. 9. m Cont. Carth. Gr. c. 54.72 n Conc. Neoâ—â—sar c. 13. o Cont. Agatâ— c. 22. The second reason p Cont. Ephes. pâ—st aduent epist. Cyp. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r Conc. Carth. gr c. 54. s Ibid. c. 57. t Conc. Chalced c. 17. u in Tâ—â—â—lo c. 25. § 9. The third reason x Confessed by Caluin Inst. l. 4. c 4. § 2. Bezâ— de grad c. 24. y Conc. Ancyr c. 13. Conc. Antioch c. 10. The fourth reason a Exempl libelli syn Ephes. oblati ab Euprepio Cyrillo Episcopis b Ignat. epist. ad Rom. c Socrat. l. 4. c. 12 d Nazianz. encom Cypr. Conc. Const. Trull c. 2. e Theodor. l. 5. c. 4. f Sozum l. 5. c. 1â— g Sozum lib. 6. c. 21. Pag. 53. §. 2. That the 7. Churches were Dioceses Pag. 66. §. 3. Ad page 54. His answer to the proposition Vâ—de infir lib. 4. c. 4. § 3. What is the hypothesis of of a coÌ„uexiue proposition § 4. Their instaÌ„ce concerning Cenchreae Rom. 16.11 Luke 8.3 Rom. 16.2 §. 5. §. 6. a Bez. de grad c. 24. b Rain H. 542. c Caes. Baron an 39.10 Wolfg. Laz. de rep Rom. l. 2. c. 12. Beat. Rhenaâ—â— in lib. Notâ—t prouinciar imp Rom. in descriptione Illyrici d Const. in Trullo c. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Act. 19.10 f Act. 20.31 g 1. Cor. 16.19 i 1. Pet. 1.1 k Testified by Origen Eusebius Epiphanius Chrysost. Nazianz apud Caes. Baron in aâ— 44.29 l Coloss. 1.7 §. 7. His answere to the assuÌ„ption §. 8. Churches called Cities m Euseb. Chr. an 45. Ann. 71. n Socrat. lib. 1. fol. 177. a. o Epist. ad Epise Afric p De sentent Dionys. q Conc. Const. 1. c. 1.2.3 r Const. in Trul. c. 2. s Ignat. ad Polycarp t Epist. 1.2.3 c. u Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. * Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. § 7. The 1. proofe of the assumption viz. that the seuen Churches contained both the Cities and Countries adioining Ad pag. 55. x Supr §. 2. § 10. Whether Christ wrote to all the churches in Asia Ad pag. 56. a Strabo Geograph lib. 13. b Erasmus Annot in Rom. 16. c Erasm. in Act. 16. d Ptolem. calleth Mysia Pergamene maior e Mysiae principatum Pergamum obtinuit Aen. Sylu. in Asia minor C 62. Acolis quondam Mysia appellata Plin. l. 5. c 30. Ptolemy among the Cities of Lydia and Maeonia reckoneth Thyatira Sardâ—s and Philadelphia f Strabo l. 13. g Ptol. l. 5. c. 2. h In Maximo i Subscript Con. Nicen. k In Chronico l Tacitus saith in the 6. of Nero and so as it is thought within two yeares after the Epistle to the Colossians was writen Tacit. l. 14 codem anno Scil. 6. Neronis exillustribus Asiae vrbibus Laodicea tremore terrae prostrata nullo a nobis remedio proprijs opibus reualuit m Cal. in argum epis ad Coloss. n In Coloss. 1. o Iur. graecorâ—m pag. â—8 num 54. p Prefat in Epist. ad Coloss