the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as gouernours of the vniuersall Church in whom the Popish Hierarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth For seeing it is proper to Christ alone to be the head and gouernour of the vniuersall Church he is said properly to be Antichrist who taketh vpon him to be head and gouernour of the whole Church And their gouernement is iustly called Antichristian who are his assistants in this vniuersall gouernement As for the gouernours of Prouinciall and Diocesan Churches that is to say Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome they are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their iurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance from him as being members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the head And therefore are no more Antichristian then their parish Priests And as well might the refuter call the Persons or Pastors of parishes among vs Antichristian because the Popish parish-Priests are Antichristian as our BB. Antichristian because the Popish BB. are such Neither is the function of Bishops more or yet so much to be ascribed to the institutiō of the B. of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shew were ordained by the Apostles and set ouer Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as diuerse Authors report Againe vnder the Deacons the Papists reckon fiue other orders which they esteeme so many Sacraments whereas we with the primitiue Church and in the same sense with it doe reckon onely 3. orders or degrees of Ministers or Clergy men Bishops Presbyters and Deacons It is strange therefore that the doctrine of my Sermon concerning Bishops alone should vphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest or as they vse to speake frō the Pope to the Apparitor as well as our owne This therefore was a shamelesse vntruth Besides howsoeuer the same three orders or degrees in name are still retained in the Church of Rome as well as in ours yet with great difference For their Priests be Sacerdotes sacrificing Priests ordained to offer a proper externall reall sacrifice Ours are not Sacerdotes that is Sacrificing Priests but as the Scriptures and ancient writers call them Presbyters that is Priests or Ministers ordained to preach the word and administer the Sacraments Their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and haue their iurisdiction as they teach from him as the Vicar of Christ succeeding Peter not as he was an Apostle as all other Bishops suceed other Apostles but as the head and chiefe gouernour of the whole Church from whom as the head and fountaine of all Ecclesiastical iurisdiction the iurisdiction of other Bishops is deriued and doth depend Our Bishops are not subordinate to the Pope neither haue any depēdāce or deriuatiō of their iurisdiction from him but from God partly as it is spirituall by the ordinance of the Apostles who ordained the first Bishops leauing them as their substitutes or successors in the gouernement of the seuerall Churches and partly as it is corporall or coactiue by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes furnishing them with plenary power to enquire after disorders in the estate Ecclesiasticall all manner errours Heresies schismes abuses offences and enormities and to punish them Which differences being cōsidered betweene vs and the Papists it were more then a wonder if the very same reasons which are brought to proue the Apostolicall gouernement of our Church should also serue to proue their Antichristian Hierarchy But as the young man that Crassus speakes of in Tully hauing found in the strand a smal piece of a Galley would straightway build a ship thereof so out of one small agreement with the Romane Church concerning the superioritie of Bishops ouer Prebyters wherein they retaine the doctrine of the primitiue Church he would build a total consent and conformitie to their Antichristian gouernement Thus we haue heard what aduantage the Papists haue by my Sermon Now let vs see what harme was like to redound to others thereby Others saith he would be much scandalized those that were in loue with their owne ease would easily crouch downe like Isachars asse c as for others it would remoras obijcere ardentiorib Cast blocks in their waies that ran well or retardare zelum make them slacke their pace at least Sāctorum spiritus inquietare disquiet the minds of all the Saints to see a Sermō of that consequence preached published by a man of that name note in the Church That is to say if I vnderstād him aright the Sermō if it might be let alone were not vnlike to haue these effects in those that are accounted the forwarder sort First they that were more moderate then others desired the peace of the Church hauing yet some scruples in their mindes and somewhat doubting of the lawfulnes of our Church gouernement were like enough to haue their doubts satisfied and their consciences setled Others that were more ardent whose zeale ouerranne their knowledge censuring and condemning they knewe not what would be brought to suspend their iudgement or at least to moderate their zeale others who are factious and of the diuided brotherhood whom he calleth all the Saints would be grieued at the heart to see such likelihood of peace and vnion which is so contrarie to their humour to be established in the Church But as hee had a strong opinion that my Sermon was needfull to be refuted so had he as strong a desire it might be answered after some fashion that the Schisme or rent which is in our Church being so beneficiall as it is to some might not be healed but that people might be retained in the former tearmes of a factious and Schismaticall alienation from the state of our Church and the gouernours thereof Which his desire was much inflamed when he vnderstood that this worke hauing beene vndertaken and committed to the presse the answere and presse were taken the Printer and concealer of the Author imprisoned For then good man his soule was cast downe within him to see a truth so profitable and necessarie as is the doctrine of their pretended discipline hauing no ground neither in the Scripture nor antiquitie obtruded as the ordinance of Christ the onely lawful forme of Church gouernement suppressed Being therefore thus possessed with so strong an opinion and transported with so earnest and vnquiet desires he grewe vnto his most valiant resolution Which in effect though he guild it ouer with glorious words was nothing else but this to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatorie libell and hauing so done after the manner of other malefactors to hide his head You haue heard the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this busines and his valiant resolution to vndertake it now
at the second hand but to examine the allegations and to cite them out of the Authors themselues So that although the liquor many times is the same yet I drewe it at the fountaine and not at the streame remembring who saith Tardi est ingenij riuulos consectari fontes non videre Which course better Schollers then my aduersarie would allowe especially to one that had no more time then I had both to prouide what to speake and to speake what I had prouided And forasmuch as in many places of his booke he maketh references to D. Bilsons booke to shew that what I deliuer was taken thence I intreat the Reader once for all to compare the places For thereby he shall see this cauiller to haue played the Ratte both in discouering his owne falshood and in betraying his cause For as touching the former I doe vnfainedly professe that I am not conscious to my selfe either in that Sermon or any other writing that I haue published to haue taken any one line from any without citing the Author His cause also shal be notably disadvaÌ„taged because those things which I did perhaps briefly and as it were in hast set downe the Reader shall sometimes in the booke whereunto hee is referred reade the same points fully accurately handled to his great satisfaction and good contentment And whereas he obiecteth that my house is built of old stuffe c. Let him knowe that in these kindes of buildings the oldnes of the stuffe is a great commendation For that which is the oldest is the truest And that which hath beene of greatest antiquitie for the time past will also be of the longest continuance for the time to come As for those buildings which our new Church wrights haue lately set vp specke and spanne new building Churchframes as it were of wood couered ouer with strawe which will not abide the fire I verily thinke they will not continue vntill they be old His third quarrell is against the choyse of the text as it were the plot of ground whereon to set my building The which because it is allegoricall is compared to a marish ground where though I digge deepe and doe what I can I shall hardly find fast ground whereon to lay my foundation The which quarrell doth please him so well that he repeateth it againe pag. 3. But without cause For seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtfull but is confessed on both sides that as by the 7. starres are meant the 7. Angels so by the Angels the Bishops of the Churches who seeth not that this assertion that the calling of Bishops is lawfull good is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn as it were vpon a Rocke For although some obiect that by the Angels are meant either all Ministers in generall as the newe sect of disciplinarians doth or the presidents of the Presbyteries as the Elder and more learned disciplinarians doe who doe not stand for the new-found parish-discipline yet I doe proue both by the text it selfe and by other euidence that the calling of Diocesan BB. is in this text commended vnto vs vnder this title of the Angels of the Churches But hereof more in my answere to the third pag. CHAP. II. Diuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface HAuing thus quarrelled with the Author the matter and subiect of he Sermon he setteth vpon the Sermon it selfe Which in the abortiue booke was dismembred into sixe parts and yet one maine part left out In this after-birth into 3 viz the Preface the body of the Sermon and the conclusion The Preface he saith is concerning the text and the fiue points I vndertake to handle and that againe he mangleth into 4. sections But if my aduersaries were as good in diuiding as they are in making diuision or so skilfull in analysing logically as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath bene logically composed they would either haue followed the ordinarie diuision of orations saying that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts which are 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proaeme to pag. 2. lin 3. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proposition or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein the points to be handled are first diduced out of the text to pag. 6. l. 16. and secondly enumerated and distinctly marshalled pag. 6 7. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation prouing and defending those fiue points from pag. 8. to 94. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conclusion containing the application pag. 94. to the end Or if this diuision had not liked them they might out of the transition pag. 94. haue obserued a distribution of my Sermon into 2. parts viz. the explication continuing to that place and the application from thence to the end The explication containeth 2. assertions the first that the pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Churches here meant by the Angels were Diocesan Bishops such for the substance of their calling as ours be The second that the function of Diocesan BB. is lawfull and good Of these two assertions the former is an explication of the text the latter a doctrine collected out of the text so explained These assertions are for the handling of the text first propounded to be discussed in that which he calleth the Preface and afterwards proued in that which he calleth the body of my booke The former as I said may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proposition the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confirmation Now for the tryall of the first viz. whethâ—er by the Angels of the Churches we are to vnderstand Diocesan BB. or not these two points are propounded to be examined first what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Bishops whether parishes onely as our new disciplinarians say or dioceses as we and the elder disciplinarians hold and consequently whether themselues were parishionall or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of preheminence they had in their Churches in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches whether onely a prioritie in order aboue other Ministers and that but for a short time and by course or a superioritie in degree and maioritie of rule for terme of life And this is the summe of that which he calleth the Preface Now I come to his sections and his quarrells against the same Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 1. Our Lord and Sauiuor Christ hauing appeared to S. Iohn in a glorious forme c. to heauen at the mids of pag. 3. In these words two questions which be determined in the 2. assertions euen now mentioned are propounded The former what manner of persons are meant by the Angels of the Churches And why this question was to be discussed I alleadged as he saith 2. reasons The first because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels this interpretation it selfe is allegoricall and therefore
