question whether the Church were gouerned by Bishops or such Presbyteries it is granted on both sides and agreed vpon betwixt vs that it was gouerned either by the one or by the other and that one and but one of these assertions is true For if both parts of the question or disiunction were true it were but a foolish question as the Phylosopher saith And that this is the question betweene vs the refuter hath truely witnessed in respect of the parts of the disiunction though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion where he saith the question betweene vs is whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops The question indeed de facto for the time past is whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speake of The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come is whether the Church may or should be gouerned by Bishops as we say or must be gouerned by their Presbyteries as they affirme This therefore being the question whether by our Bishops or their Presbyteries and this question implying a necessarie disiunction who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries is a direct proofe for our Bishops The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus Either the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops or by such Presbyteries as they stand for But not by such Presbyteries as they stand for Therefore by Diocesan Bishops The proposition is implyed in the very question betweene vs and the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie The assumption is that first point of the fiue which now we haue in hand The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proued viz. that the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent Now that the Church was not gouerned by such Presbyteries as they speake of I proued in this passage Because howsoeuer with great vehemencie the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only gouerning Elders hath beene by them vrged and obtruded vpon vs yet they are not able to proue that euer there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers For the question which now we haue in hand being whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitiue Church as were not Ministers forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffes not onely holding the affirmatiue that there were such but vehemently vrging that still there ought to be such we contrariwise the respondents and defendants holding the negatiue to wit that neither there were such nor now need to be the Reader therefore is to vnderstand that this burden of prouing lieth vpon them which hold and vrge the affirmatiue that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders and that in vs it is a sufficient proofe of the negatiue if we can maintaine that they are not able to proue the affirmatiue And whereas all their proofes may be reduced to two heads for either they be such testimonies where the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter is named or where at the least the function it selfe is as they suppose meant to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrarie assertions The one that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter doth alwayes signifie a Minister the other that there is no one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning the lay or onely gouerning Elder The former of them being affirmatiue I doe briefly confirme by three reasons the latter being such a negatiue as cannot otherwise be proued for the induction of the particulars were infinite I doe therefore maintaine it against the principall instances of the aduersaries And this is the summe of this passage Now I come to his cauils with the particulars The two assertions which I did euen now mention opposed to the two heads of their proofes the refuter casteth into one Syllogisme and hauing so done wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition and also with the manner of setting them downe The Syllogisme is this If in the writings of the Apostles the ancient fathers and councils the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter noting an Ecclesiasticall person doth euermore signifie a Minister or Priest and there cannot any one pregnant testimonie be alledged out of the scriptures councils or fathers mentioning or meaning any Lay-annuall-onely-gouerning-Presbyters then were there no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers but the antecedent is true therefore the consequent In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts the former whereof he reiecteth as superfluous because the latter is as firme and full without it And yet hauing reiected the former he saith the consequence is infirme and weake But if the former be therefore superfluous because the latter is firme and full without it by this reason it shall not be lawfull for a man to bring two arguments for one thing the one concluding the question without the other Yea but these two are ioyned in one proposition and therefore either must afford necessarie helpe to the other or the one is superfluous Blame him then that ioyned them and disdaine thâ—t sophisticall shifts of the refuter deuised to make himselfe worke Yea but if they be not ioyned the former wil be weake and of no strength for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth euermore signifie a Minister vnlesse I added onely For though it alway signifie a Minister yet it may also signifie him that is no Minister But in mine vnderstanding if it alwaies signifie a Minister it neuer signifieth him that is not a Minister Neither will it serue their turne that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and gouerning-Elders vnlesse they can shew that as alwaies it signifieth a Minister so in some place an onely-gouerning Elder also and they must remember that in this cause of Elders they are the opponents and therefore they must proue that the places which they alledge for their Lay-presbyters not onely may but of necessitie must be vnderstood of them or else in vaine doe they vrge and obtrude them vpon vs. And surely we must needs esteeme it a very partiall genus and such as yet was neuer heard of that is alwaies predicated of the one species and neuer of the other If animal did alwaies signifie a man and were neuer predicated of any other thing but man we should hardly thinke it were the genus but the selfe same species and conuertible with it as indeed Presbyter is with Minister and therefore not the genus of it and that I proued when I said it alwaies signifieth a Minister because in english it is priest and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus and noteth such a person as must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach But let him adde onely if that would please him
offices and to the Councell of Carthage Ambrose therefore saith that the Bishop must not be offended if either a Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergie doe by mercy fasting integritie learning or reading obtaine great estimation Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise But if any doe not obey the Bishop and desiring to aduance himselfe seeketh aâ— counterfeit affectation of learning humilitie or mercy he is lifted vp with pride going astray from the truth In the Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their owne that is a Bishop for so is the title of that chapter that the parts of the Diocesse without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receiue another Bishop But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers and histories of the Church were no Ministers or that by the word of God they had nothing to doe with the word and Sacraments Farre be it from vs so to thinke for nothing is more euident then that they were Ministers The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops but reckoned these three for sacred or consecrated persons calling them three degrees of the Clergie the Bishop answering to the high Priest the Presbyters to the Priests and the Deacons to the Leuites For proofe whereof there are almost as many euidences in the Canons of the councells as there be leaues But that it may most clearely appeare that the Presbyters were Ministers I will proue it first by their name SecoÌ„dly by their office thirdly by some lawes that peculiarly concerned them For their name as they are most vsually called Presbyters so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri that is Priests In the Councell of Carthage continencie is committed to Bishops Presbyters Deacons as it becommeth holy Bishops Priests and Leuits Tertullian reprouing the disorder of Hereticks saith among them hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus nam laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a lay-man for euen to lay-men doe they inioyne priestly functions Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserâ—ed that God might adde him to our Clergy and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Priests And more plainely in another place he saith that the Presbyters are ioyned with the Bishops in priestly honour Dionysius termed the Areopagite insteed of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon into which three he distinguisheth the Clergie vseth the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons Sozomen also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests Isidorus those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes are they who who are called Presbyteri And then hee setteth downe their office That to them is committed the dispensation of diuine mysteries they rule the Church and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops as also in teaching the people and office of preaching The Ancient Councell of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters who hauing once sacrificed did after refuse to retaine their place notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer the communion to preach or to minister in any part diuine seruice The learned Author of the vnfinished worke which goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome by the seruant which receiued fiue talents and gained other fiue vnderstandeth a Presbyter sent of God whome he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest and sheweth how by his fiue talents he gaineth other fiue that is by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him a godly life by the office of a Presbyter the careful gouernement of the Church by the word the sincere preaching of the word of truth by baptisme the begetting of worthy children to the Church by the sacrifice the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people and making intercession for their sinnes More particularly for the ministerie of the Sacraments the Councell of Laodicâ—a determined that those which returned from the heresie of the Cataphrygians though of the Clergie among them though supposed great men must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church Tertullian saith the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme then Presbyters Deacons c. In the Canons called the Apostles in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the coÌ„munion In the Councell of Nice the Deacons who are there said to haue no power to celebrate the Communion are forbidden to deliuer it to the Presbyter who hath power but must receiue it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands To omit other of the Fathers doth not Ierome expressely testifie that the Presbyters prayers the body and blood of Christ are consecrated For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop doe remoue to other Churches and refuse to returne when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serue any more As for the ministery of the word though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching yet both before and after they were allowed to preach Among their functions as you heard the Councell of Ancyra reckoneth preaching The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie but the Clergie also Ignatius requireth them to feede the flocke Origen testifieth that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos do instruct vs c. Basil saith that to them and to Deacons in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel Caluin speaking of the primitiue Church saith it was the dutie in those times of the Bishop as wel as of the Presbyters to apply themselues to the ministerie of the word and Sacraments Chrysost. hauing affirmed that there is no great differeÌ„ce betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter rendreth this reason for they also haue receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritie to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernement of the Church and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops doe agreâ— also to Presbyters In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉
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
must not be taken for those that serued at the mysteries but for such as were trusted with the dispensation of the common necessities of those that were assembled togither And verily to me it seemeth more then probable that these 7. were not such as S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 3. were in vse in the primitiue church being a degree inferior to Presbyters for these 7 or the most of them were as Eâ—â—phaenius others do testifie chosen out of the 70. Disciples were no doubt principall men among them full of the holy Ghost wisdom being before this ministers of Gods word For as the Apostles the chiefe and principal ministers thought it to appertain to their duty to take care of the poore so wheÌ„ the Apostles were disburdned therof that care was committed to 7 others who were chief men among the disciples Neither may it be doubted but that as Steuen was a worthy preacher so the rest wheÌ„ their teÌ„porary function at IerusaleÌ„ was ended by the dispersion of the faithful vpoÌ„ the death of Steuen gaue theÌ„selues to the preaching of the word as appeareth in Philip who was one of the 7. And wheras the Refuter saith that D. Bilson coÌ„fesseth the Deacons to haue bin only imploied in looking to the poor the coÌ„trary is euideÌ„t for speaking eueÌ„ of those 7. he collecteth by S. Pauls precepts coÌ„cerning DeacoÌ„s that their office was not only a charge to looke to the poore but also to attend the sacred assemblies seruice of the Church euen a step to the ministery of the word meaning as I suppose to the Presbytery As for those who properly are called Deacons it is most euident by innumerable testimonies that they were the third degree of the ministery whose office was a sacred ministery helping the Bishop or the Presbyter in the diuine seruice offering the bread and the cup performing as it were the office of a cryer in the Church which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in dismissing those which were to depart in commanding silence and exciting the people to deuotion and attention In the Council of Nice fault is found with Deacons who in some Cities did giue the Eucharist to the Presbyters but they are commaunded to containe themselues within their bounds knowing that they be the Bishops ministers are inferior to the Presbyters and to receiue the Communion after the Presbyters at the hands either of the Bishop or the Presbyters Iustine Martyr speaking of the Eucharist saith after the president hath giuen thanks and the people hath blessed they who with vs are called Deacons do giue and communicate to euery one that is present of the bread wine and doe carie it to those which are absent And hauing repeated the same againe he speaketh of the collections for the poore shewing that what was collected was coÌ„mitted not to the Deacon but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President by him to be distributed Tertullian saith The chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath the right of giuing Baptisme then the Presbyters the Deacons but yet not without the authority of the Bishop Cyprian euery where speaketh of theÌ„ as being of the sacred ministerie The ancient Councill of Eliberis hath this canon If any Deacon ruling or hauing the charge of a people without either Bishop or Presbyter baptize any those the Bishop by his blessing must accomplish The council of Carthage speaking of BB. other inferior orders which do handle the sacred mysteries reckoneth Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters Ierome hath these words If at the prayer of the Bishop alone the holy Ghost descendeth they are to be lamented who in villages and townes other remote places being baptized by Presbyters and Deacons do sleep or depart this life before they be visited of the Bishop The safetie of the Church dependeth vpon the dignitie of the chiefe Priest meaning the Bishop To whom if a power peerelesse and eminent aboue all be not giuen there will be as many schismes in the Church as Priests Hence it is that without the Chrisme which the Presbyters Deacons were wont to receiue from their own Bishop and commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon hath right to baptize In the 4. Councill of Carthage which is so oft alleaged by the Disciplinarians ther is direction giueÌ„ for the ordination of the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon other of the Clergie The Deacon is taught to acknowledge himself to be the minister aswell of the Presbyter as of the Bishop The Deacon is authorized euen in the preseÌ„ce of a Presbyter if ther be necessity he be coÌ„maÌ„ded to deliuer the Eucharist of Christs body to the people to wear an Albe only in time of oblation or reading To conclude Cyprian and other of the fathers when they terme the Deacons Leuits make them answerable to the Leuits as they do the Presbyters to the Priests do euideÌ„tly declare what they thought coÌ„cerning the office of Deacons That the Presbyters were not ministers of the word the refuter proueth thus They who might not preach nor baptize nor doe any pastorall duty without the Bishops licence were not ministers The Presbyters might not preach nor baptize nor do any pastorall dutie without the Bishops licence Therefore they were not Ministers The proposition is proued by 2. reasons First because it were a mockery of a ministerie to deny Ministers power to execute their office Secondly because euery popish Priest had potestatem ordinis that is power to do all things that belong to his order First to the proposition it selfe I say it is very false and that the contradictorie in all the parts of it is true viz that they who might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall dutie being therto licensed of the Bishop were ministers From which we may assume and conclude thus But the ancient Presbyters might yea ought to preach baptize administer the Lords supper and performe any other pastorall duties being therto authorized by the Bishop Therefore they were ministers And that the proposition is false it may appeare by the practise of our owne Church and of all the antient Churches whose Presbyters are and were Ministers as I haue sufficiently prooued before for the conuiction I doubt not of the refuters conscience and yet neither may nor might preach baptize administer the Lords Supper and performe other ministeriall functions but by leaue or authority from the Bishop Neither yet is the ministery of our clergy now nor of the Presbyters in times past a mockery because it agreeth not with his fancy but his fancy is a meere nouelty disagreeing from the generall practise of the most antient Churches For howsoeuer afterwards he malepertly chargeth mee with not vnderstanding the distinction of ecclesiasticall power in potestatem ordinis et iurisdictionis into the power of
haste touching only vpon the points as a dogge by the riuer Nilus not daring to stay by it yet so brag he is that he would seem to haste away not for feare but rather in disdain as not vouchsafing to waste time in a matter either so impertineÌ„t as the former part of this section or so needlesse as the latter For this is his vsual guise to cast off those points of the Sermon which indeed are most materiall as impertinent or needlesse The former is impertinent because it is not prooued to belong to those seuen Angels nor within the first two hundred yeeres Which is a meere euasion vnlearned and J greatly doubt also vnconscionable Doe I not plainely note that these seuen Angels had this singularity of preeminence when as I say the holy Ghost teacheth that whereas there were many Presbyters who also were Angels in euery Church yet there was but one who was the Angell of ech Church For to his obiection of their not being diocesan Bishops I haue answered before And for the time doe I not affirme that Timothy had this singularity of preeminence at Ephesus Titus in Creet Epaphroditus in Philippi Archippus at Colosse in the Apostles times As for the rest of my witnesses they doe either testifie de iure which in their iudgement is perpetuall or if they speak de facto it is of that which was in the Apostles times Cornelius the worthy martyr who was Bishop of Rome about the yeere two hundred fifty auoucheth that there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church though the number of Presbyters and other clergy men were very great and imputeth it as a matter of great ignorance to Nouatian that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there ought to be but one Bishop in a Catholike Church wherein he knew there were forty six Presbyters c. This testimony is reiected because it was giuen fifty yeeres after the date which were but an euasion if it did testifie de facto onely But seeing Cornelius speaketh de iure of what ought to be I hope that which ought not to haue been in Cornelius his time was not lawfull before vnlesse the Refuter can shew that before Cornelius his time plurality of Bishops in one Church was counted lawfull § 5. The Councell of Nice whose testimonie I also alleaged was of this iudgement that there ought not to bee two Bishoppes in one Citie For hauing decreed that when the Catharists that is Puritans or Nouatians returned to the Catholike Church those who were of the clergy should retaine their degree as hee that was a Deacon or a Presbyter should so continue and likewise a Bishoppe for euen the Puritanes or Catharists themselues had their Bishoppes if there were not another alreadie in the Catholike Church But if there were a Bishoppe of the Catholike Church alreadie then it is manifest before hand that the Bishoppe of the Church shall haue the honour of the Bishoppe but hee that was called Bishoppe among the Catharists shall haue the honour of a Presbyter vnlesse it please the Bishop to communicate vnto him the honour of the name But if that like him not he shall finde him out either a Chorepiscopus that is a country Bishops or a Presbyters place that still he may be retained in the clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there may not be two Bishop in one Citie Which words in Ruffinus are the tenth Canon Ne in vna Ciuitate duo sint Episcopi Augustine also vnderstood though somewhat too late that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice that there should be any more Bishops in a Church then one For how soeuer whiles he was ignorant thereof he was drawne to take vpon him the Bâ—shopricke of Hippo whiles Valerius was aliue yet when himselfe was old and desired that Eradius might bee his Coaâ—â—utor whom also he nominated for his successor yet he thought it vnlawfull that whiles himself liued he should be ordanied Bishop Whiles Valerius liued saith he I was ordained Bishop and I sate with him both of vs being ignorant that it was forbidden by the Councell of Nice But what was reprehended in me shall not be blamed in him Or as Possidonius speaketh Quod sibi factum esse doluit alijs fieri noluit In the next place I bring the testimonies of Ierome Chrysostome Ambrose Theodoret and Oecumenius on Phil. 1. All which I confesse liued after the two hundred yeeres but they testifie that in the Apostles times there could be no more Bishops then one And the like hath Primasius on the same place To all this hee answers that he will not greatly striue about mens deuices which noâ—withstanding he can neuer proue to bee humane and I trust the singularity of preeminence in each of these Angels in Timothy in Titus c. was no humane deuice But though he will not striue yet he alleageth that little which hee was able and that also more then himselfe doth beleeue to be true For he obiecteth that Epiphanius and Eusebius also in his ecclesiasticall story reckon both Peter and Paul for Bishops of Rome at one time Founders they both were of the Church of Rome as Irenaeus testifieth and hauing founded the Church ordained Linus Bishop but that either of them both and much lesse that both at once were Bishops of Rome the Refuter himselfe doth not beleeue To what purpose then doth he alleage that which himselfe is perswaded to be false Would he haue his Reader beleeue that to be true which himselfe beleeueth to be vntrue That which he quoteth out of Athanasius that there were diuers Bishops in some one Church though I cannot finde it may be true in time of schisme and diuision as at Antioch sometimes there were three Bishops c. His allegation out of D. Sutcliffe is very childish as though when he saith that Paul ordained in euery Towne or Citie Presbyters and Bishops his meaning were that in euery Citie he placed more Bishops then one If I should say there are Bishops placed in euery Citie or diocesse throughout England J should speake truly and yet my meaning would be that in euery diocesse there is but one Where I say that as this singularity of preeminence was ordained for the preseruation of the Church in vnitie and for the auoiding of schisme so is it for the same cause to be retained he would seem half amazed that I who do not deny other formes of gouernment to be lawfull pag. 95. and no further hold the episcopall function to be of diuine institution then as being ordained by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying any necessary perpetuity thereof pag. 92. should now plainly auouch a necessity of retaining the gouernment of diocesan BB. for the preseruation of the Church in vnity c. But the Readâ—r that fauoreth the Refuters person and cause hath more cause to be amazed at his dealing
that hee doubteth not to say that the grace which was giuen by the imposition of hands of the Presbytery was giuen by the imposition of his hands Which sheweth that if any Presbyters did ioyne with Paul it was no otherwise then as they vse to doe with BB. by the Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage and by the discipline and order of our Church And this answereth the first thing which the Refuter inferreth vpon this exposition that if Presbytery signifie a companie of seniors as it must for J tell you his word must stand for law then it will follow that the power of ordination was not in one mans hand alone For though that alone bee of his owne adding yet it is plaine that Paul and antient BB. had this power as much alone as our Bishoppes Where I say this place maketh nothing either for their parish Presbyteries or lay Presbyteries whatsoeuer hee saith It skilleth not now what Presbytery this was Belike then it skilleth not what becommeth of the maine pillar of your Discipline so you can make any poore shift to maintaine the point which presently is in hand But if this be the onely place of scripture which mentioneth a Christian Presbytery on which also the Disciplinarians do principally build the authority of their pretended Presbyteries it maketh not a little me thinks for the iustifying of our cause that it maketh not at all for their Presbyteries which by the confession of Caluin haue no right to impose hands Neither can it bee denied but that it is sacrilegious vsurpation and horrible intrusion vpon the right of the Ministery if lay men shalt take vpon them to ordaine by imposition of hands Besides it skilleth something that the Greeke Fathers vnderstand by Presbytery a company of Bishops which as it proueth the Prerogatiue of BB. in the ordaining of BB. so doth it not impeach their superioritie in ordaining Ministers And where hee maketh 〈◊〉 say they were no Presbyters hee mistaketh the matter vnlesse hee vnderstand meere or onely-Presbyters For BB and Apostolicall men yea the Apostles themselues were Presbyters and so call themselues but they were not bare or onely-Presbyters as those bee which are not Bishops But if they were not Presbyters saith he then was the Apostle to blame to call them so If the word bee vnderstood collectiuè hee calleth the company of them which imposed hands on Timothy the Presbytery And forasmuch as not onely inferior Ministers but Bishops and Apostles are called Presbyters it being a common name to all Ministers of the word and sacraments it should not seeme strange that a company or senate of Bishops or Apostolicall men should be called a Presbytery Now that they were not meere Presbyters the Fathers proue Because Presbyters might not ordaine a Bishop neque enim fas erat saith Ambrose nec licebat vt inferior ordinaret maiorem Neither was Timothy any saith he Bluntly and peremptorilie spoken But the Fathers that before I mentioned take it for granted and it is the generall consent of all the antient Fathers as wee shall heare the authoritie of some one whereof in a matter of fact ought to ouerweigh the whole nation of Disciplinarians contradicting the same In fine distrusting this burrough hee flieth to his old starting hole out of which hee hath beene so often ferretted that the Fathers spake onely of their owne times which is nothing to the ordaining of Ministers in the Apostles times almost foure hundred yeeres before them The absurdity of which euasion the Reader may easily discerne if hee will but call to minde what were the Greeke Fathers wordes before cited and vpon what occasion they were vttered Hee speaketh here saith Chrysostome and Occumenius not of Presbyters but of Bishoppes For Presbyters did not ordaine Bishoppes Is it not most plaine that they speake of the Apostles time And were it not absurd to vnderstand them thus Paul by the Presbytery which ordained Timothy vnderstandeth Bishoppes and not Presbyters because howsoeuer in those times Presbyters might ordaine yet in our times they cannot But let me aske the Refuter this question Seeing it is agreed vpon by all that Paul here speaketh of Timothy his ordination to what function hee thinketh he was ordained If to be a Presbyter or Pastor as Caluin saith or to be a Bishoppe as all the Fathers acknowledge then was hee not onely ordained to an ordinary function in the Church but also assigned to a particular Church whereof hee was made Pastor as Caluin speaketh or Bishoppe as the Fathers affirme But that his last ordination whereof the Apostle speaketh was not to the degree of a Presbyter but of a Bishoppe appeareth by the whole Epistle wherein his singularity of preeminence ouer Presbyters and superiority in power both for ordination and iurisdiction is presupposed If he say that he was ordained to be an Euangelist to omit the singularity the nouelty of the conceit it would be knowne what Presbytery this was that imposed hands on Timothy Had the Presbytery of any parish such as our Disciplinarians dreame of consisting for the most part of laymen or the Presbytery of any particular Church though consisting wholly of Ministers authority by imposition of hands to ordaine an extraordinary function and that to be exercised in other parts of the world where themselues had nothing to doe Serm. sect 8. page 39. Yea but the Councell of Carthage say they committeth authority of imposing hands to Presbyters c. to the end of page 44 Here the Refuter meaning to make short worke hauing little to say hath made a long section which he might better haue diuided into three For three diuers things are heere performed The first an answere to the obiection our of the fourth Councell of Carthage The second a new supply of proofes for the superiority of BB. in the power of ordination Thirdly a preuention of popish cauils in fauor of some reformed Churches where the Presbyterian discipline is established As touching the first the Refuter saith that canon may serue to shew that the Fathers of this Councell thought it not fit no not to leaue ordination to the Bishop alone But because he perceiueth by that which I answered that that Canon though greatly vrged by the Disciplinarians maketh nothing against the superiority of BB. in ordaining and that it agreeth with the discipline of our Church and consequently conuicteth him of vntrue dealing seeing he â—udgeth that BB. by that canon haue not sole authority of ordaining and yet will make his Reader beleeue that I defend their sole power of ordaining which by the discipline of our Church is no more sole in our BB. then it was by that canon in the BB. of Africke for thesâ— causes I say he refuseth to vrge this canon though hee pretend hee will neither trouble the Reader nor himselfe about the examining of it because forsooth it commeth not neere the time in
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
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places
no further then he seeth cause He therefore reporteth it as a doctrine of Peter that no Presbyter ought to doe any thing in any Bishoppes parish or diocesse without his permission and that all Presbyters ought without delay to be obedient to their BB. in all things § 14. But as I prooued that Presbyters might doe nothing without the Bishoppes appointment or consent so I noted especially those things which belong to their power of order as the actions of their ministery to baptize to celebrate the Communion to preach to say the publike Liturgy or diuine seruice As touching Baptisme I alleaged Tertullian testifying that the Bishoppe hath the right to giue Baptisme then the Presbyters and the Deaconâ— but yet not without the authority of the Bishoppe for the honour of the Church that is the honour due vnto him in the Church which being safe peace is safe Where note in Tertullians time within the first two hundred yeeres the Bishoppe was so greatly honoured that the peace of the Church was supposed to depend on the honour of the Bishoppe as Ierome also speaketh that the ordinary right of baptizing was primarily in the Bishop secondarily in the Presbyters Deacons but not to be exercised by them without his authority whereas extraordinarily and in case of necessitie lay men in his iudgement might baptize To this the Refuter giueth fiue answeres but neuer a good one As first that Tertullian speaketh not of their iuresdiction in the Apostles times or afâ—er by authority from them Hee speaketh nor de facto but de iure noting what right Bishops had and hee sheweth the ordinary right of baptizing which the Presbyters had was not without the Bishops authority 2. That the preeminence he giueth them was for the honor of the Church and preseruation of peace What then was this peculiar to his time Were they not as carefull of the honour of the Church and preseruation of peace in the Apostles times as after 3. Neither doth he speake of the authority of the Bishop in generall but of an honour giuen him in one particular And for one particular belonging to the power of order did I alleage it that hauing prooued this point in generall I might also shew it in the particulars which cannot otherwise be done but sigillation one by one Yea but this honour no one particular might well bee in a titular Bishoppe that had no such iurisdiction Titular Bishops in the primitue Church were such as had the name and title but not the authority of a Bishop granted to them Such a one was Meletius who by the censure of the Councell of Nice was not to haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bars name of a Bishop And such were Nouatian Bishops returning to the Church permitted to be if the Catholike Bishop would gratifie them with the name and title of a Bishop I reade of Eustathius the Metropolitan B. of Pamphylia who being desirous to leade a more quiet and solitary life gaue vp his Bishopricke whereupon Theodorus was chosen in his roome For it was not meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Church should continue a widow and that the flockes â—f our Sauiour should remaine without a gouernour But he afterwards repenting him of the abdication of his Bishopricke putteth vp a petition to the Councell of Ephesus that hee might at the least retaine the name and honour of a Bishop At his request the Councell writeth to the Synod of Pamphylia that he might haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the name the honour and communion of a Bishop but yet so as that neither he doe ordaine nor taking vpon him the charge of the Church should performe sacred actions by his owne authority Thus we see who were titular Bishops in the primitiue Church such as were gratified with the name but wanted the office and authority of a Bishoppe As for those who had the office of a Bishoppe of whom Tertullian speaketh they had also vigorem episcopatus the vigor of the episcopall office whereof Cyprian so oft speaketh and the sway of authority ecclesiasticall was in their hands insomuch that Presbyters and Deacons who by the power of their order had right to baptitize might not euen in Tertullians time exercise that power but by authority from the Bishop In the fourth place the Refuter obiecteth that these Presbyters were not ordinary Ministers of the word and Sacraments but such as he and his fellowes dreame of because Tertullian in the very next words affirmeth alioquin etiamlaicis iut est otherwise lay men also might baptize That the Presbyters were Ministers I haue manifestly proued before and I haue noted already that Tertullian signifieth the ordinary right of baptizing to be in the Bishop Presbyters Deacons that yet extraordinarily and in the case of necessity lay men might baptize And so Ierome seemeth to exhound Tertullians meaning Hence it is that without Chrisme which the Presbyters of the seuerall parishes were to fetch from their B. and without the commandement of the Bishop neither Presbyter nor Deacon haue right to baptize Which notwithstanding wee know to be oft times lawfull for lay men to doe si tamen necessitas cogit but yet so if necessity doe compell But nothing is more euident then that the Presbyters were Ministers by that which hath heretofore been deliuered Whereunto this helpeth somewhat that Tertullian opposeth Presbyters and Deacons to laymen This obiection the Refuter thought to preuent by saying that the gouerning Elders and Deacons were accounted among the Clergy Which also is an vnlearned assertion For to omit the arguments which before were brought to prooue that the Presbyters and Deacons were degrees of the sacred Ministery it is plaine that the clergy of each diocesse was a company of such as were trained vp in learning it being the seminary of the whole diocesse And as they profited in yeeres learning and pietie so they were preferred to bee Readers then Exorcists then Acolythi then Sub-deacons after that Deacons then Presbyters out of whom ordinarily was chosen the Bishoppe And moreouer the Presbyters and Deacons with the rest of the Clergy had all their maintenance according to their place and degree in the Church And therefore our disciplinarians if they will haue such Presbyters and Deacons as were in the primitiue Church they must fetch them from the Vniuersitie and schooles of learning as we doe and maintaine them by the charges of the Church as well though not with so large allowance as the Bishop His last euasion for none of his answers is better is that the lower Tertullian speaketh of might well be and was on a parish Bishop the Presbyters being subiect to him as his assistants for that one Church But parish Bishoppes such as they speake of and lay elders be of one edition neuer heard of before our age For the more manifest proofe whereof I referre