points which I purposed to handle for the proofe of either And first for the former which is the explication of my Text viz that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their function as ours bee I endeuoured to prooue it both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by disproouing the presbyterian discipline wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation that the question beeing whether the Churches were gouerned by presbyteries as they say consisting for the greater part of Lay-men or by BB as wee holde the disproofe of their presbyteries might bee a proofe for our Bishops and also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was as well extensiuè against our newe disciplinarians viz that the Churches whereof they were Byshops were Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops as intensiuè against the Elder and more learned disciplinarians that BB. were superiour to other Ministers not onely in order but in degree also c. And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling this is proposed to bee proued that the fanction of Byshops is of Apostolicall and diuine institution and this as in the ende of the Section is signified was the thing chiefely intended by mee These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies which the greatest part doth not so well conceiue and remember but for more easinesse was content to make a bare enumeration of them And this is the frame of that which hee calleth the bodie of my Sermon the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame For hauing first of the fiue points which I propound referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution as he calleth it where I enquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were and the last to the latter which respecteth the qualitie of their function in the next words as if presently he had forgotten himselfe after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vpon The mansion saith hee that hee buildeth is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships vnder the roofe whereof their Honours may dwell safely as in a Sanctuary without danger of the aduersarie and much delight Looke we vpon the bare frame as it standeth without glasing painting c it is of this forme The function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches is lawfull and good The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches Therefore the function of the Byshops of the Church of England is lawfull and good The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe pag 2. and 55. where hee saith that the office and function of Bishops heere meant by Angels is in this Text approoued as lawfull and commended as excellent That is is lawfull and good hauing diuine both Institution being Angels and approbation being starres The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus The Bishops of the 7. Churches for the substance of their calling were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are The which hee saith by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue and that in the foure first points of the fiue for to them he there referreth vs for that purpose pag. 61. Wee are therefore in the next place to see out of which of those foure points it is concluded and how Which to my vnderstanding must be out of the second third and 4. points after this manner The function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction is the function of the Bishops of the 7. Churches The function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of those Bishops whose Churches are Dioceses and themselues Diocesan Bishops superiour to other Ministers in degree hauing sole power of Ordination and Iurisdiction Therefore the function of the Bishops of the Church of England is the function of the Bishops of the seuen Churches In lieue of the proposition of this Syllogisme wee haue the prosyllogisme or proofe of it in the 2.3 and 4. points before named c. Beholde to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordinarie all this stirre had bene needlesse But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing as wilfull in dissoluing the same The end of his double dealing appeareth in the sequele to haue bene double For first whereas there are of the fiue points which I propounded two of principall vse seruing directly the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops both which hee could wish that I had spared hee would faine make his Reader belieue that of these two the former is impertinent and the latter superfluous or as else-where hee speaketh the former bootlesse the other needlesse 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points hee bringeth them to his frame as it were to the racke first finding fault that they doe not directly prooue that which hee would haue them and then by torture making them to say what hee pleaseth that he may the more easily contradict them To countenance these sophisticall shifts he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge and hauing hammered it well hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogisme with the proofs thereof Vsing this syllogisme for the parts of my Sermō as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer and retching out those which seeme to come short But let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together some such Syllogisme as this may be framed But in Analysing we must respect not what we can deuise or collect but what the writer did intend and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were the other as a doctrine collected out of the text concerning the qualitie of their function viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good This which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text pag. 2. and
whether of vs spake without vnderstanding let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge For he conceiueth me as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining whenas I plainely made it according to those Fathers iudgement but one part of the power of Order they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vnto Presbyters but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop and in that sense say the Bishop in respect of the power of order is superiour onely in ordination Yea but Bellarmine for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter must serue the turne saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments Me thinks the Refuter should adde that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments Doe they not meane fiue others besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper the ministery of two whereof viz. of confirmation and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order because the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments which the Presbyters may not viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders Howbeit of the former Ierome saith that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij quà m ad legis necessitatem It is true that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt They hold that the Sacrament of the altar as they call it is the Sacrament of Sacraments whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar and that euery one of their 7. orders all which they call Sacraments is onely to be counted a Sacrament as it hath reference to the Eucharist to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders according to their diuers offices referred to that Sacrament And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ which is as well performed by a Priest as a Bishop therefore they teach that Bishops and Priests are both of one order and that the order of Bishops as it is a Sacrament is not superior to that of Presbyters but only as it is an office in respect of certaine sacred actions in this sense saith Thomas that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest the office of a Bishop is an order For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to haue referrence to the body of Christ either verum his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar which they call the power of order or mysticum mysticall that is the the Church and members thereof which they cal the power of iurisdiction This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the Masse their doctrine of transubstantiation wherby euery Priest is as able to make his maker as the Pope himselfe I call it newe because all the ancient writers doe confesse as before hath been shewed Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees and consequētly orders of the Ministery for what is an order but that degree which among things or persons which are subordinate one to another some being higher some lower any one hath obtained Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts let vs consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth 1. And first that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction 2. That the power of order is a spirituall power whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men which they who are not of the same order at the least may either not at all or not ordinarily performe 3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order though they haue no iurisdiction or charge and therfore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order 4. That of Ecclesiasticall order there are three degrees in Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and because neither of the two superiour orders may be granted to any per saltum therfore each superiour order includeth the inferiour so that a presbyter may doe that which belongeth to a Deacon and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter but not contrariwise 5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme and to preach common to them with Deacons who shall be thereunto authorized by the B. a power also to minister the holy communion and authority to remit and retaine the sinnes of men which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order First because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter without iurisdiction or relation to a charge And secondly because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him Besides this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order and according to the Popish doctrine belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance 6. The power of order in B. B besides all this power which is in the Presbyters is power by imposition of hands to conuey grace as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to penitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the ministery for their ordination As touching the former the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order yet the Apostles alone and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vpon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost Acts. 8. 19. And for the latter we read that both the Apostles themselues and such as they ordained Bishops did ordaine ministers by imposition of hands insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Creet where were diuers Presbyters before Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordaine ministers I hold this authority
true or false And I hope in God that which now I haue written in defence of that which they heard will not onely satisfie those which are not wilfully addicted to your nouelties but also conuict the conscience of the gainesayers whom I desire in the feare of God to take heede how they resist a truth whereof their conscience is conuicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is hard to kicke against the pricks To that which hee obiecteth concerning the mentioning of prouinciall Bishops whome I did not name before I answere that although I did not expressely and by name argue for prouinciall Bishops yet diuers of my proofes were directly of them and by a consequence from the greater to the lesse applied to Bishops as also by this reason because eeuery prouinciall Bishop is a diocesan Bishop though not contrariwise To his other cauill of not direct concluding I haue answered already 4. or 5. times But before I ended this 4. point I thought it needfull to preuent an obiection which is vsually made that whatsoeuer the office of the ancient Bishops was yet they were not called Lords as ours bee Whereunto I answered that men were not to be offended at that title for these two causes 1. Because it is a title in the holy scriptures giuen both to naturall and spirituall Fathers as I proued out of Genesis 3◠35.1 Kings 18.7.13 2. Because the title of Angels which the Holy Ghost in this place giueth to them is a title of greater honour then the other by how much the heauenly gouernours of men vnder God are more excellent then the earthly To the former besides some insulting speeches which hee will bee ashamed of when hee shall finde himselfe put to silence hee answereth that the word Lord was a terme common too all superiours as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and Dominus in Latine which I confesse to be true in the vocatiue case the words being vsed as our English Sir But otherwise where the word is to be translated Lord it is both in Hebrew and Greeke a word of like honour with our English Lord. And therefore it was a great ouersight in those which translating 1. Pet. 3. where Peter saith that Sara called Abraham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord read that she called him Sir For her words whereunto Peter had relation were these Vadoni zaken and my Lord is olde It were something foolish to say and my Sir Yea but saith he the word Lord with vs is appropriated to men of Nobility and speciall place in ciuill gouernment To omitte that it is not so appropriated to them but that euen meane gentlemen are so called in respect of the manours which they hold it appeareth by that which hath bene said that Bishops not onely now haue but in the Primitiue Church had as speciall and as honourable a place in the gouernment of the Church as the ciuill magistrates he speaketh of haue in the common wealth Their calling also beeing more honourable I see no reason why they should be enuyed an equall title of honour To the latter reason he answereth 2. things First that the titles of honour now giuen to Bishops were also inferiour to the title of Angels which the holy Ghost giueth them and yet then they had them not nor till Poperie he meaneth the Papacie was grown to his full height His simple Reader would thinke that hee speaketh vpon certaine knowledge and cannot but beleeue him and so be deceiued by his confident speeches but he speaketh at all aduentures as his affection not as his knowledge lead him The Papacie came not to the ful height vntil the time of Hildebrād which was aboue a thousand yeares after Christ when the Pope had gotten the temporall supremacie and so both the swords The beginning of that which our writers call the Papacie was when the Pope first obtained the spirituall supremacie which was about the yeare sixe hundred and seauen If therefore I shall prooue that Bishops had as honourable titles in the first sixe hundred yeares as they haue now with vs I shall euince that not onely before the height but before the arising of the Papacie they were called Lords and by other titles no lesse honourable then Lord. But I will not desire so large a scope the most of my proofes shall be contained within three or foure hundred yeares after the death of Christ. Alexander therefore the Bishop of Alexandria writing to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople giueth him this stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To my most honourable brother Not long after Arius writeth thus to Eusebius of Nicomedia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my most desired Lord. The same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to my Lord Paulinus Bishop of Treuers vsing also the same title more then once in the same Epistle of Eusebius of Caesaria calling him my Lord Eusebius For though these two whom I last cited were not sound in the faith yet their writing sheweth what was the custome of the Church before the Councill of Nice Not long after the same Councill Athanasius succeeded the foresaid Alexander in his behalfe the Bishops which came out of Aegypt write to the Bishops assembled in Councill at Tyrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our most honourable Lords The Synode held at Ierusalem writing also in his behalfe to the Presbyters Deacons people in Aegypt Lybia Alexandria moue thē to be thankful vnto God who hath now say they restored vnto you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your pastor and Lord. About the same time certain BB. direct their letters to Iulius B. of Rome the great Patron of Athanasius vnder this stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most blessed Lord c. Gregory Nazianzene writing to Gregory Nyssen concerning a false report which had beene spread that the BB. had put him by the bishopricke saith let no man speake vntruths of mee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor of my Lords the BB. The councell held at Illyricum writing to the Churches and Bishops of Asia and Phrygia c. hath these words we haue sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Lord and fellow minister Elpidius to take notice of your doctrine whether it bee as we haue heard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Lord and fellow Minister Eustathius George the Bishop of Laodicea writeth to certain BB. thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most honourable Lords The fathers of the second generall Councell direct their letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most honourable Lords Damasus Ambrose c. And in the same epistle speaking of BB. call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most reuerend and most honorable brethren The said Ambrose holding with other BB. a Synode and writing a synodicall epistle to Syricius then B. of Rome among other BB. Aper a Presbyter subscribed thereunto for his B. vsing these words Exiussudomini Episcopi Geminiani at the commandement of my L.