to a higher degree aboue the rest of the Apostles because the Apostleship being the highest degree of the Ministerie this was the greatest honour to haue a priority and precedence in that degree Yea but I denie him to haue beene B. when I say that whereas before the Apostles had ioyntly gouerned the Church of Ierusalem that charge which before they had in cōmon they being now to depart cōmitted to him in particular but their charge was of Apostles not of Bishops As though the charge of Apostles is not by the holy Ghost called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Bishopricke and as though Iames who before was an Apostle absolutely did not by this designement become the Apostle of the Iewes Neither was this a clipping of his wings as it pleaseth the Refuter to speake more then of the rest of the Apostles when by mutual consent euery mans Prouince as it were circuit and charge was assigned to him But I spake not without booke deliuering mine owne conceipts as the Refuter euery where doth but what I said I receiued from their owne and almost onely Author Ierome which he receiued also from Hegesippus Hegesippus saith he who was neare the Apostles times in the fift booke of his Commentaries speaking of Iames saith Iames the brother of our Lord sirnamed the iust receiued the Church of Ierusalem post Apostolos after the Apostles As touching the other point though the Refuter would scarsely vouchsafe to touch it as being impertinent notwithstanding it not onely confuteth the conceipt of those who hold Bishops were but for a short time and not for terme of life but also proueth plainly that Iames was B. of Ierusalem I therefore shewed that he continued at Ierusalem as the superintendent of that Church vntil his death ruling the same by the space of thirtie yeares after that manner as his successor after him ruled it eight and thirty yeares Yea but this doth not proue that he was B. Neither was it so much alledged to that end as to shew the preheminence which he had was not as Beza saith of all the ancient Bishops which hee acknowledgeth to be diuine for a short time or by course but for terme of life And yet it proueth the maine point also that he was B. and as the Geneua translators confesse superintendent of that Church For if he were not the Apostle of that Church that is to say the B. why did not he after the example of other Apostles trauaile into other parts but continued there ruling that Church by the space of thirty yeares vntill his death Forsooth hee did not stay so much to rule that Church for that might haue beene otherwise performed as to conuert the multitudes of Iewes which should resort thither Where hee saith the Church might otherwise haue beene gouerned it is nothing to the purpose vnlesse he can shew that it was otherwise gouerned There is no doubt but that Church had a Pastor assigned to them by the Apostles who would not leaue that mother Church as a flocke without a shepheard But what Pastor had it if Iames who continued there and ruled it for thirtie yeares were not the Pastor thereof There is no doubt to be made but the cause and end of his staying there thirtie yeares was the same of his successour Simons staying there thirtie eight yeares and of his successours euery one vntill their death Wherefore was it not great pitie that the Refuter did forget himselfe to spend so much time in things that were so impertinent Serm. Sect. 6. pag. 69. As touching other Churches wee are to obserue that the Apostles did not at the very first planting of them appoint BB. vnto them c. to pag. 72. li. 17. The difference in respect of the time which before I noted betwixt Ierusalem and other Churches I doe in this section explane shewing that the Apostles did not at the first planting of them appoint Bishops to them as presently after the ascension of Christ they appointed a Bishop ouer the Church of Ierusalem yeelding these reasons because as yet there was neither that choise nor yet that vse of them among a people which was to be conuerted before it needed to be gouerned and shewing what course they did take before they appointed Bishops namely that first they ordayned Presbyters to labour the conuersion of the people to feed them being conuerted and to attend them in common gouerning them after a priuate manner and as it were in foro conscientiae And this is that which Ierome saith that the Churches at the first before Bishops were appointed ouer them were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbyters But the Episcopall power which consisteth specially in the right of ordination and in the sway of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction committed to one I said the Apostles each of them retayned in their owne hands as was manifest whiles eyther they continued neare them or meant not to be long from them All which while Bishops were not so needfull the Apostles prouiding for the necessitie of those Churches either by their presence or by their letters and messengers And this I noted to be the cause why in the writings of the Apostles Bishops are so seldome though not so seldome as some imagine mentioned and the name with Presbyter confounded But when as they were to leaue the Churches altogether either by departure from them or by death that the Churches should not be left fatherlesse they fulfilled that in Psal. 45. according to Augustines and Ieromes exposition in steed of Fathers that is the Apostles there shall be children borne vnto thee whom thou shall make Princes ouer all the earth that is Bishops succeeding the Apostles in the regiment of the Church At their departure they left substitutes and at their death appointed successours to whom they committed the gouernment of the Churches furnishing them by a singularitie of preheminence both with the right of Ordination and with the power of Iurisdiction as vvell ouer the Presbyters as the people of each Citie with the Countrey adioyning And these I saide at the first vvere called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi Rulers Heb. 13.17 vvhich text in the auncient canons called the Apostles and in the second Epistle of Ignatius as also the name praepositi in Latine Fathers from thence is appropriated to BB. sometimes the Apostles of the Churches c. To all this the Refuter answereth by snatches as he doth to the residue of the Sermon for which cause I thinke it expedient to repeate the points deliuered in the Sermon that his dealing may the better appeare And first hee snatcheth at those wordes where I said that vntill the Apostles were to leaue the Churches altogether Bishops were not so needfull as after their departure and death which is most manifest Belike saith he they were needfull before but
doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 2.16 Tit. 1.10.11 and 3.9 and iudges of their persons and conuersation 1 Tim. 5.19.20.21 Tit. 3.10 to which proofes he answereth nothing Wherevnto might be added the authority of Gregorie Nazianzene of Chrysostome of Oecumenius and Gregory testifying that these Epistles doe teach Bishops how to behaue themselues in the Church of God Now because the Refuters supposition is the same in efâ—ect with his assumption I will examine first what he obiecteth against the assumption vnder the name of that supposition and so proceed to his answere which he directed against the assumption The summe of that which he obiecteth against the supposition is this that though Timothie and Titus were by Paules direction to doe those things which Bishops arrogate to themselues yet they were to doe them by an higher power and therefore not as Bishops Whereto I answere that they were to be done by a power vvhich vvas to continue in the Church vntill the end and therefore not by a higher power then Episcopal And secondly that the power Episcopal whereby Bishops doe these things which Timothie and Titus had in commission is so much of the Apostolicall power as was to continue in the Church vnto the end The assumption it selfe hee denyeth saying these Epistles are not precedents of the Episcopall function c. The reason of his deniall is this What though Bishops haue now gotten that power into their hands yet were not those instructions giuen to Timothie and Titus as Bishops the Apostles dreaming of no such soueraigntie but particularly to Timothie and Titus as Euangelists and in generall to the Presbyters to whom the charge of those affaires belongeth To the Euangelists to administer in all the Churches of those Regions whither the Apostles sent or where they left them to the Presbyters to administer in their seuerall congregations or Churches Hee said euen now that Timothie and Titus did those things which BB. doe by a higher power now he saith he Apostle dreamed not of any such soueraignty as the BB. haue Where he saith these instructions were not giuen to BB. but particularly to these Euangelists to performe them in all Churches and Regions where he should place them and generally to Presbyters c. both parts are false For these directions Paul gaue to Timothie and Titus to be obserued of them as they were particularly assigned gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and are such as are to be obserued to the end Neither are these instructions giuen in generall to Presbyters neither doth the charge of these affaires belong to them And that these things belong to the BB. I haue sufficiently proued before To make the matter plaine he bringeth in an example which is worth the hearing Suppose saith he a Democraty where the common-wealth is gouerned by the people it must needs be that in such a place there are lawes for the choosing and ordering of Officers What if this gouernment fall into the hands of the Nobilitie which continue the same lawes still in the same cases What if some mightier then the rest at the last make himselfe sole Gouernour still obseruing those fundamentall lawes which were at the first established is it to be saide that those lawes are the verie patternes and precedents of the Aristocraticall or Monarchicall gouernement whereby the first maker of those lawes would enforme in the one the Nobilitie in the other the Monarchie and in them all other how to exercise that function The administration of Church matters touching ordination and iurisdiction was first in the seuerall Churches or congregations which by their Presbyteries had the menaging of all Church businesse in processe of time it came to be restrayned to the Clergie onely the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely at last as things grew worse and worse the B. like a Monarch got the reynes into his owne hands Now though the lawes of Ordination and Iurisdiction remaine the same and the practise also in some sort yet are they not patternes and presidents either of the second or third kinde of gouernment neither were they giuen to instruct the Bishop alone or the Bishop and his Clergie together Which comparison I desire may be well considered especially by the vnlearneder sort for hereby they shall discerne what manner of guides they haue desired to follow For not to contend with him about his politicke proposition not well agreeing with the rules of policy wherein we are taught that the appointment of chiefe Officers being reckoned inter iura maiestatis doth alwayes belong to them who haue the soueraigntie in the whole comparison but especially in the reddition we may behold the trim Idea of discipline which the fancie of our Refuter and his fellow-challengers hath forged For he conceiueth as if he were a Brownist or an Anabaptist that the ancient state of the Church was Democraticall that the right of Ordination and Iurisdiction was in the whole congregation of euery Parish which by their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of the laity had the menaging of all Church-businesse that the lawes and Canons for Church-gouernment set downe in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were first prouided for this popular state of the Church Howbeit by the vsurpation of the B. and his Clergie the popular state was turned into an Aristocraty the B. and his Presbyterie of Ministers onely menaging the Church affaires Lastly in processe of time this Aristocraty was turned into a Monarchie the B. like a Monarch hauing got the reynes into his owne hands Now the lawes concerning Ordination and iurisdiction are still in force yet were they not patternes neither for the Monarchicall gouernment of the B. alone nor for the Aristocraticall gouernment of the Bishop and his Presbytery of ministers but for the popular and golden state of euery Parish which within it selfe had authoritie immediately deriued from Christ sufficient for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall This forme is propounded also in the modest and Christian offer of disputation Haue not our forwarder sort of people bin well aduised thinke you to doate vpon such leaders as these who broach such a sort of dreames and dotages for which they haue not so much as the shew of any sound proofe Our refuter hath often times obiected against me though most vniustly that Pythagoras-like I looke to be creditted vpon my bare word but what proofes I pray you doth hee bring for these schismaticall nouelties First it is here presupposed that euery Church indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment was a Parish all Church officers Parishionall Which dotage I haue before refuted Secondly that the forme of Church-gouernment was Democraticall or popular the cheife authority being in the people Which hath authority to be exercised partly by themselues partly by their Presbytery to elect ordayne depriue depose their Pastor or B. for the proofe whereof the
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
beene ordayned the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians This is something plaine But he asketh me why I seuered them from the consent of the ancient Fathers was it because I thought them to be of the Canon I answere that I did not seuer them but ioyne them in a copulatiue speech and if I had beene of opinion that they were of the Canon I would not haue said as I did it appeareth not onely by the subscriptions but also by the generall consent of the Fathers but contrariwise not onely by the generall consent of the Fathers but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himselfe But though it were not likely as he hath alledged out of T. C. that they were subscribed by the Apostle himselfe yet is it certaine that they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them Indeed if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would haue respected their censures but the cauillations of Disciplinarians against them who being parties in this cause are so plainely confuted by them are to be reiected Let vs therefore heare what the Refuter obiecteth against them How little credit those subscriptions deserue it may appeare by that vnder the Epistle to Titus which is quite contrary to the Epistle it selfe And why so I pray you the subscription saith the Epistle was written from Nicopolis and Paul himselfe willeth Titus to come vnto him to Nicopolis for I haue determined to winter there But if Paul had beene now at Nicopolis when he wrote he would haue said not there but here Therefore hee was but a simple fellow that was the Author of that subscription So saith this great Criticke But if you will consider with me that Paul being as vsually he was in peregrination Titus could not well tell where he was neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was therefore wrote being at Nicopolis as any discreet man would in the like case come to mee to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if hee had written as the Refuter would haue had him if hee were at Nicopolis come hither for I meane to winter here or come to Nicopolis for I meane to winter here might not Titus haue said where Paul as being vncertaine where Paul was and whether himselfe was to goe This therefore is too seely a censure though receiued from T. B. himselfe to ouerthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription in which besides the ancient Greeke copies it is also testified in the Syriack that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis Athanasius speaking of that Epistle to Titus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis for there he wintered Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus Sedulius likewise this Epistle hee wrote from Nicopolis and Theophylact. argument in Epist. ad Tit the Authors of the Centuryes cent 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers First Eusebius reporteth out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories vvhich vvere before his time that Timothie had first the Bishopricke of the Church at Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Creet Secondly the auncient Author of the booke de diuinis nominibus dedicating the same to Timothie Bishop of Ephesus if it be Dionysius Areopagita himselfe who liued at the same time with Timothie doth beare an vndeniable witnesse to this truth or if it be another vsing his name yet he plainely signifieth that in his time it was a thing generally receiued that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Thirdly Dorotheus saith that Timothie was by Paul ordayned the B. of the Ephesians he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians Fourthly Ambrose testifieth the same Paul instructeth Timothie being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church And againe he entreateth Timothie his fellow Bishop c. Againe Timothie was a B. Hence it is that Paul directeth him how he should ordaine a B. Likewise of Titus he testifieth that the Apostle consecrated him B. Fiftly Ierome noteth that Timothie receiued the grace which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect when he was ordayned B. And wher Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministery Ierom vnderstandeth it of his Bishopricke And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall Writers which is in his first Tome it is testified that Timothie was ordayned of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Sixtly Chrisostome writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon◠saith what meaneth this were there many Bishops of one City in no wise but so he called the Presbyters For then were the names common and a Bishop was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Deacon or minister For which cause writing to Timothie being a Bishop fulfill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy ministery For that he was a Bishop he saith doe not hastily impose thy hands vpon any man againe with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery but Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop in another place hee giueth this reason why Paul wrote to Timothie and Titus and not to Syluanus or Silas or Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had already committed the Churches to them but the others he still carryed about with him And on the fourth to the Ephesians hee giueth instance in Timothie and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certaine places Seauenthly Epiphanius saith that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop the diuine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter when he saith to Timothie being a Bishop receiue not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter c. Eightly Primasius saith Timothie was a Bishop and Pauls Disciple That grace was the blessing which Timothie when he was made Bishop receiued by imposition of hands Ninthly Theodoret saith that Titus was the Apostle that is Bishop of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians And out of him Oecumenius citeth these words Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was by Paul ordayned Bishop of Creet And in another place why did Paul hauing other Disciples as Silas and Luke and others write onely to Timothie and Titus We answere Because to these he had committed Churches but the others he had still with him Tenthly Sedulius this Timothie was B. in Ephesus as it is said in the booke of histories And on these words stirre vp the grace which was giuen thee by the imposition of hands that is iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum by thy ordination into the Bishopricke 11. Gregory the great hence it is
there ordained The refuter replieth that my consequence is naught for euen whiles the Church was gouerned in common by the Apostles it was not gouerned without the counsell of the Presbyters of the same Church much lesse did Iames afterwards take the whole authority into his owne hands from them Which exception of his is of no force because there were no Presbyters ordayned in that Church when it was gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles and I added which he should haue disproued if he would haue said any thing to the purposâ— that Iames was assigned Bishop to that Church before we read of any Presbyters ordayned in or to that Church For if Iames were Bishop of that Church before it had Presbyters then was not that Church ruled by the common counsell of Presbyters before they had a Bishop Iames indeed after he was Bishop ordayned Presbyters whose counsell and assistance he did vse in the gouernment and instruction of that Church as other Bishops vsed to doe in the like case as wee read Act. 15. and 21. Yea but the whole multitude saith he as appeareth by Act. 6.2.5 had the choise of Church-officers What then therefore the Church was not gouerned by the common counsell of the Apostles or was gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters Because the Greekish Iewes which had their Liturgy and scriptures in the Greeke tongue were discontented with the Apostles distribution of the Churches stocke the Apostles therefore to auoid contention and scandall and to giue euery one contentment departed from their right and willed the whole multitude to choose seauen whom wee say the Apostles may appoint to this busines Surely if where the Presbyters are erected the people who doe contribute to the releife of the poore are permitted to make choise of ouerseers collectors for the poore it wer but a simple consequence to inferre hereupon that therefore the Churches are not gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters And to as little purpose or rather lesse is that which followeth If the Apostles altogether or Iames alone afterterwards had by vertue of their extraordinarie calling the power of ordination and iurisdiction in â—heir hands in that as in all other Churches yet the Pastors of the Churches afterwards being no Apostles had no such vnlimited power and so Ierome still speaketh truely of the ordinary gouernment of the Church And so Ierome still spake vntruely in respect of the Church of Ierusalem I doe confesse this was peculiar to the Church of Ierusalem and differing from the order of other Churches that the Church of Ierusalem had a Bishop before it had Presbyters of her owne And therefore though I did not deny his speech to be vntrue in respect of other Churches yet I proued it to be vntrue in respect of Ierusalem by his owne testimony But before I come to the sifting thereof there are two other things to be noted in this speech of the refuter For that which he pratleth of Iames his sole power exercised in the Church of Ierusalem by vertue of his extraordinarie calling is altogether impertinent seeing Ierome of whom the question is confesseth that hee was Bishop and ruled that Church as the Bishop thereof thirtie yeeres Neither is it true that the ordinarie Pastors of that Church had not the like power therein which Iames had For there is no question but what authority Iames had in the gouernment of that particular Church of Ierusalem Simon his successor had the same and all the Bishops of Ierusalem after him Now that Ieromes speech was vntrue in respect of Ierusalem I proued by Ieromes owne testimony affirming that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was by the Apostles ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem Here the refuter hath found out a quirke which if it were true would not yet serue his turne The quirke is that Ierome is mistaken by false pointing and reading for that straight way belongeth not to Iames his being made Bishop but is brought to shew that Iohn maketh mention of him immediately after he hath spoken of our Lords passion So that Ierome doth not say that Iames straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem but that Iohn mentioned him presently after hee had spoken of the passion of our Lord. Let me lay downe the whole sentence that it may appeare more plainely Iames saith Ierome who is called the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus the sonne as many thinke of Ioseph by another wife as it seemeth to me of Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn in his booke maketh mention after the passion of our Lord straight wayes statim id est continenter immediate vt loquuntur Iohn 19.25 saith Iunius who was ordayned Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And this manner of reading is auouched by Sophronius that translated that booke of Ierome into Greeke who maketh the distinction presently after straight wayes seuering that word from his ordination by the Apostles Among many other proofes of his learning iudgement the refuter giueth this for one For first this subtility hee receiued from Iunius as he doth professe but exceedingly dulled by comming through his fingers For whereas Iunius referrâ—th the word of whom to Mary the sister of our Lords mother of whom Iohn maketh mention straight waies after the passion of our Lord Iohn 19.25 our learned refuter referreth it to Iames that twice for failing But though he might be mistaken in the English of Ieromes cuius yet me thinkes so learned a man should haue known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Sophronius should haue beene referred to her and not to him But let that passe To iustifie his correction of this place of Ierom he saith this manner of reading is auowed by Sophronius c. which is neither so nor so For between the Greeke and the Latine there is onely this difference in that edition which I haue being as I suppose the best that whereas in the Latine there is a Colon at the word filius which followeth meminit in the Greeke there is but a Comma but at the word statim in Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke no distinction at all The Latine words are these vt mihi autem videtur Mariae sororis matris Domini cuius Ioannes in libro suo memunt filius pâ—st passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus The Greeke these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the correction it self I would be loth to contest with Iunius neither is that subtilty which he hath found out preiudiciall to my assertion as you shall heare notwithstanding I must needs say he was greatly transported with preiudice when he would referre the aduerbe statim to the verbe meminit rather then to the participle ordinatus For though both the Comma and Colon that come betweene them were taken away yet the word filius comming also betweene