whom a paternall and pastorall authoritie is committed may worthily be honoured with the title of Lords To this he replieth that we call not Shepheards nor Fathers Lords and therefore the paternall or pastorall authoritie of Bishops doth not make them capable of such Lordly titles J answer that Magistrates yea Princes both in Scriptures and prophane Writers are called Pastors as well as Bishops and for the same cause are Lords Neither doe I doubt but that the title of Father being giuen by way of honour to him that is not a naturall Father is a word of as great honour at the least as Lord and that is the signification of the name Papa which hauing beene giuen in the Primitiue Church to all Bishops as a title of eminent honour is for that cause by the Pope of Rome appropriated to himselfe The second there is too great oddes betweene the titles of Bishops and other Ministers the one being called Masters the other Lords I answered there is no such great difference betweene Master and Lord that inferiour Minister which assume to themselues the title of Master should denie the title of Lord to Bishops Hee replieth as conceiuing my speech simply that there was no great difference betweene Master and Lord. If you respect their vse in relation as they are referred to their correlatiues there is no difference if the vse without relation among vs there is great difference but yet not so great as that Ministers which assume the one to themselues should denie the other to Bishops there being as great difference betwixt their degrees as their titles Where he saith it is not assumed but giuen by custome to them as Masters of Arts both parts are false for both it is giuen to all Ministers as they are Ministers though not Masters of Arts though not graduates and also I especially meant certaine Ministers who not enduring the title of Lord to be giuen to Bishops will neither tell you their name by speech nor set it downe in writing without the preface of Mastership The third if Bishops bee called Lords then are they Lords of the Church I answered it followeth no more that they are therefore Lords of the Church because they are called Lords then the Ministers are Masters of the Church because they are called Masters for neither of these titles is giuen to them with relation but as simple titles of honour and reuerence No saith he let their stiles speake Lord of Hath and Welles Lord of Rochester c. What Lord of the Cities nothing lesse but Lords of the Diocese They are Lords of neither but Lord BB. both of the City and Diocese And the relation is not in the word Lord but in the word Bishop though it bee not expressed alwaies but many times is vnderstood The Refuter hauing thus weakly friuolously and fondlie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then lie shifted off my arguments and testimonies rather then answered them there being not one line in my Sermon hitherto which I haue not defended with euidence of truth against his cauillations notwithstanding concludeth with a most insolent bragge as if he had as his fauourites giue out laid me on my backe And therefore as some wrestlers after they haue giuen one the foile will iet with their hands vnder their side challenging all others euen so he hauing in his weake conceit giuen me a strong ouerthrow because he findeth me too weake to stand in his armes hee challengeth all commers saying Let him that thinketh he can say more supplie his default I do vnfainedly confesse there be a great number in this Land blessed be God who are able to say much more in this cause then I am notwithstanding a stronger propugner thereof shall not neede against this oppugner And because I am assured in my conscience of the truth and goodnesse of the cause I promise the Refuter if this which now I haue written will not conuince him as I hope it will whiles he will deale as a Disputer and not as a Libeller I will neuer giue him ouer God giuing me life and health vntill I haue vtterly put him to silence In the meane time let the Reader looke backe to that which hath beene said on both sides let him call to minde if he can what one proofe this Refuter hath brought for the paritie of Ministers what one sound answer he hath giuen to any one argument or testimonie to my one proposition or assumption which I haue produced and then let him consider whether this glorious insultation proceeded not from an euill conscience to a worse purpose which is to retaine the simple seduced people in their former tearmes of factiousnes THE FOVRTH BOOKE Maintayning the fift point that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine Institution The I. CHAPTER Prouing the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall institution because it was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Serm. pag. 54. It remaineth that I should demonstrate not onely the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling c. to page 55. li. 7. THE Refuter finding himselfe vnable to confute this discourse of the lawfulnesse of the BB. calling would faine perswade his Reader that it is needlesse moued and mouing thereto by as friuolous reasons as euer were heard of For though it be true that this point hath already beene proued by one argument is it therefore needlesse to confirme the same by a second Did euer any man meete with such a captious trifler as would not permit a man to proue the same truth by two arguments but the one must straight be reiected as needlesse but indeed his analysis was forced as he could not but discerne both by the distribution of the Sermon page 2. and also by the transition here vsed neither was this point handled before but the former assertion whereby the text was explicated that the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be superiour to other ministers in degree c. This which now wee are to handle is the second assertion being a doctrine gathered out of the text so explicated I confesse the former doth proue the latter and that doth commend the methode of my Sermon and both being disposed together may make this Enthymeme The Pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Church here meant by the Angels were diocesan Bishops and such for the substance of their calling as ours be Therefore the calling of such diocesan Bishops as ours be is lawfull But I contented not my selfe with collecting the doctrine out of the text but as the manner of all preachers is when they haue collected a doctrine which is controuersall I thought it needfull to proue and to confirme the same with other arguments But other arguments saith he needed not if the three middle points were sufficiently cleared what will he assume but the three former points were sufficiently cleared
be doubted but that each of these had Bishops to their successours euen in the Apostles times as before hath beene shewed and therefore the refuter should not make it so strange that Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus Serm. Sect. 8. pag. 75. Against this two things are obiected first that Timothie and Titus may seeme not to haue beene appointed BB. of Ephesus and Creet because they did not continue there but were remoued to other places c. to other in Creet pag. 78. The first obiection is thus framed by the Refuter Timothie and Titus did not continue in Ephesus and Creet but were remoued to other places Therefore Timothie and Titus were not ordayned Bishops of Ephesus and Creet I answere by distinction For if by continuing they vnderstand as the words seeme to import a perpetuall residence without remouing or trauelling thence vpon any occasion then I denie the consequence or proposition which is vnderstood For by no law either of God or man are Bishops or other Pastors so affixed to their cures but that vpon speciall and extraordinarie occasion they may either for their owne necessitie or for the greater or more publicke good of the Church trauaile or remoue to other places It is sufficient that they be ordinarily resident vpon their charge If by continuing be meant ordinarie residence then I denie the antecedent and doe contrariwise affirme that although vpon speciall and extraordinary occasions they were by the Apostle called to other places as his or the Churches necessity required yet these were the places of their ordinary residence And that I proue because they both liued and died there That they continued or had their ordinary abode there in their life time I proue by testimony of Scripture and other euidence For if Paul required Timothie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue or abide still in Ephesus and appointed Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to continue to redresse vvhat vvas vvanting in Creet then vvere they to continue or haue their ordinarie residence there But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The Refuter denieth the consequence to be of any force vnlesse first it could be proued that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a perpetuall abiding in a place without departing from it all a mans life vvhich needeth not seeing ordinarie residence which is meant by that terme which is required in BB. ordinarie Pastors may be without such perpetuall abiding Secondly except 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be vnderstood also for the whole terme of life But it sufficeth that it signifieth to continue in redressing as the Geneua translation also readeth For thereby is meant as I said that hee was not left there for a brunt but that he should as things were defectiue or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue to redresse them and still keepe that Church in reparation For though the Church were new as the Refuter obiecteth to signifie that it should not need any reparation yet were the Bishops and Presbyters subiect to death and the places of them which dyed were to be supplied and the Church subiect to personall corruptions both for doctrine discipline manners which would need reformation And whereas their opinion who imagine that Timothie was required to stay at Ephesus but for a short time when Paul went into Macedony Act. 20. is contrary to that former testimony concerning Timothie I shew that in all the iourneyes of Paul into Macedony mentioned in the Acts Timothie did accompany him And therefore that this voyage of Paul was after his first being at Rome with which the Acts of the Apostles end not mentioning any of his trauels and other occurrents which afterwards happened for the space of nine or tenne yeares The Acts of which time cannot otherwise be knowne but by such of his Epistles as were written in that time and other monuments of antiquity The which passage though the Refuter hath passed by in silence I thought good to put the Reader in minde of that he may acknowledge many things to haue beene done by the Apostles which are registred in other records of anitquity though they be not mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles which endeth vvith those things which happened aboue fourty yeares before the death of S. Iohn Now the Acts of the Apostles which were performed after S. Lukes history thereof were in part recorded by Hegesippus and Clemens and other auncient Authors which testifie that Paul ordayned Timothie B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet and that he and other Apostles appointed other Bishops in other places Whose testimonies whosoeuer doe refuse to beleiue doe themselues deserue no credit To those allegations therefore out of Paul I added the credible testimony of diuers Authors viz. Dorotheus in synopsi Hieron siue Sophron. in Catalogo in Tito Isidorus de vita morte sanctorum Num. 87. 88. Vincent lib. 10. c. 38. Antonius ex Policrate part 1. tit 6. c. 28. Niceph. l. 10. c. 11. Who report that Timothie and Titus as they liued so also dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet The Refuter answereth he may well credit the report of these Authors and yet not grant that therefore they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Indeed if I had argued thus as the Refuter would haue the Reader thinke Timothie and Titus dyed the one at Ephesus the other in Creet Therefore they were BB. there it had beene a loose consequence But he wrangleth besides the pupose It was obiected that Timothie and Titus were not Bishops of those places because they did not continue there I proue that they held their ordinary residence there not onely because S. Paul required them both to continue there but other Authors also testified that they both liued and died there The Refuter answereth and would haue the Reader content himselfe with this answere that howsoeuer indeed it is true that they continued there yet hereof it followeth not that they were Diocesan Bishops of those places Yea but saith he it would be obserued that M. D. granteth the consequence to be good namely that they were not Bishops of Ephesus and Creet if they did not continue there but were remoued to other places Now that they were remoued himselfe confesseth c. If I had confessed that they were remoued and also that if they were remoued they were not Bishops Then I should haue granted both the antecedent of the Enthymeme which hee said before that I denyed and also the consequence But indeed I denyed the consequence in that sence which the Refuter conceiueth and yet granted that though they were sometimes remoued yet they kept ordinary residence the one at Ephesus the other in Creet And therefore their trauelling or remouing vpon extraordinary occasions doth not hinder their being BB. Doe you indeed grant that sometimes they were remoued marry that will I proue saith the