cleane spoileth his conceipt For can any man of indifferency thinke that Ierome being an elegant writer if he had meant that the aduerbe statim should haue waited on the verbe meminit would haue disposed it thus cuius Ioannes meminit filius post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus But now weigh the refuters iudgement Suppose that this place were read as Iunius would haue it and that Iames were not so presently made Bishop of Ierusalem after Christs passion as Ieromes words seeme to import but that after the Apostles he tooke the gouernment of the Church of Ierusalem as Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus what is all this but the same that my selfe set downe in the Sermon both in this place also pag. 68. in these words the Apostles first ioyntly ruled the Church at Ierusalem but being to goe into all the world and no longer to be accounted members of that particular Church ordained Iames to be Bishop And that charge which before they had in common they now comitted to him in particular And this is that which Ierome citeth out of Hegesippus who saith Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed Iustus receiued or vndertooke the Church of Ierusalem after the Apostles And if the refuter will needs expound after the Apostles to signifie after their departing from Ierusalem I must intreat him to take with him the words both of Eusebius who sometimes saith the throne of that Bishopricke was committed to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles therefore before their dispersion sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostles therefore whiles they were present and also of Ierome who plainely saith that he was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles but chiefly that he will remember that the words straight wayes after the passion of our Lord are to be ioyned with the other words ordayned by the Apostles then will he acknowledge himselfe satisfied for this point § 4. Secondly I answered in respect of other Churches that which Ierome saith neither proueth that the office of Bishops and Presbyters were confounded neither doth it hinder but that the distinct office of Bishops is of Apostolicall institution Both the parts of this answere I explaned and confirmed The former thus it is true that for a time the Presbyters by common counsell gouerned the Churches but as vnder the Apostles who kept in their own hands the Episcopall authority they I meane the Presbyters hauing neither the right of ordination nor the power of outward or publike iurisdiction This therefore doth not proue that the offices of BB. Presbyters wer confounded The name of B. was confounded with Presbyter but the office and authority of the B. was as yet in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops The latter thus but when the Apostles were to discontinue from those Churches which they had planted then were BB. substituted Whereunto the factious behauiour of the Presbyters whereof Ierome speaketh might be some inducement For parity indeed breedeth faction and confusion for the auoyding whereof when the Apostles should be absent BB. were instituted but when and where and by whom and to what end let Ierome himselfe testifie The summe is that although for a time the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters yet this doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of diuine institution For after a while the Apostles ordayned BB. as Ierome himselfe doth most plainely and fully testifie shewing the places where and the persons whom and the time when and the end wherefore they ordaynd them Now let vs see what the Refuter can reply against this answer Forsooth as if he knew or regarded no lawes of disputation he thrusts himselfe into the answerers place and maketh me the opponent casting my answer into a Syllogisme and bids me proue euery part and parcell of it or else all that I say is to little purpose himselfe in the meane while who should follow the argument which I answered and take away my answer goeth about to proue nothing but himselfe to be a shifting Sophister I thinke it was neuer heard in disputation that the opponent hauing receiued the answere and reciting the summe thereof saying sic respondes would cast it into a Syllogisme and then bid the answerer proue the parts thereof But such a disputer am I matched with And how I pray you doth he reduce my answere into a Syllogisme that vvhich I brought to cleare the former part of my answer is made the argument to proue both the parts in a filthy long Syllogisme and that vvhich I added to proue the latter part he mentioneth as straggling speches brought in to no purpose This is his analysing which whether it be done of vnskilfulnes or wilfulnes I refer it to his owne conscience I cannot iudge therof because I know not the man But if my answere must needes be reduced into Syllogismes I would intreat that the parts thereof may seuerally be concluded as they were by me seuerally explicated and then that the first Syllogisme may be this If whiles the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters the Presbyters did gouerne the same as vnder the Apostles the Episcopall office and authority being not in them but in the Apostles the Presbyters being such then vnder the Apostles as they were afterwards vnder the Bishops then their gouerning of the Church by common counsell doth not proue that the office of a B. and a Presbyter was confounded But the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Therefore the consequent The consequence I did illustrate by this distinction the name of Bishop was confounded with Presbyter but the office was not for that was not in the Presbyters but in the Apostles The consequence when it was worse for the addition of the second part the Refuter granted yet he thought good to gather out of it this worthy obseruation that if there was a time before there were Bishops When the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles then all that while there were no Diocesan Bishops the Refuter speaketh sentences and so no distinction betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter in office This and so could not well be gathered out of the proposition being repugnant vnto it for if there were no distinction betweene the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter then were the offices confounded Suppose the common-wealth of Iewry being a Prouince vnder the Emperour of Rome had beene gouerned by the Synedrion or common counsell of the Seniors for a time vntill the Emperour had placed a soueraigne King ouer them as hee did Herod it might be said that for a time that common-wealth was gouerned by the common counsell of their Elders but as vnder the Emperour who kept the regall authority in his owne hands Hereof it might not be infered that the office of
say to the prelate of the Church whom he vnderstood by Church bind him with bands or cords c. Theophylact explaineth the words thus If before two or three witnesses hee being reprooued shall not bee ashamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Oecolampadius translateth thus Ne graueris tunc in Ecclesiae suggestu invulgare peccatum sticke not then to publish his fault in the pulpit of the Church or iudgement seate But the acceÌ„t sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstaÌ„d An tistites or presides the Prelates of the Church And those words what you shall bind c he expoundeth thus If thou who art wronged shall hold the offender as a Publican or Ethnicke euen such a one he shal be in heauen but if thou loose him that is forgiue him he shal be pardoned in heauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for not onely what the Priests loose are loosed but also what we who are wronged doe bind or loose the same shal be bound or loosed where by Priests he meaneth those whom before he called the Prelates of the Church Erasmus maketh this Paraphrase If the offender be so vntractable that he will be moued neither with shame nor feare of iudgement bring the matter to the congregation that either he maybe reformed by the content of the multitude or by authoritie of them which be rulers ouâ— the multitude But if he be so farre past cure that he will not be corrected neither by secret and brotherly monition neither by the knowledge and consent of two or three neither by the shame of his fault vttered and disclosed neither by the authoritie of the â—hiefe rulers leaue him to his disease My aduersarie therefore to salue his credit had need to bring those from whom he had these testimonies at the second or third hand to depose that Chrysostome Theophylact and Erasmus doe say that Christ speaketh of Lay-Elders Otherwise he will hardly escape the censure of imposture and seeking to seduce the people with glorious shewes To the rest of his witnesses I answere that what new writers being parties in the cause doe testifie without warrant of scripture euidence of reason or testimonie of antiquitie it deserueth no credit The second testimonie Act. 14.23 that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in euery Church therefore Lay-Elders How is this consequence proued because the greeke Scholiast and a few new writers say so But here the disputer for his credite sake must plead that he for his part neuer saw the Greeke Scholiast but receiued this allegation from T. C. else he must be accused either of grosse ignorance or notorious falsification I see not saith T. C. why it may not be referred to Elders meaning Lay-Elders as well as too Bishops meaning Ministers seeing S. Paul there setteth forth how they set a full order in the Church And of that iudgement is the greeke Scholiast which affirmeth that those which followed S. Paul and Barnabas were worthy to be Bishops and that they created of them Elders and Deacons Vnderstanding Oecumenius as if by Bishops he meant ordinarie Ministers and Elders and Deacons their Lay-Elders and Lay-Deacons which were a notable deprauing of Oecumenius his meaning if he were so to be translated But his words being these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who haue but small skill in greeke doe know that the article of the plurall number with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth most vsually signifie no more then the proper name alone so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all in one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so is vsed by Oecumenius in the very next sentence following as you shall heare Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie they were worthy but they had the dignitie or honour or if they had beene worthy to haue beene Bishops Paul and Barnabas had small reason in that want of sufficient Ministers to make them lay either Elders or Deacons So that Oecumenius his words are thus to be translated it is to be noted that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops for that they ordained by imposition of hands not onely Deacons but also Presbyters Note also saith hee that in Miletum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barnabas and Paul were by imposition of hands ordained but I found another coppie which for Miletum hath Antioch and that is more probable His meaning is that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas were ordained Bishops Act. 13.2 And that Oecumenius by Presbyters vnderstood Ministers or Teachers it is apparant by his words going before for demanding why the Apostles made not Presbyters in Cyprus and Samaria but in these places mentioned Act. 14. he answereth those were neare to Ierusalem and the apostles and in Antioch the word preuailed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in these places they needed much exhortation chiefly those of the gentiles needed much teaching The third testimonie Iam. 5.14 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray ouer him annointing him with oile in the name of the Lord. Therefore there were Lay-Elders in S. Iames time This consequence is proued because Caluin and foure other new writers say so The fourth Rom. 12.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that ruleth in diligence this Ruler must needs be the Lay-Elder For besides certaine new writers Ambrose saith so But Ambrose vnderstandeth the words generally of any Ruler expounding him that ruleth to be eum qui curam vt praesit fratribus suscipit him that vndertaketh the care to rule his brethren The fifth 1. Cor. 12.28 God hath appointed in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernements these gouernements must needs be of Lay-Elders for besides some new writers Ambrose Ierome Theodoret doe testifie so much Ambrose his words be these sunt gubernatores gui spiritualib retinaculis hominibus documento sunt there are also gouernours who with spirituall reines doe nurture men Ierome qui sciunt singulos prout apti sunt gubernare who know to gouerne euery one according as they are apt Theodoret hereby he signified the administrations or gouernements of the Church These be all the places of scripture which this great striker durst make shew of Whereof not any one can be said with any shew of probabilitie to speake one word for Lay-Elders If Lay-Elders were first proued by other arguments or presupposed the best argument that could out of these places be raised were from the Genus to the species affirmatiue as if they should say the scriptures speake of gouernours therefore of Lay-Elders of Presbyters therefore of onely gouerning Presbyters But seeing they neuer were nor euer will be proued by other arguments the reason taken from these places is from the Genus to a fancied and platonicall Idea or poeticall species and that affirmatiuè If I should say it is a bird therefore a Swanne it
before that time there were Bishops placed in country townes and thereupon conclude that therefore there had beene before that time parishionall Bishoppes To this obiection I answere by denying the consequence or the proposition which is vnderstood viz. that the country Bishops which had beene before ordained were parish Bishops For those Bishops because they were placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Countries were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you would say Countrie-Bishops to distinguish them from the other Bishops whose See was in the Citie Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses much lesse in all parishes nor assigned where they were to one parish as they were Bishoppes but where the Diocesse was large were ordained in some places remote from the citie to supply the absence of the Bishop in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are wherein diuers parishes were contained These Chorepicsopi at the first had Episcopall ordination by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes For which fifteene if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes there might haue beene I doubt not fifteene hundred if not fifteene thousand But when these Countrie-Bishoppes beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes and substitutes placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Episcopall function began to encroach vpon the Bishoppes right and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie and jurisdiction beyond their commission they were by little and little restrained and when they would not be kept within their compasse their order at least as they were Bishops beeing but an humane-ordinance deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie was in most places abolished But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these countrie Bishops doth giue great light to this present controuersie it will not be vnprofitable nor I hope vnpleasing to the reader if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria wherunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed we find this difference betweene country presbyters country Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the cathedrall Church of the City the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe but if they bee absent and one of them alone bee called to prayer then hee may because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse as some note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but countrey Bishops who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers they doe offer Vpon which words Balsamo noteth two things First where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons Secondly that among other vses for which they were appointed they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore which appertained to them Besides we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters belong to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city which heereafter wil more clearely appeare and that the countrey Bishop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Ministres and yet inferiour to the Bishops The councel of Ancyra which is more ancient thē the former and both of them elder then the councill of Nice perceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vpon the Bishops right determined it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons The councell of Antioch though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse to send canonicall letters as the manner of Bishops among themselues in those times was which it denied to country presbyters yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed to ordaine alleging that they might lawfully doe it because they had beene ordained as Bishops Jt therefore determined that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries called Chorepiscopi although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure and gouerne the Churches subiect vnto them and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists should satisfie themselues with preferring of them and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect But if any shall presume to transgresse this decree hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath And whereas they pretended that they had episcopall ordination and therefore as BB might ordaine Ministers to take away that pretence it determined also that the Country B. should be ordained not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops as a Bishop but as other Presbyters or Ministers of the Bishop of the City vnto which he is subiect So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops afterwards according to this decree they were but Presbyters in deede though they had the title of Bishops neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times There is an Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Damasus the Author whereof supposeth that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters because they are found to haue beene ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe therefore they are remooued from Episcopall offices Wee know saith hee there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ that is to say of the 12. Apostles and 70. Disciples whence this third came we know not for neither are they Bishops because they be not ordained of three Bishops but only of one neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes neither may they be in the Citie because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop Neither will they bee called Presbyters but will be accounted more then Presbyters Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle I know not but this I am sure that Leo the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle which beareth the name of Damasus And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill whereof Isidore was President that it followeth the same almost word for word Now because my Aduersarie shall not say that what I haue alleged concerning Country Bishops is impertinent hee shall vnderstand that as the maine question concerning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued as you shall heare in due place so this present
other greater Cities but chiefly which was omitted by the Refuter betweene the short time of a few weekes and the continuance of 200. yeeres Jf at Ierusalem within a few weekes the Christians were become many thousands how may wee thinke they were increased before the end of 200. yeeres in Rome Alexandria Ephesus Antioch and such like Cities So that I doubt not but the consequence is strong enough containing an argument from the lesse to the greater though I prooue none of those foure things which hee would haue prooued as first that all which were conuerted in Ierusalem at that time remained members of that Church Which maketh not against the consequence but rather for it seeing those which remained not in Ierusalem were by persecution dispersed to other Cities to helpe forward the plough of Christ there Secondly that all the great Cities had the like meanes to that of Ierusalem which needeth not to be proued seeing the meanes which had beene vsed and the miracles which had beene wrought at Ierusalem were also effectuall in other places and are at this day besides the like meanes of their owne Thirdlie though the meanes were alike that yet the effects were answerable which also needeth not to be prooued seeing wee know by the report of the best Writers how wonderfully and miraculously the Church was multiplied in the greatest Cities within that time Fourthly that there was neuer any apostasie in any of those Churches with which Paul in his conceit doth seeme to charge them of Asia 2. Tim. 1.15 Which exception also is friuolous seeing not only the Churches of the greatest Cities Rome Alexandria and Antioch but euen these seuen of Asia were famous in those times for the profession of the faith Thus you see how he seeketh all the corners of his wit to finde if it were possible some starting hole whereby to escape the force of this consequence But these points are not worth the standing on Only whereas now hee chargeth the second time all them of Asia with apostasie from the faith because S. Paul saith that all who are in Asia had forsaken him hee must be admonished to reforme his iudgement For first Paul speaketh not of all the Christians of Asia but onely of all those Asians of note who had beene in Rome since his imprisonment of which number saith hee are Phygellus and Hermogenes Neither doth hee speake of an apostasie from the faith but of their forsaking him in his affliction as the Disciples had shrunke from our Sauiour Christ for else when hee saith in the fourth chapter of the same epistle In my first Apologie no man stood with me but all â—id forsake me wee might in like manner collect that all were Apostares from the faith But what kinde of desertion Paul meaneth whereinto those of Asia did fall it appeareth by the contrary practise of Onesiphorus whom he commendeth in the same place who often refreshed Paul and was not ashamed of his chaine but when he was at Rome hee was so farre from shrinking from Paul that hee most diligently sought him out and found him The others of Asia of whom hee complaineth when they were in Rome shrunke from him as being ashamed or afraid of his chaine Thus Chrysostome expoundeth it that Paul when hee was apprehended was forsaken of his friends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is likely there were many then in Rome from the parts of Asia but none saith hee stood to mee no man would know me all were estranged from me Theophylact likewise When Paul was apprehended of Nero hee was forsaken of all the faithfull in Asia who from Asia had gone to Rome with him Oâ—cumenius in like manner When Paul was apprehended of Nero his friends of Asia did forsake him for there were in Rome many of Asia which were followers of Paul or otherwise faithfull men but all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 withdrew themselues and as we say drew their neckes out of the collar after Nero had laid hold on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those in Asia that is those of Asia It is likely saith Theodoret that some of those which in Asia had beleeued were at Rome but auoided the companie of Paul for feare of Nero. As for the assumption viz. that the multitude of Christians at Ierusalem within a few weekes was great it maketh nothing saith he for him or against vs. Which is a strange speech seeing it is one of the premisses whereupon the conclusion is inferred and which being granted their assertion cannot be true But heere againe hee telleth vs of the great parishes about London saying that they of Ierusalem did all meet together as well as they Which is spoken against reason and against sense for first it was not intended that they of Ierusalem should meet as those of London which be of one parish after their multitude was increased Secondly neither might they being vnder persecution meet in great multitudes as those of London which through Gods goodnes enioy peace and liberty Thirdly neither had they such places of meeting for great multitudes But where I said it was not intended when their multitude should bee great that they of Ierusalem should assemble together as they who are of one parish about London that needeth some explanation The parishes about London and euery where from the beginning are each of them one among many seuered from the rest with purpose that all within that precinct should make an ordinarie set congregation hauing one Presbyter and not a presbyterie much lesse a Bishop assigned to them whereas contrariwise the Church of Ierusalem whereunto Iames was appointed Bishop assisted with a presbyterie of Ministers was neuer intended to be one parish among many but to bee a mother Church which should by Gods blessing beget others to bee seuered from it in particular assemblies and yet to remaine subordinate and subiect vnto it as children to the mother It was neuer meant neither in Ierusalem nor in any other Citie that the Bishop and his presbyterie should bee set ouer no more but one particular congregation or that as more congregations should bee constituted euerie one should haue a Bishop and a presbyterie But they were prouided for the people of God that either then were in the Citie and Countrey or after should bee which as it increased was to be diuided into seuerall Congregations whereunto Presbyters seuerally were to bee assigned all being members of one bodie subiected to the Bishop and Presbyterie of the mother Church which was as it were the head of that bodie The Refuter not contented thus to haue cauilled with my argument doth also threaten as though he had wrested my weapon out of my hands to turne the poem of it such is his crueltie to the very heart of my cause But his minaces are but words and his words but winde for this is all he can say or doe If the Christians
Ierome denies it as well as he For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement is a vaine flourish let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres I thinke I might say 1000. and I wil yeeld the cause And those latter Writers which consent with him vse his words build vpon his authority so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders whoÌ„ if I can disburdeÌ„ thereof there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops First then I say that they abuse Ierome who match him with Aërius for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke being a most perfect Arian as Epiphanius saith who liued at the same time liuing in a Church of Arians standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius who also was an Arrian out of a discontented humor the common sourse of Schisme and heresie broached this heresie as Epiphanius Augustine censure it Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying the Superiority of Bishops both de Iure as Augustine reporteth his opinion and de facto as Epiphanius alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For there is one order saith he of both one honor and one dignitie The Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the B. giueth the lauer of Baptisme so doth the Presbyter the B. doth administer Gods worship so doth the Presbyter the B. sitteth on the throne so also doth the Presbyter But Ierome was not so mad to vse the refuters words of Aërius who indeed as Epiphanius saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a franticke fellow as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which oftentimes he doth auouch neither doth he deny it de Iure And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes the one that he saith Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which most manifestly he did and did it no doubt with this mind that though he missed of the Bishopricke which ambitiously he had desired yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop The other that he saith Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be an Apostolicall tradition and therefore either he may be vnderstood as holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini but Apostolici iuris or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture that Presbyters are called Bishops But heereof wee may not conclude that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one for not onely Bishops but also Apostles are called Presbyters and the Apostleship is called Bishopricke For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops yet that one among many who had singular preheminence aboue the rest is by the warrant of the holy Ghost called the Angell of the Church and by the same warrant may be called the Bishop Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onely proueth the superiority de facto but de iure for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike but as Epiphanius reporteth all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers that being abandoned of all they were forced to liue in the open fields and in wods And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius that his opinion is not heresie because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops and that Augustine followed Epiphanius himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man For be it that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered as J haue shewed and seeing euery testimony alleaged by each heretike hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by euery one that hath written against them The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1 doth onely proue that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time he which was the Bishop of Philippi namely Epaphroditus was called their Apostle And it is confessed by many of the Fathers that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi which in a generall signification were called Bishops yet there was but one nay that there could be but one which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi And as touching Augustine I maruell that learned men could derogate so much from him as that he at that time especially would write vpon the authoritie of others what himselfe vnderstood not For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time but hee wrote that booke in his elder age euen after hee had written his bookes of Retractations at what time hee had written 230. bookes besides his Epistles and Homilies Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke whereby it might bee gathered that hee was in doubt whether any of those particulars which he noteth were to be judged heresies onely he saith that what maketh an Heretike can in his judgement hardly if at all be set downe in an accurate definition Notwithstanding he distributeth his intended Treaâ—ise into two parts The first of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine and which he could come to the knowledge of among which the heresies of Aërius haue the 53. place in the latter hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike But though he came not to that or if he did what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands yet in the conclusion of his Treatise which is extant he saith thus What the Catholike Church holdeth against these meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited it is but a superfluous question seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know Eam contra istâ— sentire nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam dâ—bere recipere that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe And again Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus istâ— non debet credere
a Catholike Apostasie from Christ. So that this pretended remedie against Schisme causing a Catholike apostasy is as much or more to be auoided then Schisme it selfe the remedie being far worse then the feared maladie Serm. sect 6. pag. 37. This power is twofold the power of ordination and of iurisdiction c. 19. lines to Titus in Creet Where I place the power wherein Bishops are superior to Presbyters in these two things the Reader is to vnderstand that I mention the principall and most essentiall for otherwise ancient writers mention other prerogatiues of Bishops wherein their superioritie doth consist as by imposition of hands to confirme them that are baptized and publickely to reconcile the penitents to consecrate Churches c. of some whereof Ierome indeed saith they did belong ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem rather to the honor of the Priesthood then to the necessitie of law But what saith the Refuter Now at the last yet saith he it seemeth that hee hath been long delaied or that he hath greatly longed in hope to do great matters to deale in this matter of ordination let vs see how it is proued that Bishops must haue sole power of ordination But where good sir do I say they must haue the sole power of ordination which you haue so oft objected and now againe do repeat make you no conscience of publishing vntruthes cannot BB. be superior to other ministers in the power of ordination and jurisdiction which is the thing which I maintaine vnlesse they haue the sole power or do I heere dispute what Bishops must haue when I onely shew what the ancient Bishops were wont to haue If he shall say that vnlesse they had the sole power of ordination they had not the superioritie which our Bishops haue I answer that our BB. haue no more the sole power of ordination then the ancient Bishops had And this I added in the Sermon that although the power of ordination was held in the primitiue Church to be so peculiar to Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie the ordination was not thought lawfull which was not done by a Bishop yet it doth not follow but that extraordinarily and in case of necessitie Presbyters might ordaine Howbeit I must confesse I am not able to alleage any approued examples thereof If the Refuter can which I do more then doubt of he shall do well to produce them it may tend to the credit of some other Churches it cannot be preiudiciall to the cause which I maintaine Seeing therefore the Refuter doth alter the state of the question making me to proue that which I did not intend because he could not answeare that which was propounded I should neither wrong him nor the Reader If I vouchsafed him no further answeare in this point But in very truth he is so far from refuting the superioritie of Bishops in the power of ordination which J propounded that he is not able to disproue their sole power which himselfe hath foisted into the question For as touching my first argument whereas he frameth for me this consequence It hath been the receiued opinion in the Church of God euer since the Apostles times that the right of ordination of Presbyters is such a peculiar prerogatiue of Bishops as that ordinarilie and regularlie there could be no ordination but by a Bishop therefore BB. haue sole authoritie of ordination he should haue said therefore they are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination he passeth by this consequence though he would faine perswade his Reader that it is lyable to he cannot tell what just exception and only insisteth on the antecedent which is the assumption of his prolixe syllogisme But it is worth the hearing how he doth disproue it Forsooth It halteth downe right hauing no strength but from a false supposition and so proued to be that there were alwaies Diocesan Bishops Here the Refuter if he would haue said any thing to satisfie his Reader should haue produced some approued example of ordination either in the Apostles times or since performed by Presbyters without a Bishop whereby he might haue disproued my assertion but not being able so to doe he betaketh himselfe to his ordinarie trade of answearing by meere cauillations He talketh of a supposition whereon the assumption is grounded when as the speech is simple and categoricall as they speake and not hypotheticall and the effect of his answeare is not the deniall of a supposition but the taking away of the subiect of the question as if he should say Bishops were not therefore they had not this power For where he addeth Diocesan that is spoken vnseasonably for the question now is not what their authoritie was extensiuè whether to a Diocese or not which in this point is not materiall but what it was intensiuè in respect of other ministers By that starting hole therefore he cannot escape especially if it be added that the supposition is not as he vntruely saith false for that errour he will as I hope recant when he shall haue read what I haue alledged for the proofe of Dioceses and Diocesan Bishops And whereas he saith he hath proued it to be false that also is vntrue for he neuer went about it Nec ausus est nec potuit onely he rejected it in a glorious maner as being so manifestly false that he should not need to disproue it But suppose for a little while that the refuters and the rest of the challengers conceit were true that there were no Bishops but parishionall and that the Presbyters joyned to them were lay elders it would then be knowne when the pastorall charge was voide who did ordaine the new Bishop or Pastor You will say that is alreadie defined It is one of the maine positions which the great challengers haue offred to prooue that euery parish hath within it selfe authoritie to elect ordaine depose and depriue their Minister Not that the whole parish doth ordaine but onely the Presbyterie Very good this then is the effect of the new Disciplinarians conceit that the power of ordination belongeth ordinarily neither to Bishops nor to other ministers but to their Presbyterie consisting of lay elders But if they can proue by any one approued example that lay elders had euer or at any time right to ordaine or to impose hands I will yeeld in the whole cause My second proofe he hath peruerted proportioning it to his owne strength for he should haue framed it thus If the power of ordination were not in the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet neither before Timothe and Titus were sent but in the Apostles nor after but in the Bishops that is to say in Timothe and Titus and their successors then the power of ordination is a prerogatiue peculiar to Bishops wherein they are superior to other ministers But both the parts of the antecedent are true therefore the consequent The former part of the