Alexandrinus and Eusebius Finally that the Apostles committed the Church which is in euery place to Bishops whom they ordayned leauing them their successours testified by Irenaeus and Tertullian who saith that as Smyrna had Polycarpe from S. Iohn and Rome Clement by the appointment of Peter so the rest of the Churches can shew quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostoliâ—i seminis traduces habent what Bishops they haue ordayned by the Apostles the deriuers of the Apostolicall seed To all this he hath nothing to answere but that which heretofore hath beene fully refuted that these Bishops were but ordinary Pastors of particular congregations c. saâ—ing that he taketh also exception against their assertion who said that Bishops be the successors of the Apostles But not onely Irenaeus and Tertullian haue auouched so much but diuers others of the Fathers as Cyprian Ierome and Augustine Cyprian saith praepositi that is Bishops Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt succeed the Apostles as being ordained in their steed And Ierome saith omnes Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt all Bishops are the successors of the Apostles And againe he saith Episcopâ—s Apostolis succedere And Theodoret calleth the gouernment of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And likewise Basill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the presidency of Apostles who haue deliuered to Bishops as Irenaeus saith their owne place of gouernment in the seuerall Churches And this is that which both Ierome and Augustine expounding those words of the 45. Psalme pro patribus nati tibi sunt filij haue deliuered that insteed of the Apostles Bishops were ordayned gouernours of the Church in all parts of the world Which point is duely to be considered For hereby it is manifest that the Bishops haue receiued and deriued their authority from the Apostles whose successors they are not onely in respect of doctrine as all other true ministers but also in the gouernment of the seuerall Churches And when the Disciplinarians can shew the like warrant for their Presbyteryes especially of Lay-elders or our refuter and his good friends the Brownists for the cheife authority of the people we will harken to them Once it is euident that Christ committed the authority and gouernment of his Church to his Apostles who were to deriue the same to others Wherefore who haue any ordinary right they haue receiued the same from the Apostles So Timothie and Titus receiued their authority from Paul Linus from Peter and Paul Policarpus from Iohn c. And all other the first Bishops from the Apostles from whom by a perpetuall succession it hath beene deriued to the Bishops which are at this day But where is any euidence of the like deriuation from the Apostles of authority to the people of Lay-elders I know not Thus haue I made good my former proofes that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution The V. CHAPTER Answering the allegations out of Ierome Serm. Sect. 11. pag. 87. Against all this that hath beene said to proue that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution the authoritie of Ierome is obiected c. to page 89. AGainst the testimonies of men saith the refuter what is fitter to be obiected then the authority of such a man as of set purpose disputing the question determineth the contrary to that which was so commonly anouched Which speech if it be duely examined iust exception may be taken against euery branch thereof For first hee would insinuate that nothing hath beene brought to iustifie the calling of Bishops besides the testimonies of men when besides the testimonies of men I haue brought good euidence of sound reason and besides that better proofe out of the scriptures to warrant the Episcopall function then euer was or will be brought for the Presbyterian discipline Againe it were fitter and to better purpose against the testimonies of men if I had produced no other proofe to haue brought either testimonies of scripture or sound reasons or for want of them the testimonie of so many and so approued authors to counterpoise the weight of their authorities who haue beene alledged on the contrary part But scriptures failing reasons wanting testimonies of other Fathers being to seeke Ierome alone must be faine to beare the whole burden of this cause For though some latter writers may be alledged to the like purpose yet all is but Ierome Whose not onely iudgement they follow but reteyne his words Neither doth Ierome so oft dispute this question or determine the contrary as the refuter in his shallow conceipt imagineth Or if any wheres he doth determine the contrary against that which was commonly auouched both by himselfe and others his determination deliuered in heat of disputation ought not to be of so great weight as what he hath deliuered not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heat of contention but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatically or historically For Ierome was but a Presbyter and there were two things in his time which might prouoke him by way of contention to say more in the behalfe of his degree then doth exactly agree with the truth The one was that the Bishops of those times did too much depresse the Presbyters For they might not onely in their presence not preach nor baptize nor administer the Communion but also in some places they might not preach at all nor any where baptize vnlesse they fetched their Chrisme from the Bishop against which practises of the Bishops Ierome in some places of his works doth inueigh But that which troubled him most was that the Deacons in his time especially at Rome because they had more wealth as the fashion of the world is thought themselues better men then the Presbyters For the confutation of whom he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters aboue the Deacons as much as he can and may seeme to match them more then truth would permit with the Bishops For which the onely ground which he hath is this because the name Bishop and Presbyter were for a while in the Apostles times confounded Which God knoweth is a weak ground and easily out of his owne writings ouerturned But let vs examine the particulars First it is alledged out of Ierome that vntill factions did arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo c. the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters but when they began to draw Disciples after them namely such as themselues had baptised it was agreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of the Church should belong and that the seede of schismes might be taken away Whereunto I answered first that this speech in respect of the Church of Ierusalem is vntrue which was first gouerned by the Apostles in common and after committed to Iames in particular before we read of any Presbyters
The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocese and Paraecia which is translated parish Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation assembling in one place Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops and defendeth mine entrance thereinto Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power and first in the power of ordination Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches in the Apostles times without their dislike Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment FINIS An Ansvvere to the Preface THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes to prepare the Reader and if he be such a one as will be led with shewes to draw his affections to himselfe and to withdrawe them from me It containeth a Prologue to the Reader an Epilogue concluding with prayer and with praise to God The former consisteth of a declaration and of a direction to the Reader He declareth three things first the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this worthie worke secondly his valiant resolution in vndertaking it thirdly his manner of performance As touching the first that you may not thinke him after the manner of factious spirits blinded with erroneous conceits and transported with vnquiet passions vnaduisedly or headily to haue attempted this busines he telleth you that there were two motiues that moued him thereto the one his strong opinion pag. 3 the other his vnquiet desire pag. 7. His opinion was that my sermon defending the honourable function of Bishops was most needfull to be answered for so he saith I deemed it as needfull to be answered as any booke our Opposites haue at any time set forth And that no man should thinke this his opinion to be fantasticall or erroneous hee confirmeth it with diuers reasons but such as who shall compare them either with the truth or with his opinion for the proofe whereof they are brought or one with another he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine euery one fighting with another The first reason because he sawe the Sermon tended directly to proue that the calling of our L. BB. as they now exercise it in the Church of England is to be holden Iure diuino by diuine right not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure c. In which speech are diuerse vntruthes For first with what eye did hee see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon which directly and expressely I did disclaime pag. 92. where I did professe that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution to be an Apostolicall and so a diuine ordinance yet that I doe not maintaine it to be Diuini juris as intending thereby that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie as though there could not be a true Church without it which himselfe also acknowledgeth pag. 90. of his booke 2. where I spake of the substance of their calling with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it As if he would make the reader belieue that I went about to iustifie all the exercise of their function which in all euen the best gouernements whatsoeuer is subiect to personall abuses 3. Neither is it true that the ancient tenure of BB. was onely Iure humano vnlesse he restraine the ancieÌ„tnesse he speakes of to these latter times which are but as yesterday For in the primitiue Church as hereafter shal be plainely proued the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolicall and the first Bishops certainely knowne to haue bene ordained by the Apostles And as his first reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion and with it selfe For why was the sermon most needfull to be answered because saith he it is euident that the doctrine therein contained howsoeuer M. D. saith it is true profitable and necessarie is vtterly false very hurtfull and obnoxious necessarie indeed to be confused at no hand to be belieued In which words 3. reasons are propunded which now come to be examined It is euident saith he that the doctrine in the sermon is vtterly false therefore it is most needfull to be confuted But say I if it be euidently false it needs no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so iudged without disputation or discourse Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not euident This reason therefore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is euident saith he that it is vtterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted The second brâ—anch It is very hurtfull and obnoxious therfore c. Obnoxious what is this subiect or in danger to be hurt with euill tongues subiect to sophistical cauillations and malicious calumniations But hurtfull it is not for I
the bare recitall of his fiue exceptions wil be a sufficient euidence of his folly First diuerse of the Fathers may so haue expounded it though their writings be not come to our hands there is one instance therfore some haue so expounded it 2. Some of them as Augustine Ierom Chrysostome c haue so written that thâ—y may well be so vnderstood which is vtterly false for they vnderstand by Presbyters no other but Ministers ergo c. 3. Others write so briefly that they expound not the former wordes of this text because Presbyter to them was as plaine as Minister to vs ergo c. 4 The ancientest of them as Ignatius Polycarpus Tertullian Origen Cyprian c whose workes are now extant though they left nothing written vpon this place yet no doubt they vnderstood it of Lay-Elders for they alwaies in their writings wherein Presbyter is oft mentioned doe vnderstand thereby a Minister of the word yea but they were most like to beare witnesse to this truth No doubt for three of them Ignatius Polycarpus Cyprian were Metropolitan Bishops by the other two Tertullian and Origen who were Presbyters you may easily conceiue what manner of men the Presbyters who were distinguished from Bishops were Yea but in many mens iudgements who would faine haue it so they did giue witnesse to this truth though they left nothing written vpon this place But the fift passeth all for therein hee giueth plaine instances I warrant you of some before our age c. For Luther Bucer Bullinger and diuerse others in their time vnderstood this place of Lay-Elders therefore diuerse before our age The antecedent he taketh for granted as well as he might because as we heard before how Luther who doth not speake of this text by Presbyteri vnderstaÌ„deth verse 19. ancient Ministers and Bullinger expounds it not of Lay-Elders so what Bucer saith we haue not yet heard But the consequence he proueth by such an argument as sheweth he was very neare driuen because D. King in a Sermon preached in the yeare 1606. saith that the Geneua discipline had not at that time seene the age of a man though you should reckon the age of a man not at an 100. but 70. yeares and well might he say so For in Geneua it was first conceiued in the yeare 1537. when Caluin hauing with Farell Viret in the yeare before attempted as Beza saith Ecclesiam compoâ—eâ—â— and had drawne the first draught of it got the assent of the Senate and people of Geneua on the 20. of July 1537. howbeit before the yeare 1541. it was not established hauing in the meane time beene banished together with Caluin But why should time which is so precious be spent in coÌ„futing such seelly shifts whereof euen the refuter himselfe is by this time I hope ashamed CHAP. V. Containing my second reason why Lay-Elders are not proued out of 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 4. pag 9. Neither doth the Apostle indeed note two sorts of Elders as they imagine but two duties of the Ministers c to pag. 11. med IN these words is set downe the second reason of my exception against their allegation of 1. Tim. 5.17 prouing that there is no necessitie this place should be vnderstood as they imagine of Lay-Elders The reason standeth thus If the words may very well be vnderstood of two duties of Ministers the one generall to be good presidents the other special to labour in the word doctrine in respect whereof the Apostle requireth double honour to be yeelded vnto them then is there no necessitie that this place should be vnderstood as they imagine of Lay-Elders But the Antecedent is true Therefore the consequent I might haue reasoned thus If diuerse and sundry expositions all of them vnderstanding this place of Ministers alone may be giuen and each of them more probable or likely then that which is for the Lay-Elders then is there no necessitie nor yet likelihood that the place is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders But diuerse and sundry such expositions may be giuen as after you shall heare Therefore there is no necessitie nor yet likelihood that this text is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders But I thought it sufficient to insist in this one exposition which seemeth to me to haue beene the very meaning of the Apostle For seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person doth alwaies in all other places in the writings both of the Apostles Fathers signifie a Minister or Priest and no one testimonie can be alledged to the contrarie what sense is there that it should otherwise be expounded here vnlesse the other words of the sentence did inforce so much But that they doe not seeing they note onely two duties of Ministers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the generall dutie of the Ministers that is to be good presidents and to labour in the word and doctrine is the speciall duetie for which especially honour is due to them I had once thought that the especiall dueties of a Minister had here beene mentioned the one respecting his behauiour onely the other the ministerie of the word vnto which all the duties of a Minister may be referred But I did consider it would be obiected that the meaning of the Apostle was not that double honour should be giuen to Ministers that onely liued well vnlesse they did also preach for in another place where he would haue Ministers to be honored and loued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more then aboundantly for their worke sake he ioyneth these together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which labour among you and which gouerne you in the Lord and therefore I insisted in this exposition against which well may my aduersarie cauill after his fashion but hee can take no iust exception especially if the emphasis or force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not neglected As for his triuiall gibes which are frequent with him of going lame vpon both feete of going vpright on one legge and halting of another of halting on the former legge and limping of the hinder legge they are fitter for him to vse then for me to answere But though hee boasteth that my Syllogismes hitherto haue beene lame on both feete yet I trust the iudicious Reader will testifie with me that he hath not beene able as yet to disproue any one proposition or assumption which hitherto hath beene produced And I am verily perswaded for all his gibes he will haue no better successe in those which remaine As touching the Syllogisme which now he is about to oppugne he seemeth to be glad of mine amendment that whereas hitherto I haue gone lame on both feete now I goe vpright on one legge the consequence of the proposition being good But yet he saith I am neuer the nearer for on my assumption as it were on the other legge I halt downe right still But shall the proposition
of my exposition there are two parts the one concerning the subiect or parties here mentioned whom I expound to be ministers onely the other concerning their duties in regard whereof double honour is due to them the one generall the other speciall in both respects the one text doth answere the other as face answereth to face in the water For first that Presbyters here are Ministers onely I proue thus The Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20. were Ministers onely The Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17 were the same to whom he spake Act. 20. Therefore the Presbyters of whom he speaketh 1. Tim. 5.17 were Ministers onely Secondly that the duties both generall and speciall are peculiar to Ministers I proue by this argument The duties which Paul requireth Act. 20.28 are duties required peculiarly of Ministers The duties for which double honour is due 1. Tim. 5.17 both generall and speciall are the same with those which Paul requireth Act. 20.28 therefore the duties for which double honour is due 1. Tim. 5 17. are duties peculiarly required of Ministers This latter Syllogisme my expert aduersarie obserued not the former he flingeth after his manner into a connexiue Syllogisme For though his forge doe scarcely afford any other yet hee hath gotten a pretie smacke of Syllogizing that way were it not that his Syllogismes for the most part are too long by the halfe But here he surpasseth himselfe for hee hath cast my whole Syllogisme into his connexiue proposition and in his minor repeateth at large both the proposition and assumption But let vs see what he saith to these Syllogismes In the first he onely denieth my proposition viz. that the Presbyters Act. 20. were none but Ministers which I must confesse in that breuitie I tooke for granted because I thought it needed not to be proued For seeing that verse is not onely generally vnderstood euen of them which stand for Lay Elders writing not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but commenting vpon or otherwise expounding that place of Ministers but also is alledged both by protestants and papists to iustifie the calling of BB. I did presume that it was to be vnderstood of such onely as are Ministers at the least But that which before was for breuitie omitted shall now be supplyed First therfore I argue thus All those that are called BB. in the acts and writings of the Apostles are Ministers of the word All the Presbyters to whom Paul speaketh Act. 20.28 are called BB. Therefore all the Presbyters to whom Paul spake Act. 20.28 were Ministers of the word Or thus Lay-Elders are no where called BB. All the Presbyters Act. 20.28 are called Bishops Therefore none of those Presbyters were Lay-Elders Shall I need to proue any of the premisses Are our Presbyterians of late growne so absurd as to denie them What are not all BB. Ministers and are your Lay-Elders growne of late to be Bishops did not our refuter pag â— affirme that these Presbyters Act. 20. are Angels and Bishops and that Angels are pastors and are Lay-Elders Angels and pastors too â—ie for shame and yet so absurd is our refuter as to say that some of these Elders whom Paul calleth Bishops were not Ministers but their lay or onely-gouerning Elders But if either reason or authoritie will preuaile with him he may easily be confuted my reason I frame thus All Episcopi or Bishops must by the Apostles rule which is generall be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to teach 1. Tim. 3.2 that is as he expoundeth himselfe Tit. 1.9 holding fast the faithful word according to doctrine that they may be able to exhort with holesome doctrine and conuince the gain-sayers But not Lay-Elders nor any but Ministers doe need by the Apostles rule to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach in that sense that he expoundeth it Tit. 1.9 For on those words Caluin obserueth that it is required in theÌ„ that they should be learned and indued with sound knowledge and that their doctrine should tend to edification c. Therefore not Lay-Elders nor any but Ministers are Bishops As for authoritie let him shew me any testimonie of scripture or of any sound writer old or new that is not a partie vsing the word Bishop for Lay-Elder or any one that is not a Minister and I will yeeld to him the bucklers Caluin though a partie plainly saith that the scripture vseth promiscuously these words Bishops Presbyters Pastors Ministers to signifie those who doe exercise the ministerie of the word And hauing intreated of them in conclusion he saith that as yet he had not spoken of any other functions but such as consist in the ministerie of the word And in another place although he collâ—teth out of 1. Tim. 5.17 two sorts of Presbyters yet he saith that the Presbyters mentioned Tit. 1.5 are by the context manifested to be no other but Doctors or Teachers because Paul presently after calleth them Bishops The author of the booke de Ecclesiastica disciplina and of the defence thereof ingenuously confesseth that onely pastors and teachers are Bishops and that ruling Elders are not comprehended vnder the name Bishop and so farre is he from comprehending them vnder the title of Bishop that although he were resolued to find a roome for them 1. Tim. 3. yet he durst not comprise them vnder the title and description of a Bishop though the Bishop be all one with Presbyter Tit. 1.5.7 but shrowdeth them vnder the title and description of Deacons as hereafter we shall shew Againe all pastors of Christs flocke are Ministers onely All the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors of Christs flocke therefore they were Ministers onely Or thus Lay-Elders are not Pastors of Christs flocke of other flocks perhaps they may All the Presbyters of Ephesus were Pastors of Christs flocke Therefore they were not Lay-Elders That they were pastors I proue thus Bishops set ouer the flocke of Christ by the holy Ghost to feed the Church of God are pastors The Presbyters of Ephesus were such Act. 20.28 Therefore they were pastors And that Caluin confesseth more then once And our refuter also in the place before alledged from whose confession I argue thus The Angels were pastors saith our refuter The Presbyters of Ephesus were Angels therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors But why should so plaine a thing seeme to be made doubtfull with longer proofe for if such Presbyters as were also Bishops and pastors were any but Ministers then Presbyters Bishops and pastors were Lay-Elders also and Lay-Elders were all in all And whereas he obiecteth that Lay-Elders may be comprehended vnder the name Presbyter and Episcopus because D. B. saith that these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop Presbyter DeacoÌ„ or Minister are oft so largely taken as that they comprise all Ecclesiasticall functions I answere in a word by Ecclesiasticall functions he meaneth onely the functions of the Ministerie including neither your Lay-Elders nor
quique seniores the approued Seniors be praesident Thirdly of Clement in his epistle to Iames translated by Rufinus cited by Gratian if any of the brethren haue Saints let them not be judged by secular Iudges sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided to their determination let the parties stand Fourthly of Ierome Presbyters saith hee meaning ministers whom he also calleth Preists and attributeth to them the ministery of the worde and Sacraments from the beginning were appointed Iudges of causes c. And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries testifie that the Presbyters besides that they taught the people did also compound suites and controuersies Now that their aduise was much neglected and themselues but too much dejected by the Byshops in Ambrose his time appeareth not onely by his but also by Ieromes complaint Likewise by diuers Canons in the fourth councell of Carthage held about the yeare 401 wherein it was decreed that the Bishop without the assemblie of his clergie should not ordaine clerkes that in the ordination of a presbyter the Presbyters also which be present should with the Bishop impose their hands that the B should not determine any mans cause but in the presence of his Clergy that he might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church without the consent of his clergie that the Bishop though in the Church and in the assembly of the presbyters ought to sit in an higher place yet priuatly he should vse the presbyters as his Colleagues and sitting himselfe should not suffer a presbyter to stand that the Deacons should acknowledge themselues to be Ministers to the presbyters as well as to the Bishops that if the presbyters badde them they might sit in their presence which otherwise they might not doe All these things considered together with that which before hath bene alledged to proue that there were neuer any Lay-Elders doe necessarily euince that there is no reason to imagine if Doctorum signifie Doctors or Teachers Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place And so much of the exposition of this place according to the former sense of the word Doctorum signifying Doctors which with my aduersaries consent I doe much preferre before the other and therefore can be very well content to giue in the latter Notwithstanding because some perhaps will vnderstand the word Doctorum as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters signifying learned and will therefore imagine that the Elders whose counsell was neglected by them were Idiotae or Lay-men for their sakes therefore I will briefly shew that though this interpretation be admitted yet there is no necessitie that Seniors should signifie Lay-Elders for Doctorum being according to this interpretation a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters Ambrose his meaning may be conceiued to be this that the assistance and councell of ancient Ministers meant by Seniors who were wont to assist the Bishop was growne out of vse either by their owne negligeÌ„ce or the Bishops pride Whereunto after much froath of idle words he replyeth First that the Councell of Ministers was not growne out of vse in Ambrose his time and this he indeuoureth to proue by fiue testimonies First of Ierome saying that the Churches at the first were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio by the common Councell of Presbyters Which testimonie maketh against him for Ierome speaketh of such Presbyters as Paul speaketh of who were Ministers and are there called Bishops If therefore the Church was at the first gouerned by common councell of Ministers and if Ambrose complaine that their councell in his time was neglected which at the first had beene vsed and whereby the Church had beene gouerned who seeth not that it was the neglect of the Ministers aduise wherof Ambrose complaineth 2. yea but Ierome saith we also in the Church haue senatum nostrum â—â—tum Presbyterorum our senate a company of Presbyters which testimonie is wont to be alleaged to proue that in Ieromes time there was a Presbyterie of Lay-Elders But here my aduersarie presupposing that Lay-Elders were growne out of vse in Ambrose his time whom T C supposeth to haue continued diuers hundred yeares after Ambrose bringeth it to proue that in Ieromes time who was almost as ancient as Ambrose there was a Senate of Ministers which no man doubteth of For else-where he saith the Church hath a Senate a companie of Presbyters without whose Counsell the Monkes may doe nothing And not only in Ieromes time the Church had but in all Ages since euen to this day it hath such a Senate which in latter times hath called Capitulum the chapter Howbeit both in Ambrose his time and since the aduise and assistance thereof notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsell of Carthage hath beene though in some things eueÌ„ to this day vsed yet in the most things and for the most part neglected His third testimony which hee saith is plaine enough of the saide Ierome cited in the canon Law is also plaine against him For hauing saide as euen now I alledged him that the presbyters from the beginning had bene appointed to heare and iudge causes as the Bishops assistants hee prooueth it because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops howsoeuer now the Bishops enuied them that dignitie c. His 4. testimonie is the 23. canon of the councell of Carthage which euen now I cited which maketh against him rather then for him For seeing good lawes arise from bad manners it is to bee imagined that according to the complaint of Ambrose and Ierome who were somewhat before this councell the presence of the Clergie and assistance of the presbyters was neglected and that this neglect gaue occasion to the making of that canon His. 5. testimonie is of D. Bilson though hee name also another learned maÌ„ only to abuse him Howbeit D. Bilson vnderstandeth Ambrose as coÌ„plaining of the Bishops of his time who whiles they would seeme to rule alone had excluded or neglected the aid couÌ„sell of their bretheren of the Clergie who were wont to aduise and assist them as well in Doctrine as in Discipline And whereas in the second place he replieth that slothfulnesse and pride must needs be referred to the same persons and not slothfulnes to presbyters and pride to BB I answeare that if Doctorum be a common title to both as it is if it signifie learned and if the slothfulnes of the presbyters rather then of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of vse as the pride of the BB then is there no necessitie that slothfulnesse and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops but rather it is very likely that slouthfulnes is imputed to