reciting both indifferently he referreth it to the Readers choise whither to embrace But let vs heare how the Refuter confuteth this interpretation The exposition of Ierome Primasius Anselme Haymo is not to be rested vpon because where Paul saith the grace giuen by Prophecie they say the grace of Prophecie plainely mistaking the Apostle as who should say because they mistooke the meaning of the word Prophecie therefore they erred in expounding the word Presbyterie by which reason we may argue that hee which mistaketh some one thing vnderstadeth nothing aright What if the refuter himselfe doth mistake for it is not all one to say the gift giuen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Prophecie and according to former Prophecies as he expoundeth it But by Prophecie is by the Reuelation and Direction of the holy Ghost whereby the Bishops who were ordained by the Apostles were designed and chosen But what if they did not mistake might not they meane by the gift of Prophecie the gift which was giuen by Prophecie yea was not the gift of Prophecying and preaching aright which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect for he continueth the exhortation begun in the words going before attend to reading exhortation and Doctrine the gift which was giuen him by Prophecie at his ordination Certes Bullinger thinketh the words may so be vnderstood DonuÌ„ quod tibi delegatuÌ„ est ad prophet andum and this is all which Ierome saith Prophetiae gratiam habebat tum ordinatione Episcopatus But what if some of them did not call it the grace of Prophecie Anselmus hath no such words but calleth it gratiam Episcopalis ofâ—icij which by prophecie was giuen him at his ordination But be it that their exposition were not to be rested in because of their other mistaking what is this to Lyras and Caluins exposition which is the same What more The three last Anselmus Haymo and Lyra follow Ierome hand ouer head For though they expound the word of the office yet they reade it not Presbyterij but Presbyteri But was not this exception taken hand ouer head and at all aduentures did not Anselmus read Presbyterij let his owne words testifie For first he readeth Pauls words thus Quae grâ—tia est data tibi per propheliam cum impositione manuum Presbyterij and then expoundeth them after this manner He speaketh of that imposition of hands which was vsed at his ordination which imposition of hands was Presbyterij of the Presbyterie or Priesthood and then giueth two reasons of the word either because by this imposition he receiued the Presbyterie that is the office of a Bishop for a Bishop is often called Presbyter by the Apostles and likewise a Presbyter is called a Bishop or because it was the imposition of the hands of a Presbyter that is Paul who imposed hands vpon him for so Peter and Iohn call themselues in their Epistles So that he readeth Presbyterij though in one of his explanations he expoundeth it as if the Apostle by Presbyterij did meane Presbyteri The ordinarie glosse indeed readeth Presbyteri but so doth not Lyra For expounding the word he saith Est autem Presbyterium the Presbyterie is the dignitie or office of a Presbyter accipitur hic Presbyterium pro Episcopatu and Presbyterie or Priesthood here is taken for the office of a Bishop Thus you see how faithfully he hath dealt with these authors It may be he will deale more truelie with Caluin For wheras I alleage his iudgemeÌ„t in his Institutions vnderstanding Paul not as if he spake of the Colledge of Seniors but of the ordination it self as if he had said Endeuour that the grace which by imposition of hands thou didst receiue when I made thee Presbyter be not in vaine he saith thus that Caluin in his former writings leaued to that sense of the word I deny not but in his latter times and namely in his Commentary on that place though he say that exposition is not much amisse yet hee affirmeth that they which vnderstand it of the Colledge of Presbyters in his iudgement thinke rightly of it Which answere consisteth of forged cauillations For first he would make the Reader beleeue that Caluins iudgement in his Institutions is the opinion of his younger head and that his iudgement in his Commentary is to be preferred as proceeding from riper yeeres It would therefore first be knowne whether that edition of his Institutions which I alleaged set forth by himselfe or his Commentaries on the Epistle to Timothy be the latter Is it not euident that he wrote that CoÌ„mentary in King Edwards time whiles the Duke of Somerset was liuing Whereas that edition of his Institutions was set forth by him in the time of Queene Elizabeth Againe where Caluins iudgement seemeth to vary who doubteth but that is to be esteemed his setled iudgement wherein he rested which is set downe in the Jnstitutions whereunto himselfe doth referre his Reader for this purpose being indeed a most accurate and elaborate worke often reuiewed and polished by him And therefore though the first draught of his Institutions was made in his younger daies which in processe of time he did by little and little bring to perfection yet the last edition much differing from the first is as it were his last resolution for those things which are contained therein Whereas therefore of the two senses which in his Commentaries he giueth of the word Presbytery misliking neither he maketh choice in his Institutions of that which vnderstandeth the office and plainely reiecteth the other which thereby vnderstandeth the Colledge of Presbyters and that to proue that sometimes no more then one did impose hands which hee confirmeth by the Apostles owne testimony who saith that himselfe and no more did impose hands on Timothy and that the grace which was giuen him was by the imposition of Pauls hands it cannot be denied that Caluins iudgement wherein he rested was that by the Presbytery not the Colledge but the office is meant But leauing other men Refuter the is pleased to appeale to my conscience and to appose me what gouerneth the genuine case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery I answere first that it may be gouerned of the word gift which traiâ—ction of words the learned tongues doe better beare then the English which for the most part disposeth words according to the construction and yet the English will beare it well enough if the words betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gift and Presbytery be inclosed in a parenthesis Neglect not the gift which was in thee which was giuen thee by prophecie with imposition of hands of priesthood or Presbytery But indeed Ierome Anselme and Caluin and the rest to whom I adde Erasmus vnderstand it as gouerned of the words next going before without any traiection with imposition of hands that is ordination of priesthood for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one euen
in the iudgement of the Refuter that is when thou wast ordained Presbyter So saith Ierome Cum ordinations episcopatus when thou wert ordained Bishoppe Anselme This imposition was presbyterij of the priesthood because by this imposition of hands meaning ordination hee receiued the Presbytery that is the office of a Bishop I vnderstand saith Caluin the ordination it selfe as if he should say the grace which by imposition of hands thou dâ—st receiue when I made thee Presbyter Calum therefore vnderstandeth it to be gouerned as if it were said Cum ordinatione Presbyteratus For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth either the Senate or company of Presbyters which in Latine we call Presbyterium or the office degree and order of a Presbyter which we call Presbyteratus Yea but the Refuter will shew the absurdity of this interpretation by laying downe the order of the words in the Greeke and yet varieth not at all from the order which I myselfe set downe But this is but to please the simple For he might as well require the words in Greeke and Latine to be set downe in the order of construction as to make the order of words in Greeke and Latine sentences to be answerable to the English Howbeit this exception is against his owne conceit of the traiection of the words it toucheth not the exposition of Ierome Caluin and the rest which is without traiection In his conclusion where he bids me forbeare to bleare the eyes of the Readers with an exposition against reason and mine owne conscience he wrongeth me egregiously and not me alone but all the Authors whom I alleaged For first I did not deliuer this as my exposition but faithfully recited the interpretation giuen by these Authors Secondly if I had rested in this interpretation as I did not though I see no reason why I may not why should it be counted against reason and against coÌ„science in me which I receiued from so approued Authors But what a contumely is this to Ierome Caluin and the rest whose exposition it is warranted by the testimony of Paul to say they bleare the eies of their Readers with an exposition against reason and their owne conscience I wish the Refuter vnlesse his iudgement were better to forbeare to condemne other mens expositions as void of reason and vnlesse his knowledge were greater not to measure other mens conscience by his owne For that which is against his conscience as not being within the compasse of his science may bee agreeable to the science and consceince of them who haue more knowledge and better iudgements But if he would needs censure Caluins exposition as void of reason why did he not answere Caluins reason grounded on the authority of Saint Paul For if Timothy were ordained by a Presbytery then vndoubtedly by more then one But Paul saith Caluin in another place saith that he and not any more imposed hands on Timothy 2. Tim 1 6. And so much might suffice for the former exposition sauing that by way of aduantage something is to bee added out of Erasmus who also vnderstanding the word Presbytery of the office giueth notwithstanding another sense This Paul saith Thou hast not onely the gift of prophecie but also the efficacie by imposition of hands to giue the spirit also to others and that by the office of thy priesthood namely as thou art Bishop And to this interpretation hee was led by force of the Greeke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth with not as an instrument but as a companion And this may seeme to haue been Ambrose his iudgement also that Paul gratiam dari ordinatoris significat signifieth the grace of an ordainer to be giueÌ„ Which sense if we follow this place maketh wholly for the Bishops authority in ordaining this being the sense of the Apostle that Timothy had receiued the gift of the ministery together with power to impose hands on others by vertue of his office as he was Bishop The latter exposition is of them who vnderstand the word Presbytery collectiuè for a Senate or company of men In which sense though the word receiueth from diuers learned men a threefold interpretation yet in none doth it either fauour the Disciplinarians Presbytery or preiudge the superiority of Bishoppes in the power of ordination For some by Presbytery vnderstand the Apostle as speaking of himselfe by a synecdoche led thereunto by the Apostles testimony in the place before cited where he exhorteth Timothy to stirre vp the grace which was in him by imposition saith he of my hands And this is one of Anselmus his expositions with whom Dionysius Carthus agreeth ioining both his expositions in one Manuum Presbyterij saith he i. manuum meaerum that is of my hands who did ordaine theâ— Bishop By which imposition the Presbytery or priesthood was conferred vpon thee So that in their iudgement wherewith Caluin also agreeth none but Paul did impose hands in the ordination of Timothy The second interpretation is of the Greeke Fathers Chrysostome Theodoret Theophylact and Oecumenous who expounding the word collectiuè doe vnderstand a senate or company of Apostles and Apostolicall men who were either Bishops or more then Bishops Chrysostomes words be these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee doth not speake here of Presbyters but of Bishops for surely Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop Oecumenium hath the like words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact Of the Presbytery that is of Bishoppes Theodoret He calleth them here the Presbytery who had receiued Apostolicall grace Neither doth any Writer that I know of before our age vnderstanding the word collectiuè for a company expound it otherwise but conceiuing Timothy to haue been ordained Bishoppe by the company of Apostolicall men who either were Bishoppes or more then Bishoppes Now we doe not deny but that diuers Bishops are to concurre in the ordination of a Bishop But that hindereth not but that Presbyters and Deacons may be ordained by one So are wee taught in the two first canons called Apostolicall Let a Bishop be ordained of two or three Bishoppes Let a Presbyter be ordained by one Bishoppe likewise a Deacon and the rest of the clergy This exposition therefore defeating their pretended Presbytery is so farre from derogating from the superiority of BB. in ordaining as that it plainly prooueth it because the ordination of BB. wherewith Presbyters haue nothing to doe belongeth to BB. The third exposition is of Beza and some other new Writers who by Presbytery vnderstand the order of Presbyters By which name saith Beza that whole company is signified which did labour in the word in that Church where this was done Neither will I reiect this exposition though it be new being vnderstood of Timothy his ordination to be a Presbyter so that they will not deny that which Paul affirmeth that himselfe was so principall a man in this company as
Presbyters as this Bishop also did vnder his presence to do those things which are not done but by Bishops but that he should call for a Bishop to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church But if we must talke of toyes what a toy was this that all these things which I haue alleaged being duely considered diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers haue renounced their ordination which they had receiued from a Bishop that they might be ordained by such as themselues And thus you haue heard how easilie he hath answered the Councils by vouchsafing them no answere Now let vs weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome His common answere to both is such as vnlearned yet obstinate Papists vse to giue that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments yet there be learned men which can There be Lectures of the parâ—â—ie of Ministers one day to be published which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome Why but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne that he referreth vs thus to other men yes no doubt such answeres as his are neuer to seeke First he wrangleth with Ephiphanius and then with me for alledging him He telleth Epiphanius that he beggeth the question Alas good man he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing And what was the question I pray you was it not the same which is now betweene you and vs whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall as Aërius held This assertion of Aërius Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments as I do yours prouing that BB. are superiour to other Presbyters both in the power of ordination and iurisdiction His former argument may thus be concluded That order which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church is superiour to that which hath not that power The order of Bishops hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church which the order of Presbyters is not able to doe Therefore the order of Bishops is superiour to the order of Presbyters Call you this begging of the question Yea but Aërius denied that Bishops had power more then Presbyters to beget Fathers How is this proued he said they were equall It followeth not Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things that the Bishops did in some particulars by an insufficient enumeration or induction concludeth that therfore there was no difference betweene them The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people noting those things whch be common to Bishops with other ministers as their imposing hands on the penitent their giuing of Baptisme their executing of Diuine seruice their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues Epiphanius therefore sheweth that although it were true that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity yet this hindreth not but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances which Aërius himselfe could not denie because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons which Presbyters had not the second because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters The Refuter therefore should rather haue suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement then haue laid such an imputation vpon Epiphanius What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme He denieth in effect though perhaps he intend not so much both the proposition and the assumption and first the assumption For where Epiphanius saith that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers he asketh What hindreth them but the vsurpation of Bishops In which words two things are implied The first that the power of ordination which the BB. haue is vsurped by them The second that Presbyters haue as good right to ordaine as they But you will say how are those things proued you must be intreated to take them vpon his word for prooâ—e he hath none and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions self-set assertions which haue no ground nor warrant in the word of God or true reason before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers of all the approued Councils of all true Christian Churches of former times We proue that the Apostles had the right of ordaining that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes and to their successors to their substitutes as to Timothe in Ephesus and Titus in Creet to Mark at Alexandria to Polycarpus at Smyrna to Euodius at Antioch to Linus at Rome c. to their successors as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles the same was deriued to their successors which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers and Councils many of them affirming and confirming not one I say not one denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation As touching Presbyters that they haue right to ordaine we see no warrant in the word but rather the contrarie no testimonie of Fathers no decree of Councils for it but many testimonies and decrees against it no approued example to warrant it how then could he say the Presbyters haue as good right to ordain as BB But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes this I will offer him that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers Councils or Histories of the Church prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers J meane Presbyters and Deacons I will promise to subscribe to his assertion But if he cannot do this as I know he cannot then let him for shame giue place vnto the truth Againe whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith that BB. beget Fathers meaning that they haue power to ordaine ministers of the word and sacraments or as he expoundeth himselfe teachers he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words saying that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vnto God Why but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers ordained of God to this end that they may by the lauer of regeneration ministery of the Gospell beget children vnto God when Stephen