c. wherefore it is the duty of euery Catholicke Christian to beleeue none of these But it will be said doe you then hold euery one to be an heretique who is of Aërius iudgement in this point Whereunto I answeare first that although I hold them to be in an error yet I doe not judge them to be heretiques who do not with pertinacy defend their error And secondly I make great difference betweene errors in the articles of faith and fundamentall points of Religion such as was the error of Aërius as he was an Arrian and such as is the error of those who deny our iustification by Christs righteousnes and in matters of Discipline for these though they be dangerous yet they are not damnable errors and it is no great disparagement to men otherwise learned and orthodoxall to haue been ouerseene in matters of Church gouernment so that they doe not for the same leaue the Church and make separation for such also be counted heretikes by the Councels 1. Constant. ca. 6. As for the refuter it is at his choice whether he will be accounted an heretike or not In my iudgement he were best to say Errare possum I may erre as in this controuersie hitherto to hath done sed hâ—reticus esse nolo but I will â—e no heretike by obstinate defending of that wherein his conscience is conuicted Now to helpe the Refuter because I desire to giue the Reader satisfaction I will not conceale that somewheres I finde besides Ierome the testimonies of Chrysostome Augustine and Ambrose obiected as fauouring the opinion of Aërius but vnworthily Chrysostome is alleadged as if he should say There is in a manner no difference betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter Indeed Chrysostome vnderstanding by Episcapus 1. Tim. 3. him that is properly called a Bishop asketh why Paul speaking of Bishops and Deacons maketh no mention there of Presbyters Whereunto he maketh answeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no great difference for they also haue receiued doctrine and gouernment of the Church and those things which Paul said concerning Bishops agree to them But doth it hence follow that in Chrysostomes judgement there was no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter doth not Chrysostome in the next words acknowledge that the Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in respect of ordination And as touching singularitie of preheminence doth not he teach that in one Citie or Church where are many Preâ—byters there ought to be one Bishop and so he â—old Sisiâ—â—ius the Nouatian Bishop at Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And though he ascribe gouernment of the Church to the Presbyters vnder the Bishop doth he not acknowledge the Bishop to be the gouernor of the Presbyters and when he was Bishop himselfe did he not exercise great authority ouer them But what saith Augustine Quid est Episcopus nisi primus Presbyter what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter doth he not expound himselfe primus Presbyter h. e. 〈◊〉 Sacerdos the first Presbyter that is the high Priest such a one therefore in Augustines judgement is the Bishop to Presbyters as the high priest was to the other priests for in the same place also he compareth the Deacons to the Leuits and the Presbyters to the Priests Yea but Ambrose saith Of a Bishop and a Presbyter there is one order for either of 〈◊〉 a Priest but the Bishop is the first The words are not in his booke de dignitate Sacerdotali as it is quoted for there I find the contrarie for Ambrose saith There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop another of a Presbyter another of a Deacon And againe he signifieth that as Bishops do ordaine Presbyters and consecrate Deacons so the Archbishop ordaineth the Bishop But they are found in his commentarie on the first to Timothe cap. 3. Where asking the same question with Chrysostome why after the mention of the Bishop he presently addeth the ordination or order of Deacon because saith he of a Bishop and Presbyter there is one ordination or order for either of them is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that euery Bishop is a Presbyter but not euery Presbyter a Bishop for among the Presbyters the Bishop is the first Now what he meaneth by the first Presbyter may else where be shewed in his writings In the Bishop saith he are all orders because he is primus Sacerâ—â—â—s hoc est Princeps est Sacerdâ—tum the first Priest that is the Prince of the Priests and in the place alleaged he signifieth that Timothe the Bishop was the first Presbyter at Ephesus And such presbyters I doe confesse our BB. to be So much of Aërâ—us concerning whom I haue often maruelled what some learned men doe mean to go about to salue the credit of such a frantique fellow as Epiphanius describeth him being also an absolute Arian and schismaticke or Separatist from the true Churches Now saith the refuter let vs take a view of his great army of antiquity the whole number of them is but fiue and 4. of them almost 200. yeares vnder age Marke here either the skill or conscience of this great Analyser The first argument which indeed is vnanswerable that he swalloweth And in stead of analysing and answearing the rest he cauils at the number and at their age I will therefore propound my arguments and withall answere his cauils And first for their number besides the fiue he speaketh of I produced the testimonies of Epiphanius and Augustine deliuering not only their own opinions but the iudgement of the Church Epiphanius reporting that all Churches did reject and condemne Aërius and Augustine testifying that the Catholike Church did hold the contrary to Aërius his assertion that as I said was my first argument My second argument is this Antiquity did distinguish the ministers of the Church into 3. degrees viz Bishops Presbyters Deacons answerable to the high Priest the Priests and Lâ—â—ites vnder the Law Therefore it giueth testimony to the superiority of BB. ouer other ministers in degree The antecedent I proue by the the testimony of the Councill of Sardica of Optatus of Ignatius and generally by the testimony of Fathers in Councils in which as I said nothing is more vsuall then the distinction of Ministers into these 3. degrees That clause if it had pleased the refuter to haue taken notice of it might haue preuented his cauill concerning either the number or the age of my witnesses But he such is his conscience passing by it bâ—aggeth wiâ—h what face I know not that I haue no antiquitie which distinguisheth the ministrie into 3. degrees Here therefore 3. things are to be shewen which are so many arguments 1. That antiquity distinguisheth the Clergy into 3. degrees 2. That it termeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees 3. That they compare them to the high Priest Priests and Leuits As touching the first
For first is not this a plaine lie and a notorious falsification of my words to say I plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan Bishops c Where doe J mention or mean that necessity he speaketh of Could those words so is it for the same cause to be retained no otherwise be expounded then as implying an absolute necessity That is to be retained which is meet or fit expedient or conuenient profitable or needfull to be reteyned Secondly let the reader remember how oft the refuter hath charged me for saying the Bishops calling to be holden d iure diuino implying a perpetuall necessity thereof and chargeth the doctrine of my sermon to be in that respect contrary to the lawes of our land which make the forme of Church gouernment to be alterable by the King and yet here acknowledgeth for aduantage that I holde no such matter Thirdly let it be obserued how vnder this pretence of amazement he shifteth of the testimony of Cyprian which sitteth so neare to him and his consorts But the reader I hope will beare in mind the words off Cyprian noting the source of all schismes to be this when the Bishop who is but one and gouerneth the Church by the proud presumptioÌ„ of some is contemned c. And in the same epistle you ought to know saith he to Pupianus that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whosoeuer are not with the Bishop are not in the Church and that they doe flatter themselues in vaine who haue not peace with the Priests of God that is the Bishops c. To this purpose Cyprian often writeth Neque enim aliâ—â—de haereses c. Neither haue heresies or schismes any other beginning then this that Gods Priest meaning the Bishop is not obeied Neither is one Bishop for the time nor one Iudge in Christs steed acknowledged c. Againe haec sunt initia haereticorum these bee the beginnings of heretikes these the risings and indeuors of ill minded schismatikes that they please themselues and contemne their B. with swelling pride Sic de ecclesia receditur thus doe men depart from the Church c. And in another place Hence doe men rush into heresies and schismes when they speake euill of Priests and enuy their Bishops c. The Lord open their eies who are faulty in this behalfe that they may see their sinne and touch their hearts that they may repent thereof Out of Ierome who is the onely man among the Fathers on whose authority the Disciplinarians in this cause doe relie I produce three most pregnant testimonies the first affirming that vnlesse this singularitie of preeminence be yeelded to the Bishop there will be as many schismes as Priests The second that euer since Saint Marks time the Presbyters hauing elected one placed him in a higher degree and called him Bishoppe The third that when some beganne to say J am of Paul I of Apollo which was in the Apostles time it was decreed by the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest in euery Church vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Of these allegations the first giueth testimony to this superiority de iure the other two testifying de facto beare witnesse that it hath been so in and euer since the Apostles times These testimonies are featly auoided with a promise to answere them afterwards when he will say neuer a word to the present not almost to any purpose The second part of this section wherein I prooue against Beza and the better sort of the Disciplinarians that the BB. had this singularitie of preeminence neither for a short time nor by course but were elected for terme of life this Refuter reiecteth as not worth the mentioning hee hath so oft refuted it alreadie Refuted oft I would bee sory that hee should bee able with soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth to refute any one sentence in the Sermon All the refutation of this point which hitherto wee haue had was this that I charged them with vntruths that I threaten kindnesse on them that I had need to be as eloquent as Pericles if I could perswade that any of them haue said this when as I haue brought foorth most plaine and euident allegations to this purpose And although I forbeare to mention Beza tendering his credit yet what I heere confuted is auouched by him in his twenty third chapter of his booke concerning the degrees of Ministers chiefly in the 141.142.143 pages Now because this point is of great moment though the Refuter haue tripped ouer it so lightly like a dog ouer a hot hearth as if I were afraid to touch it I will therefore endeuour to giue the Reader some further satisfaction therein by adding some other proofes What antiquity thought of the singularity of Bishops may appeare first by these two testimonies out of Cyprian and Theodoret. For when Nouatian was ordained a second Bishop in Rome besides Cornelius some of the Clergy hauing ben before Confessors who also had consented to him mooued with repentance and returning from schisme vnto the Church confessed their error saying Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. Neithâ—r are we ignorant that there ought to be one God one Christ the Lord whom we haue confessed one holy Ghost one Bishop in a Catholike Church Likewise when Constantius being intreated by the godly Matrons in Rome gaue consent that Liberius should returne but withall appointed that hee and Felix should rule the Church in common the faithfull people deriding that sentence of the Arrian Emperor with one voice cried as Theodoret reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one God one Christ one Bishop After these speeches of the true Christian people adorned with pietie and iustice Liberius returned and Felix departed to another Citie and shortly died Which came to passe by Gods good prouidence saith Sozomen that the seat of Peter should not be diffamed as gouerned at once by two rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a note of dissension and repugnant to the law ecclesiasticall 2. And that the adding of a second Bishop was iudged vnlawfull and esteemed as a note of schisme Cyprian in some other places besides those which before I cited doth testifie Writing therfore to the foresaid Confessors who had ioined with Nouatian Granat me saith he it greiueth me c. When I vnderstood that you there against ecclesiasticall order against the Euangelical law against the vnity of Catholicke institution haue thought that another Bishop was to be made that is to say which is vngodly and vnlawfull to be done that another Church should be instituted the members of Christrent asunder the minde and body of the Lords flocke which is but one to be torne with schismaticall emulation And in another place Where a Bishop is once
and Presbyter were at the first all one yet professeth that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon the dignity of the Bishop c. Hauing passed by these two hee professeth to begin with Wickliffe whom hee would faine haue the Reader beleeue to haue beene a Marprelate or an oppugner of the superiority of Bishops But howsoeuer either Papists through malice or Protestants for want of information haue in some points so conceiued of him of both which sorts the refuter quoteth some yet those who haue perused his writings protest that not onely for doctrine but also for discipline hee was wholy conformable to the present Church of England approuing the gouernment of Archbishops Bishops and Archdeacons c. And whereas the Rhemists obiect against Wickliffe that he had renued the heresie of Aerius D. Fulke answereth thus It appeareth by many places of Wickliffe his works and namely in his Homily on Phil. 1. that he acknowledged the distinction of Bishops and Priests for order and gouernment although for doctrine and administration of the Sacraments they are all one Indeed in the booke of Martyrs where be eighteene articles obiected against Wickliffe though neither the twelfth article which the Refuter mentioneth nor that which Pighius obiecteth against him is contayned in that number the which articles he explaneth Among which the fifteenth is this that euery Priest rightly and duely ordered according to the law of grace hath power according to his vocation whereby he may minister the Sacraments and consequently absolue any man confessing his fault being contrite and penitent for the same Which article when he came to expound hee gaue this reason because that the order of Priesthood in his owne nature and substance receiueth no such degrees either of more or lesse And yet notwithstanding the power of inferiour Priests in these dayes be vpon due consideration restrayned and sometimes againe in time of extreame necessitie released And thus according to the Doctors a Prelate hath a double power to wit the power of order and the power of Iurisdiction or regiment And according to the second power the Prelates are in an higher maiestie and regiment Thus haue I recited word for word what is set downe in the booke of Martyrs the words whereof the Refuter depraueth making Wickliffe to say the order of Priesthood receiueth no degrees of more or lesse howsoeuer the Doctors say that the Prelate hath a double power c. Whereby he would make the Reader beleeue that he differed from those Doctors with whom he doth agree affirming as many others haue done who notwithstanding allowed of the superiority of Bishops that in the power of order all Priests are equall though Bishops haue also the power of Iurisdiction wherein they are superiour to other Priests To the same purpose is alledged his assertion of two orders Priests and Deacons which the Papists themselues holde diuiding Priests â—nto Maiores which be Bishops and Minores which be Presbyters Why he quoteth Bales centuries I know not vnlesse it were to shew his more exquisite reading then other mens hauing belike read there something concerning this cause which no man else is able to read or to finde But I had almost forgotten his first allegation which the Refuter pretending such plenty might well haue omitted as impertinent For though he enuied against the excessiue lordlinesse and tirannicall domination of the Popish Bishops Yet doth it not proue that he was an enemie to the superiority of Bishops or the substance of their calling And whereas with Wickliffe hee ioyneth the Waldenses whose opinion he doth not cite but by the report of Pighius it is euident by the booke of Martyrs in their story that they acknowledged these three degrees Bishops Priests and Deacons Artic. 7. And therefore is vntruly layd to their charge by Aeneas Syluius that they held no difference of degrees among Priests vnlesse perhaps by Priests be meant Bishops The next is Iohn Hus saith the Refuter who was charged by the Pope and his officers to erre First in that he held not nor allowed that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinals Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them but affirmed that signification to be drawne out of the Schoole-men Secondly that he auouched all Priests to be of like power and therefore the reseruation of the Bishops casualties order of Bishops and consecration of Clerks was inuented onely for couetousnesse Thirdly that he held that euery man hath authority to inuest men into the cure of soules Whereto I answere first that these articles were indeed exhibited against him to the Pope by Michael de Causis but I doe not read that either he acknowledged them to be true or that he was condemned for them Secondly in the book of Martyrs and also in his Story prefixed before his works it is said that of the articles which were obiected against him there were but a few which he acknowledged to be true This therefore is the refuters argument Iohn Hus was accused by his malicious aduersaries who made no conscience of accusing him falsly that hee held all these articles therefore all these were his opinions But if it be sufficient to accuse as the Emperour said who can be innocent the godlyest Martyrs neuer wanted accusers whom if the refuter should therfore pronounce guilty of those matters whereof they were accused he should shew himselfe a wise man But so he dealeth with Iohn Hus he was accused of these opinions therefore he held them Wherfore he must either proue that Hus did acknowledge them to be true or else what doth hee but subscribe to the accusations of his malicious accusers against him But suppose the first of these three were his what will the refuter inferre thereof he did not hold nor allowe that by the Church was meant the Pope Cardinalls Archbishops and Clergie vnderneath them therefore hee did not allowe the calling of Orthodoxall Bishops Michael de Causis his accuser for this article quoteth his booke de Ecclesia where I finde this assertion by the allegation whereof you may guesse how he was vsed in the rest that the Pope of Rome with his Cardinalls is not the whole body of the vniuersall Church but a part and that the Pope is not the head thereof but Christ. The which assertion hee opposeth against the sayings of some Doctors who held first that the Romane Church is the Church vniuersall that of the Church of Rome the Pope is the head and the colledge of Cardinalls the body Which assertion if you shall compare with his aduersaries allegation and apply to the refuters purpose you shall perceiue the malice of the one and folly of the other For the second article his accuser doth not quote any of his bookes but saith thus aliqualiter patet iste articulus ex praedictis this article after a sort may be gathered out of the precedent articles wherein there is
no such matter contayned The third he proueth by Husses fact because in the kingdome of Boheme many by him and his fauourers and abetters haue beene thrust into Parish Churches which they a good while ruled without the institution of the See Apostolicke and also of the ordinary of the City of Prage Whether Hus did this or no it is questionable but if there had beene Orthodoxall Bishops by whose authority faithfull Ministers might haue beene instituted without question he would neuer haue attempted any such enterprise But hee held the Popish Clergy to be Antichristian and therefore did as he did Otherwise for the function it selfe of Bishops he saith plainely more then once that the rest of the Apostles had equall honour and power with Peter and that when they deceased the Bishops did succeede in their place And that all Bishops of Christs Church following Christ in manners are the true Vicars of the Apostles And out of Ierome that all Bishops are the Apostles successours And approueth that saying of Bede as no man doubteth but the twelue Apostles did premonstrate the forme of Bishops So the seauenty two did beare the figure of the Presbyters and second order of Priests And thus much of Iohn Hus to whom the refuter ioyneth Ierome of Prage who iustifieth the doctrine of Wickliffe and Hus against the pompe and state of the Clergie Which if he had done he had spoken neuer a word in disallowance of the Episcopall function But that word state is foisted in by the refuter who alledgeth almost nothing truely His words were these whatsoeuer things M. Iohn Hus and Wickliffe had holden or written specially against the abuse and pompe of the Clergy he would affirme euen vnto the death And againe that all such articles as Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Hus had written and put forth against the enormities pomp and disorder of the Prelates he would firmely hold and defend And persisting still in the praise of Iohn Hus hee added moreouer that hee neuer maintayned any doctrine against the state of the Church but onely spake against the abuses of the Clergy against the pride pompe and excesse of the Prelates For it was a greife to that good man saith he to see the Patrimonies of Churches mispent and cast away vpon harlots great feastings and keeping of horses and dogges vpon gorgeous apparrell and such other things vnbeseeming Christian religion And againe I take God to my witnesse that I doe beleiue and hold all the articles of the faith as the holy Catholicke Church doth hold and beleiue the same but for this cause shall I now be condemned for that I will not consent with you vnto the condemnation of those most holy and blessed men aforesaid vvhom you haue most wickedly condemned for certaine articles detesting and abhorring your wicked and abhominable life Whereby it is apparant that both hee and they did not speake against the function or calling of Bishops but against the personall abuses and enormities of the Popish Bishops which none but a viperous broode would apply to the persons of our Bishops and much lesse against their sacred function After them ariseth Martin Luther saith the refuter whose sayings hee quoteth in his booke against Popish Bishops of priuate Masse and against the Papacie c. But for the first of these Luther himselfe hath giuen vs this caueat Let no man thinke that what is spoken against these tyrants is spoken against the Ecclesiasticall state and true Bishops or good Pastors Let no man thinke that what is said or done against these sluggish beasts and slowe bellies is said or done against the heads of the Christian Church And howsoeuer in the heate of his zeale against these Antichristian Bishops hee vttered some things vvhich seeme preiudiciall to the calling yet you haue heard it testified before by sufficient vvitnesses that in his iudgement hee allowed the gouernment of Bishoppes Whereunto adde the testimony of Camerarius that Melancthon non modò ad stipulatore sed etiam authore ipso Luthero not onely by the consent but aduise of Luther perswaded that if Bishops would grant free vse of the true doctrine the ordinary power and administration ouer their seuerall Dioceses should be restored vnto them The like may be said of Zuinglius For he that professeth as Zuinglius doth in the booke before cited that Iames was B. of Ierusalem Philippe of Caesarea Timothie of Ephesus cannot lightly speake against the Episcopall function it selfe If he speake against the Popish Clergy for arrogating the name Church to themselues what is that to the purpose or if he affirme that euery seuerall congregation according to the phrase of the Scriptures is a Church who denieth it or if hee inueigh against the sole and supreme power of Bishops whom doth this touch but the Pope Oecolampadius might be of opinion that the Church was gouerned by onely gouerning-Elders and perswade the Senate of Basill who had no Bishop that such may be chosen to assist their Pastor and yet notwithstanding not disallowe the gouernment of Bishops Caluin Zanchius and other learned men haue said and done as much who notwithstanding approued the Episcopall function And as Melancthon was of Ieromes iudgement that Bishop and Presbyter at the first was all one so with Ierome he doth allowe the superiority of Bishops and where the Episcopall gouernment was ouerthrowne he sought to restore it as you haue heard before and did restore it as may appeare by these testimonies You will not beleeue saith he writing to Luther how greatly they of Noricum and some others doe hate me propter restitutam Episcopis iurisdictionem for restoring the iurisdiction to Bishops Againe some are wonderfully angry with me because I seeme to restore the dominion of Bishops Camerarius also reporteth how inhumanely some accused Philip for maintaining of Bishops c. Where hee alleadgeth Master Tindall affirming that in the Apostles times an Elder and a Bishop were all one c he doth but play with names which no man denyeth to haue been confounded so he saith all that were called Elders or Priests if they so wel were called BB. also though they haue diuided the names now Yea but in his booke of the obedience of a Christian man he saith that a B. is the ouerseer but of a parish and is to preach the word of God vnto a parish and for the same to chalenge an honest liuing of the parish This allegation the refuter hath notably wrenched For Tindals words be these by the authoritie of the Gospell they that preach the word of God in euery parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to chalenge an honest liuing For Tindall speaketh of such a B. as was but a Presbyter and saith that hee which preached the word in euery Parish should haue an honest liuing the refuter citeth him as saying that a B.