are all to one purpose that at the first in the Apostles times BB. and Elders were all one that is the same men who were called Presbiters were also called BB. but by the way where were the Lay-presbiters then were they also called BB. and that till factions did arise the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbiters To these allegations I haue already made answere which I doe breifely repeate that in the Apostles times before BB. were ordayned the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the Presbiters as vnder the Apostles and vntill the BB. were elected from among the Presbiters in the seueral Churches the names of Presbiters Episcopus were confounded but when BB. were chosen out of the Presbiters as they were not at the first for the first BB. were Apostles as Iames and Apostolicall men as Marke Timothie and Titus Linus Evodiu◠c. and were not called Episcopi but Apostoli then for distinction sake he which was chosen from among the Presbiters and placed in a higher degree began to be called Episcopus euen in the Apostles times the name of Apostle being left to them who principally were so called But what will the refuter conclude from hence There was a time whiles the Apostles liued when thesame men were called Presbiters and BB. that is the names were confounded Therefore in the three hundred yeeres after the Apostles the Churches were not gouerned by Diocesan BB. But as the allegations were impertinent so the other aduers Lucifer is not onely impertinent but also misalledged The Bishops preferment saith Ierome according to the refuters allegation was not by necessitie of law but granted to him to honour him withall In that Dialogue there is a controuersie betweene the true Christian and the Luciferian the true Christian would haue those which were baptised by Arians to be baptised againe before they should be receiued againe vnto the communion because by their baptisme who belieued the Father alone to be God the Sonne a creature and the holy Ghost the seruant of both the holy Ghost was not communicated the Luciferian held they might be receiued without baptisme by imposition of hands whereby the holy Ghost should be giuen them which before they had not receiued and to that purpose alledgeth the practise of the Apostles who by imposition of hands gaue the holy Ghost to those whom Philippe the Deacon had baptised and the custome generally receiued of the Church that BB. by imposition of hands doe communicate the holy Ghost to them that are baptised The true Christian replyeth that BB. vse to impose hands onely on those who were baptised into the true faith and that by the baptisme giuen by a Presbiter of Deacon the holy Ghost also is conferred But saith he if here you demaund why hee that is baptized in the Church receiueth not the holy Ghost but by the hands of the B. whom we hold to be giuen in true baptisme vnderstand that this obseruation is deriued from that authority that the holy Ghost after the ascension of the Lord descended vpon the Apostles and the same thing we finde done in many places ad honorem potius Sacerdotij quà m ad legis necessitatem more for the honour of the Episcopall function then for the necessitie of a law For otherwise if onely at the prayer of the B. the holy Ghost doth descend then lamentable is their case who in Villages and Townes and in other remote places being baptized of Presbiters and Deacons doe depart out of this life before the B. visite them the safety of the Church dependeth on the dignitie of the B. c. as hath beene oft alledged That which Ierome speaketh of this one prerogatiue of BB. the refuter extendeth to his whole preferment or preheminence and saith he hath it not by any necessitie of law but is granted to him to honour him The preheminence of the B. in generall Ierome supposed to be of such necessity as that the safety of the Church dependeth vpon it but for this particular of giuing the holy Ghost he saith there was no such necessitie because in the Baptisme by a Presbiter or Deacon before the B. imposeth his hands the holy Ghost is bestowed But as I said this testimonie is also impertinent not concluding that for which it is brought For it is a strange inference their preheminence was giuen not of necessitie but to honor them therfore the Church was not gouerned by them in the three hundred years after Christ his Apostles Neither is it impertinent only to his purpose but also it concludeth for me for if BB. had their preheminence in the primitiue Church as here it is presupposed then their gouernment is proued to haue beene in vse but whether it were by an honour voluntarily giuen them or by necessitie of law that in this present point is not materiall After Ierome he citeth Augustine in an Epistle to Ierome granting that the office of a B. was greater then another Minister through a custome of the Church that had gotten the vpper hand and not otherwise If by the custome of the Church the office of a B. was become greater before Ierome and Augustines time then BB. had this preheminence in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles so farre is this testimonie from disprouing the gouernment of BB. in those times But neither is it truely alledged for he speaketh not so much of the office as the names and that not otherwise is added by the Refuter and the granting he talketh of was not a yeelding vpon necessitie but a modest cession from his right Augustine towards the end of the Epistle earnestly desireth Ierome that hee would boldly correct him wherein hee should thinke it needfull Quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae iam Ecclesiae vsus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio maior sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est licèt etiam â minore quolibet non sit fugienda vel dedignanda correctio For though according to the names of honour Bishopship is greater then Priesthood that is is a name of greater honour or is honoured with greater titles notwithstanding in many things Augustine is inferiour to Ierome howbeit correction is not to be shunned or disdayned from euery one that is inferiour In that Episcopatus is a name of greater honour then Priesthood it is to be ascribed to the vse and custome of the Church for at the first they were confounded Againe might not some one of our BB. in King Edwards time haue vsed the same words writing to Caluin as well as Augustine vsed them towards Ierome would therefore the Refuter inferre that in the times fore-going there had not beene Diocesan BB. or that they ought not to be superiour to other Ministers Surely howsoeuer Augustine in modesty or any other being a B. was loath to preferre himselfe before Ierome or any other man of renowne being but a Presbiter
Refuter out of 2 Tim. 4.9 11.12.21 c. and therevpon inferre they were not Bishops But neither are all his proofes good neither is his inference sound He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him For first thither the Apostle sent Tychicus As if he had said whether Paul sent Tychicus there Timothie was not Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them that one place could-not hold them both Secondly because from the place where he was Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome with him to bring the cloake the books parchments which he left at Troas As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas did not argue that he was at Ephesus which is in the same peninsula rather then else where But that he was at Ephesus may be gathered hereby because the Apostle willeth him to salute Aquila and Priscilla whom he left at Ephesus Act. 18.19 the houshold of Onesiphorus which also was there 2 Tim. 4.19 with 1.16 Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome Now heare his inferences Titus was sent from Candy to Rome and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia therfore he was not B. of Candy Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him therefore hee was not B. there c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome therefore he was not B. of Ephesus These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles and to the generall consent of antiquity which testifieth that they were Bishops Whereas therefore he asketh who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops I say it is intollerable boldnesse and arrogancie to auouch the contrarie And such is that presumptuous speech that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops it had beene a matter neither of good report for them nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places For so long as ordinarily they were resident their absence at some times vpon vrgent and weighty occasions was neither of ill report nor bad example Besides when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus and sent for Timothie from Ephesus he sent the one to supply the absence of the other as Caluin also hath obserued Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. The other thing which they obiect is that they were Euangelists but that doth not hinder c. to the midst of page 81. The second obiection saith the Refuter lyeth thus Timothie and Titus were Euangelists Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet This consequence I denied because their being Euangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches and furnished with Episcopall power they became Bishops Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things First that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches without which they could not be Bishops And this hee proueth by two reasons For first if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches then should he haue confounded the offices which as himselfe saith 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 God had distinguished Secondly hee should haue depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin These are nice points which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand neither did they conceiue but that Euangelists might without any disparagement to them be assigned to seuerall Churches and so become Bishops For if they held that the Apostles themselues being assigned to certaine Churches as Iames was to Ierusalem were BB. much more Euangelists But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vpon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to haue had we will briefly consider what that Euangelisticall function was and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops An Euangelist therefore was he which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ whether by preaching or also by writing In the latter sence there are foure onely called Euangelists Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn who though they all preached yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists In the former sence the word is taken either generally to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell or specially signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell being not affixed to any certaine place And these seeme to haue beene of two sorts For either they were immediatly called of Christ and by him sent to preach the Gospell as the 72. Disciples or they were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their iourneyes and assistants in the Ministery Of the former sort was Philippe who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist Act. 21.8 Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes and were not assigned to any certaine place That which the Fathers say of the 7◠Disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery may of this latter sort much more be verified who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers being not tyed to any one place For neither had they the power of ordination neither as Zanchy saith did they gouerne the Churches now one then another as the other Euangelists and Prophets did Wee see what the office of Euangelists was Now let vs see whether it hindered men from being Bishops For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ yet might they when they ended their trauailes and betooke them to certaine Churches haue beene Bishops thereof For Marke the Euangelist after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria became B. thereof in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times much lesse doth their being of the latter sort For though the Apostle di◠distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4 yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists and in the latter he speaketh of those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists and perhaps also the 72 whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised an order or eutaxy it is the perpetual immutable ordinance of God the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society as the wise man saith tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour notwithstanding there were other things in them which being perpetually necessary for the being and well being of the Church were from them to be communicated or deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen in the Apostles times For what authority Evodius had at Antioch the same after him had Ignatius and what Linus had at Rome the same had Anacletus Clemens Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
retayning the gouernment of Diocesan Bishops hee vseth these words Who would haue thought to haue heard such a speech from him that acknowledgeth another gouernment good and lawfull pag. 95. and maketh the calling of Bishops no further of diuine institution then as being ordayned by the Apostles it proceeded from God without implying thereby any necessarie perpetuitie thereof Pag. 92. Thus sincerely their cause of sinceritie as themselues call it is maintained Now that Bishops were ordayned of God I proue by this argument as the refuter hath framed it If God ordayned Timothie Archippus and the Angels of the seauen Churches Bishops then were Bishops ordained by God But God ordained them Bishops Therefore Bishops were ordained by God As touching Timothie I argued thus By whom was he ordained Bishop By Paul I confesse as the instrument but yet by the holy Ghost as the author and directer of his ordination For he was made B. by prophecie 1 Tim. 4. How is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What is by Prophecie saith Chrysostome by the holy Ghost Paul stirring him vp putteth him in minde who elected and ordained him as if hee had said God hath chosen thee hee hath committed his Church vnto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou wert made Bishop not by humane suffrage but by Prophecie that is by Diuine reuelation saith Theodoret that is spiritu sancto iubente by the commandement of the holy Ghost saith Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by the appointment of the holy Ghost Bishops were made and not at randome Whereunto you may adde the testimonie of Caluin Per Prophetiam quomodo quia scilicet spiritus sanctus oraculo Timotheum destinauerat vt in ordinem pastorum cooptaretur Neque enim delectus tantuacute m fuerat hominum iudicio vt fieri solet sed praecesserat spiritus nuncupatio To this argument the refuter answereth nothing but that which I haue plainely and fully confuted before that Timothie was not a Bishop though Caluin as you see confesseth that Timothie by the oracle of the holy Ghost was chosen into the order of Pastors For if hee were a Pastor it is not to be doubted but he was a Bishop That Archippus was ordayned Bishop of God I proue thus Because Col. 4.17 Paul vsing the same exhortation to him vvhich hee gaue to Timothie the Bishop of Ephesus namely that hee should fulfill his ministerie hee addeth which thou hast receiued in the Lord and therefore by Gods ordinance and as it vvere at his hands The refuter hauing framed the argument thus Hee that receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord was ordained a B. by the Lord. Archippus receiued his Episcopall ministerie in the Lord Therefore hee was ordained Bishop by the Lord He denyeth the proposition because neither is all Episcopall ministerie proper to a Diocesan Bishop else the Apostle would not haue made a B and Presbyter all one neither is that office onely in the Lord. Of which reasons the latter is meerely impertinent and friuolous For who euer said or thought that the office of a Bishop onely is in the Lord neither is the former to any purpose seeing he knoweth that by Episcopall ministerie I vnderstand the function of a Diocesan Bishop and therefore should not haue denyed the proposition but haue distinguished of the assumption saying that hee did not receiue the Episcopall ministerie meaning the function of a Diocesan Bishop For proofe whereof it sufficeth to mee that Archippus was as Ambrose noteth Bishop of Collosae which was a Citie seeing I haue manifestly proued before that the Bishops of Cities were Diocesan Bishops As touching the Angels I argue thus Those who are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the Church and were signified by the seauen starres which were in Christs right hand had Diuine both institution and approbation The Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches are called by the holy Ghost the Angels of the seauen churches and were signified by the seauen starres which vvere in Christs right hand Therefore the Diocesan Bishops of the seauen Churches had diuine both institution and approbation The proposition I proued because they who are called Angels are authorized and sent of God and starres vvhose both preheminence of dignitie is noted in this life for the starres are the crowne of the Church and also prerogatiue of glorie which they shall haue in the world to come And finally they who are signified by the seauen starres in the right hand of Christ are such as Christ doth both approue and protect The assumption I went not about to proue now because it was proued at large in the former part of the Sermon And yet all that the refuter answereth to the purpose is that they were not Diocesan Bishops For that which he addeth besides is but the vttering of his spleene and emptying his gall against Bishops to whom he cannot abide such is his malice that the titles of Angels and starres which notwithstanding the holy Ghost giueth to the Bishops of the seauen Churches and which himselfe acknowledgeth to be titles common to all ministers should be applyed to Bishops It is true that these titles of Angels and stars are common to all ministers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie their preheminence they be attributed to Bishops For as I haue said before when in a Church where are many Ministers who are all tearmed Angels the Bishop onely is called the Angel of the Church this title doth note his singular preheminence And the same is signified when as there being a great number of ministers in Asia who all were starres the seauen Bishops onely of those Churches are signified by the seauen starres vvhich Christ held in his right hand Now if these seauen Bishops were Diocesan Bishops as I haue manifestly proued them and all the Bishops of the auncient Churches to haue beene then must the refuter be content to endure both that Diocesan Bishops were called the Angels of the Churches and the starres which Christ held in his right hand and consequently also that the function of Diocesan Bishops is of Diuine institution And thus passing by his rayling as not worth the mentioning I proceede to the conclusion of my Sermon The VII CHAPTER Defending the conclusion of the Sermon and shewing that the chiefe Protestant writers did not disallow the Episcopall gouernment The third part of the Serm. Sect. 1. page 94. Thus hauing proued this doctrine arising out of the Text that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution it remaineth that we should from thence gather some vses to our selues both for the informing of our iudgement and reforming of our liues c. to now let vs pag. 97. THe vse which serueth for rectifying the iudgement is contained in this section and it is first propounded and afterwards maintained against two obiections The vse is this that
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