exposition fauouring Lay-Elders hath the coÌ„sent of new writers His propositioÌ„ examined and whether the authority of old writers or new is to be preferred Rheti l. 1. c. 15. § Sect. â— His assumption answeâ—ed 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 writers § Sect. 5. Not all those whom he citeth doe expound this texâ— of Lay-Elders Aduers falso nomiâ— Episc. 331. Dec. 5. Serm. 3. § Sect. 6. Ad pag. 21. His third reason because my exposition is not made by any of the Fathers Primas in 1. Tim. 5.17 〈◊〉 1. Tim. ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is to rise well to spare or forbare nothing for the care of the sheepe § Sect. 7. In Cant. 8 1â— The 2 reason that Lay-Elders 〈…〉 Tim. 5.17 1. Thess. â— 12.13 Ad pag. 22. § Sect. 2. His answere to the 2. reason and first to the proposition By applâ—â—o him â—â—6 16 § Sect. 〈…〉 but a 〈◊〉 shift Ad pag. 2. â—4 2. King 22. § Sect. 4. His 1. Reason that my exposition is a bare shift § Sect. 5. His 2. Reason § Sect. 6. Ad Pag. 25. His third reason coÌ„taining 3. Syllogisme◠§ Sect. 7. Answere to his first syllogisme To the 2. 1. Tim. 4.3 Attend to reading and doctrine Pag. 7. 8. § Sect. 8. His 3. Syllogisme answered § Sect. 9. The reasons 〈…〉 exposition examined The first reason Aâ— pag. 26. Caluin in Act. c. D. Whiâ—ak de ponâ— Rom. pag. 1 § Sect. 11. Inst. li 4. c. 3. § 8. Caluin in Tit. 1.5 Pag. 101. In Act. 2 § Sect. 12. Pag. 14.15 Tit. 3.8.14 Ad pag. 28. Iohn 21.1 Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. â— Iohn 21 1â— 16.17 To feede 〈◊〉 flocke saith Raynolds to performâ— the dutie of Pastor vnto Conf. with â— 461. Cal. in 1. Peâ— 5.2 Epist. 59. ad Paulinum Apoca. 1.6 In Act. 14.23 In Act. 20.28 Cons. wâ— Haâ—â— p◠§ Secâ— Ad. pag. 29. His cauâ—â— the prop His spite against the assumption Their 〈◊〉 thâ— tenancâ— due to 〈…〉 Bez. in vit An. 1536. 〈◊〉 1541. See the lawes of Geneua summ capit diâ—câ—ph Eccl. Genâ—a inter eâ—ist Caluiâ—j Bez. de grad Mâ—â—â—â— c. 11. pag. â—◠〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 before the Helâ—et confess Lib. 1. 179. § Sect 4. His obiection denying their confession refuted D. Bilâ—on pag. 130. pag. 7. pag. 129.130 Ad pag 30. D. 〈◊〉 Pag. 90. 1. Tim. 5. 1. Pet 5. Lib. 1.17 179. Chap. 14. Pag. 74. Chap. 4.5.6.7.9.11.12.14.16.17.18.19.31.34 His 2 Obiection Gal. 6.7 Lib. 1.178 1. Cor. 9.11 Obiect 3. Obiect 4. § Sect. The excâ—tion that Elders if need are haue alloâ—â—ance ansâ—â—red T.C. In 1. Tim. 5.17 § Sect. 7 His exceptiâ—â— that allowaÌ„â— occasioned by the Eldeâ— need is yeelded for theâ— worke answâ—red Ad pag. 3◠§ Sect. 8. No honour of maintenance appointed to Lay-Elders in Gods booke See the suruey of discipli Pag. 440.441 DemoÌ„st Prefac demonsâ— Ibid. Luk. 19. 27. Table oâ— cipl § Sect. 9 The office Lay-Elders nâ—t prescribâ— in the scriptures Eccl. dis fo 5 T.C. l. pag 16 Demonsâ— pag 1 â— The parts the Elders â—ice not pâ—â—scribed in Scripture Heb 1 Leu. 19. Matt 18 15 16 17 Eccl. discipl 122 T.C. Beza Arguments prouing the office of Elders out of the Scripture answered § Sect. â—â— Their 2. argument 1. Thess. 5.12 Act. 20.28 Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § Sect. 12. The qualitie of Elders not described in Gods word 〈…〉 Pag 44 § Sect. 13. His 3. cauâ—â—les against pag. 10. answered a Vid â— confess â— s. 30. Synâ— Rom. sub syluest c. 12. q. 2. â— 27.28.2.30 § Sect. 1â— Ad pag. 3â— His 2. caâ—â—â— His 3. cauill The testimonie of Ambrose discussed Li. 2. part â— Pag. 44. Chap. 3. § 9 10. Ad pag. 33 T 〈◊〉 1. pag. 183. Ioh. 2. 〈◊〉 2. pag. 44. § Sect. 2. Concerning the maâ—â—ation of the 〈◊〉 Doâ—â—â—rum § Sect. 3. 〈◊〉 discussing 〈◊〉 testimonie â— Ambâ—â—se 17. pages 〈◊〉 T. C. h. 2. part 1. pag. â— 14. 〈◊〉 528. Luk. 1. pag. 41. 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 3.16 § Sect. Three â—â— noted in handling this tesâ—â—â—â—nie of Ambrose i) My reâ—â— their caption as â—â—ging Ambrose â—â—â—â—red as â—â—â—dest Ad pag. 3 35. In prefat § Sect 5. The reason why their exposition was to be reiected Ad Pag. 36. § Sect. 9. His answere to the Reason The â— Conâ—â—â—â—â—â—ce Pag 62â— Apolog c. 3 De offic li. c. 20. § Sect. 7. The second consequence Ad pag. 37. 1. Sam. 12.12 Deut. 33.5 Iud. 17.6 19.1 21.21 1. Sam. 8.7 1. Sam. 8 11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18 The .3 consequence § Sect. 9. The â— branch of the assumption 〈◊〉 Ambrose 〈◊〉 a Diocesan B. (a) Geograph lib. 5. Insubres hac aetate sunt qui Mediolanum Metropolin habuere (b) Epist. ad solita (c) De grad Min. c. 24. (d) Centur. 4 c. 10 11â—7 Ruffin hist. li. 2 c. 11. Paulin. in vit Ambr. (e) Theod. lib. 4. c. 5. (f) Balsam in Conc. cost in c. 2. olim omnes pro. â—iÌ„ciarum metropolitani a proprijs synodis eligebantur Conc C. haelc act 11. osteÌ„dat Bassianus si per synodum ReMetropolis (n) Cap. 3. (o) Theodor li 5. c. 18. (p) Ibid. (q) Epist. 32. ad valentin imp (r) Orat. in Auxent l. 5. Epist. inter Epist. 32. 33. Epist. 33. Cap. 11.157 § Sect. 13. The 3. branche of the assumption Cons. Aquil. Epist. 32. Ad Pag. 39. (a) Matt. 18. (b) Act 14.23 (c) Iam 5. (d) Rom. 12.8 (f) Ad Trallian (g) Apolo 39 (h) In Esa. 3 (i) Quintil. li 5. c 10. (k) Topic 2.2 (l) Ier. 19.1 Ps. 37.2 § Sect. 2. Their argument vrged refuted Ad pag. 40. Pag 67. Pag 26.29.31 § Sect. 3. Foure things declared First that BB. were called Doctores (a) li. 2. part 2. pag. 42. 43. (b) Socr. lib. 5. c. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) Sozom. li 7. c. 19. (d) Possidon in vita Augustini (e) De offic li. 2. c. 24. (f) Conc. Carth. graec c. 54. Carthag 3. c. 42. Mat. 23.8.10 § Sect. 4. The 2. that Presbyters though not called doctores yet were Ministers (g) Conc. Aneyr. c. 1. 2. Can. Apost 8.14.16.17.50 Conc. Nic. c. 3. Con. Carth. graec c. 3. 4. Carth. 2. c. 2. Antioch c. 3. Chalced. c. 2. Sard. c. 10. c. (h) Con. Carth. 2. c. 2. grae c. 3. (i) De prescript aduers herstico (k) Lib. 4. Epist. 10. (l) Sacerdotibus (m) Cum. Episcopo Presbyteri Sacerdotali honore coniuncti lib. 3. epist. 1. (n) Ecclesiast hierarch c. 5. (o) Soz. li. 7. c. 19. (p) Isid. de eccles offic lib. 2. c. 7. q) Conc. Ancyr c. 1. r) In Mat. 25. homil 53. (s) Conc. Laod. c. 8. (t) Tertull. de baptism Hier. adu Lucifer (u) Can. Apost 3. 31. Conc. Neocaesar 13. C. Carth. graec 4. Conâ— Elib c. 32. C. Const. in Trullo c. 26. (x) Conc. Nic. c. 18. (y) Cypr. li. 3. epist. 14. 15. (z) Hier. ad Euagr. (a) Conc.