your Lay-Deacons no more then our Churchwardens and Collectors for the poore As touching the latter Syllogisme which the refuter saw not The proofe of the proposition dependeth vpon the former Syllogisme For if the Presbyters to whom Paul spake were Ministers onely as hath beene proued then the duties which hee requireth of them onely in that place he requireth peculiarly of Ministers The assumption affirming that the duties both generall and speciall 1. Tim. 5.17 are the same with those Act. 20.28 I explaine in the Sermon shewing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are the words translated to gouerne well and containe the generall dutie is the same with attending to themselues and their flocke which I did more fully deliuer in the Sermon of the dignitie and dutie of the Ministerie which the refuter himselfe doth seeme to approue shewing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is carefully to attend to themselues their flocke To themselues that they may be precedents and as the holy Ghost speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patternes and samplers of a godly life For this in the Apostles phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be presidents of good workes To the flocke also they must attend First by ouerseeing and watching ouer them Secondly by feeding them in the ministerie of the word sacrameÌ„ts Thirdly by praying for them both publikely priuately The speciall dutie which is to labour in the word and doctrine is the same with feeding the flocke of Christ which is also noted as the speciall dutie Act. 20.28 The refuter though he saw not the reason yet he would be sure to contradict my assertion and therefore stumbling vpon the proposition he saith that neither of the duties mentioned in the Acts are restrained to Ministers onely For to attend to the flocke is all one saith he with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more generall and the speciall dutie of feeding which he confineth to the word and doctrine is often vsed for gouerning also as Mat. 2.6 Apoc. 2.27 7.17 12.5 19. 15. Grec schol in Act. 14.23 The truth of my proposition as I said dependeth on the former Syllogisme as vpon a sure hold and the dutie signified 1. Tim. 5. by ruling well and Act. 20. by attending to themselues and their flocke being applied as in both places it is to Ministers and importing as he hath confessed the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall must be confessed to bee restrained to Ministers As for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this plaâ—â— is truely translated to feed besides the proper sense wherin somtimes it is vsed as Luk. 17.7.1 Cor. 9.7 Iud. 12 it hath indeed 2. metaphoricall significations in the Scriptures translated from shepheards to ciuill or spirituall pastors the one as it is applied to Princes ciuill Pastors and so it signifieth chiefly to rule the other as it is attributed to Spirituall Pastors and so it signifieth chiefly to feed with spirituall food For our Sauiour coÌ„manding Peter if he loued him to feed his sheepe which text the Papists vnderstanding the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the refuter doth of ruling abuse to proue the Popes supremacie expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth not to rule but to feed It is true that authority of guiding and gouerning his flocke is implyed also in the signification of the worde but it is a pastorall authoritie giuen to none but pastors and to them vnto this end that they may feed the flocke Which ende is noted by Paul Act. 20.28 to feede the flocke as also by our Sauiour himselfe Luke 12 42 where the Lords seruant is said to be set ouer his houshold to this end to giue them their foode in due season For therefore are they called pastors that is such as doe feede Caluin speaking of this word in 1. Pet. 5.2 saith the name of Presbyter containeth in it the dutie of feeding And the definition of the word is to be knowne Because the flocke of Christ Pasci non potest nisi pura doctrina quae sola spirituale est pabulum cannot bee fedde but with pure Doctrine which is the onely spirituall foode Hence it is that Pastors Doctors which some would distinguish are in the scriptures confounded As Eph 4.11 For whereas the Apostle when he would note diuerse functions vseth notes of distinction saying Christ gaue some to be Apostles some to be Euangelists c when he coÌ„meth to Pastors and Doctors he vseth a note of copulation For he doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but some pastors and Doctors vsing the latter word as the explication of the former and nothing that by Pastors hee meaneth such as be teachers Vpon which words Augustine saith thus Pastors and Doctors whome you would haue mee to distinguish I thinke are one and the same For Paul doth not say some pastors some Doctors but to pastors ioyneth doctors that pastors might vnderstand it belongeth to their office to teach of the same iudgmeÌ„t is Sedulius Muscul some others In the places which the refuter quoteth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not applied at all to Ecclesiasticall persons but either to Christ and to him either as our King then it signifieth to rule as Mat. 2.6 cited out of Mi. 5.1 Apoc. 12 5. as it is vsually paralleld with Psal. 2.9 Apoc. 19.15 compared with v. 16. or as our pastor doctor and theÌ„ it signifieth to feed and so ought to be translated as Apoc 7.17 where to our hunger thirst v. 16. his feeding leading vs to the waters of life is opposed or else it is applied to all the faithfull who in Christ are made Kings as Apo. 2.27 The Greeke scholiast in the place quoted hath no such thing But is alledged by T. C. to another purpose for the proofe of Lay-Elders as we shal heare which perhaps was the cause of this allegatioÌ„ But on the place in hand vpon those wordes Attend to your selues and the flocke he saith that Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enioyneth the teachers two things to be done and noteth also whom Luke called ver 17. Presbyters to bee called in this verse Bishops either saith hee because presbyters or ministers also must superintend the flocke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else hee calleth Bishops here such as indeed be Bishops in like manner on 1. Pet. 5.1.2 with some parallel with Act 20.28 Hee noteth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-Elder in that place if it bee not vsed as a word of age doth import 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the honour of a Bishop as if he had called himselfe their fellow Bishop For in the booke of the Acts also Bishops are called Presbyters and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee vnderstandeth the Clergie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee calleth
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature And although he omitted their qualities in other places yet mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach especially in that sense that the Apostle meaneth as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit 1.9 yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office both from the Minister and Deacon that it is comprehended in neither For who cannot conceiue this reason None but Bishops Ministers and Deacons are described in that place Bishops and Ministers in the former description and Deacons in the latter But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers nor Deacons but an imagined office distinct from both Therefore they are not described in that place The refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged prescribing the office or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God Nor that neither as shall appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
deeds consider his repelling of Theodosius the Emperour from entring into the Church vntill he had testified his repentance his not permitting him to remaine within the Chācell alledging that it was a place peculiar to the Clergie which fauour when Nectarius the Bishop of Cōstantinople would haue grāted to him Theodosius professed that he had with much a doe learned the differēce between an Emperour and a Bishop adding that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth Ambrose is the onely man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith in the Emperours Consistorie when Valentinian the younger had sent for him contrarie to a law made by his Father Valentinian protesting that he would rather loose his life then by his yeelding the honour of Bishops should be diminished Non tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deijciat sacerdotium non tanti est vnius vita quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum his refusall to deliuer vp the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperour Valētinians commandement professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperour but the Churches to the Bishop His other doubt is whether I compare Ambrose with them of his owne time or with them that liued before or after c here was a knot sought in a bullrush seeing my meaning is euident that Ambrose laboured as much as any of the ancient approued Fathers And that he did so it is alreadie sufficiently manifested If that be so saith he then either all men thought it needfull for the Bishop to be aduised and directed as D. Bilson saith by the counsell and consent of Elders or else that Ambrose who thoght it needful as appeareth by this testimonie labored not to magnifie such a calling of Bishops as M.D. maintaineth Ambrose others thought it needful that a presbyterie of graue ancient ministers should with their coūsell aduise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt as D. Bilson saith of daunger and importance when as yet nether Synodes could assemble nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church But this as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders so doth it no more detract from the dignitie of Bishops to vse the counsell of wise and learned men then it doth derogate from the Maiestie of Kings to vse the aduise of their wise faithfull Counsellors There remaineth the third branch Wherevnto besides his rayling against our Bishops for subiecting Ministers to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls which are but lay-men hee answereth onely That if adioyning Presbyters to the Byshop bee a subiecting him to them I doubt not but this testimony will prooue that Ambrose was not willing that Ministers should bee subiected to the Consistories of Lay-men There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers they of Lay-Elders Ambrose of an assistance to aduise and direct such as is the aduise of Counsellers to a Prince they of an assistance to ouerrule as in the Romane Senate by plurality of voices giuing their Bishop not so much as one negatiue voice Ambrose therfore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop they an assistance of Lay-Elders subjecting the Bishops to them Neither should they of all men raile against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors c. seeing it is not so vntollerable that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the lawes and that so farre onely as the B. shall thinke fit as that they should not onely be ouerruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most countrey-parishes but also stand to the curtesie of them and their neighbours to be deposed and depriued at their pleasure Now how farre Ambrose was from subiecting BB or Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Consistories of Lay-men may appeare first by his sentence giuen against Palladius the Arfian Bishop in the Councell of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answere but before some honourable persons of the Laytie who were at hand Ambrose answered Priests or BB. ought to iudge of Lay-men and not Lay-men of Priests And againe though hee bee found guiltie of manie impieties notwithstanding we are abashed that hee which challengeth Priesthood to himselfe should seeme to be condemned of Lay-men And therefore forasmuch as heerein hee is to be condemned who expecteth the sentence of Lay-men seeing rather priests ought to iudge of Laymen according to those things which to day wee haue heard Palladius professing and according to those things which he refused to condemne I pronounce him saith Ambrose vnworthie of Priest-hood But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperour wherein hee refuseth to be tryed as his aduersary Auxentius desired in the Emperors Consistorie alleadging that his Father Valentinian had by Law prouided that in the cause of faith or of any Ecclesiasticall order hee ought to iudge qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis who is neiher in function vnequall nor in right vnlike that is Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare Hee would haue BB for them ordinarily hee meaneth by Sacerdotes to iudge of BB or Priests Yea moreouer saith hee if a Bishop were otherwise called into question and the cause of manners were to be examined euen this also would hee that is Valentinian the Father haue to belong to Episcopall iudgement When did you euer heare most gracious Emperor that Lay-men in a cause of faith iudged of BB Are wee therefore so bowed with flatterie that wee forget the right of BB And that I should thinke what God hath giuen mee is to bee committed to others If a Bishop must be taught of a Lay-man what to follow let the Lay-man dispute and let the Bishop heare let the B learne of the Lay-man But surely if wee call to minde either the tenor of holie Scriptures or ancient times who can denie but that in a cause of Faith In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare You shall one day if it please God come to ripe yeares and then you will be able to iudge Qualis ille Episcopus sit qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut What a Bishop he is that subiecteth the right of Bishops to Lay-men Your Father beeing through Gods goodnes of ripe yeares said Meum non est I am not able For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse Iudicij to iudge among BB. doth your Grace now say I ought to iudge would Ambrose condemne such a Bishop as should subiect the right of BB. to Lay-men and would hee allow of such prerbyteries of Lay-men as intrude vpon the right of BB yea which are vrged to extrude BB could hee not indure that a B. or
the Bishops and Deacons between whom they are vsually ranged by Ignatius as the second degree of the Clergie willing the Lay-men to bee subiect to the Deacons the Deacons to the Presbyters the Presbyters to the Bishop and the Bishop to Christ which by the way is H. I. third testimonie and in effect the same with the second And againe let the Presbyters and the Deacons and the rest of the Cleargie together with all the people bee obedient to the Bishop By which it is plaine they had not in those times either Lay-Elders or Lay-Deacons For the very Deacons are by him called the ministers of Christ vnto the word of God and ministers of the mysteries of Christ. As for the BB they were not parish Byshops assisted according to the new conceit with Lay-Elders but BB of Cities such as Ignatius himselfe who was Bishop of Antioch the chiefe Citie of Syria hauing the assistance of diuerse Presbyters who were Clergie men or ministers and so are in expresse termes reckoned by Ignatius as one of the degrees of the clergie whom in the words before alleaged and in other places hee resembleth to the Apostles of Christ and would haue them so obeyed exhorting them with the words which Saint Peter vseth to ministers 1. Epist 5.2 to feed the flocke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This is also proued by the vniuersal consent of the most ancient Councells Canons and Fathers who in innumerable places meÌ„tioning Bishops Presbyters Deacons neuer conceiue of them otherwise then of 3. degrees of the clergie in that very sense wherin our church doth vse retaine them And thus much concerning that most worthy martyr and Bishop Ignatius sauing that I would commend a few senâ—ences of his to this disputer and his consorts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be you vnited to the Bishop submitting your selues to God by him in Chirist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whosoeuer are Christs they are with the Bishop And againe doe not thinke that I speake this as hauing vnderstood the separation of some he is witnesse to me for whose sake I am bound that I haue not learned this from the mouth of man but the spirit hath preached vnto me saying these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the Bishop doe nothing loue vnitie auoid diuisions The testimonie which is vsually cited out of Tertullian is in his Apologetico Where hauing said that Christians did vse to meet in assemblies and congregations to prayer and to the hearing of the word he addeth there are also exhortations chastisâ—ments and diuine censure iudgement is exercised with great aduise as among those who are certaine that God doth see them and it is a great foreshewing of the iudgement to come if any shall so offend as that he shal be banished from the communion of prayer and of the assembly and of all holy fellowship Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti the presidents of our meetings are approued Seniors hauing obtained this honour not by reward but by good report By which testimonie it is apparant that the same parties were the presidents of the assembly as well in prayer and in the ministerie of the word as in the exercise of discipline and censures But Ministers and not Lay-Eldeâ—s were presidents and Rulers of the meetings in publicke prayer and ministerie of the word therefore also in the exercise of discipline Who these presidents were Tertullian himselfe sheweth else where testifying that the Christians receiued the Sacrament both in the time of their meales and also in their meetings before day nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus Neither doe we receiue it at the hands of any others then of our presidents On which words Beatus Rhenanus writeth thus Presidentes voc at presbyteros etiam alibi the Presbyters he calleth presidents also in another place and quoteth the place alleaged out of the Apologeticke And whereas Tertullian imagined though erroneously that the husband of a second wife could not be a Bishop or Minister his opinion he vttereâ— in these words how derogatorie from faith and how opposite to pietie second mariages are the discipline of the Church and the prescript of the Apostle doth declare cum digamos non siuit presidere when it doth not suffer twice maried men to be presidents that is Ministers And whereas the Catholicks whom he endeuoureth to refute vnderstood that rule of the Apostle as peculiar to Bishops Ministers he chargeth them also with the breach thereof euen in that sense Quot enim ex digamiae president apud vos insultantes vtique apostolo for how many after their second mariage are presidents among you euen insulting ouer the Apostle and blush not when these things are read before them It is plaine therefore that the Seniors which were presidents in the assemblies of Christians of whom Tertullian speaketh were Ministers whatsoeuer some new writers whom he quoteth doe say to the contrarie For whereas among others who were parties in the cause he quoteth B. Iewell who indeed is no partie I answere if he haue alleaged the rest no better then him as for my part I meane not to search especially seeing the chiefe of his Authors are quoted at Random he will gaine the opinion of a notable falsifier of Authors Harding blamed the translator of the Apologie into English for translating Presbyteri Elders and not Priests The translation Bishop Iewell defendeth saying that Presbyter a Priest is nothing else but Senior and that a Priest and Elder are both one thing And whereas Harding affirmed that Priests and Deacons waited onely vpon the Bishops but gaue no sentence in counsels which in respect of prouinciall counsels is euidently false he disproueth that assertion First by Act. 15. Secondly by Nicephorus Thirdly by this testimonie of Tertullâ—an president probati quique Seniores the iudges in such Ecclesiasticall assemblies be the best allowed Elders that is according to Bishop Iewels interpretation Priests for to that end he citeth the testimonie and before he had said that Senior and Priest is all one D. Whitgift conceiuing as Bishop Iewell did that these Seniors were Ministers T. C. obiecteth and it is the onely thing he obiecteth that it is incredible that all the Churches whose defence Tertullian taketh vpon him and whose vsage he doth describe had such a college of Seniors that were Ministers Whereunto the answere is easie that Tertullian speaketh of the Churches in cities in which onely were Presbyteries vnto which the parishes of the countrey adioyning so soone as there were any were subiect and those wholy consisting of Ministâ—rs Neither can any testimonie or example be alleaged either of Presbyters that were not Ministers or of Presbyteries in villages or countrey parishes As touching Cyprian the disputer might haue cited some testimonie or at least quoted some place in his
said in the councill of Carthage lifting vp their necks against their Bishoppes haue inflamed their desires but these attempts were esteemed vnlawfull and therefore as in councels they were prohibited so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed But hereof also I haue spokeÌ„ before Yea but saith hee this canon was not vniuersally obserued as may appeare by the oft renewing of it in other councils and the practise of the Churches to the contrary afterward Here J aske him first when this was done for will he prooue that the irregular and vnlawfull practises of vaineglorious people and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ were the lawfull and ordinary practises of the purest churches in the first two hundred yeeres Secondly whether it were lawfully done or not if yea then doth hee contradict the iudgement of approued councils the authority of orthodoxall Fathers the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ hauing nothing to oppose therto but vain surmises vnlikely likelihoods If not why are they alledged shal irregular vnlawful practises be commended as paterns for imitatioÌ„ But let vs heare his instances which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village called Coman If I say no how will hee proue it Eusebius is alledged lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approued men BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla one of Montanus his truls mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoticus of or from the village Comana whose mouth Themiso stopped noting the place not wherof he was Bishop but whence he came or where he was borne for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia saith Caesar Baronius ex vicâ— Comana in Armenia oriâ—ndus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia borne at the village Comana in Armenia Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius Apollonius reporteth the same story which Nicephorus also reciting vseth these words Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus wheÌ„ Maximilla begaÌ„ to prophecy at Pepuza a place which Montanus called Ierusalem indeuored to coÌ„uince her euil spirit but was hindred of those which were her fauourits meaning Themiso Indeed Apollinarius calleth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereupoÌ„ Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter but thogh Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Peter cals himself being more then a Presbyter as BB. vsually cal one another Consacerdotes yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe And thus the village the little village Coman hath lost her Bishoppe For little the Refuter added of his owne to make his instance the greater The second Was not Mares he should haue said Maris Bishoppe of Solica Of Solica Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerke hath learned his letters no better for though the first letter be not vnlike an S. yet is it the D. vsed in that print as hee might haue learned of a Deacon in the same page But this sheweth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand not consulting with the author Theodoret saith that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha which hee saith was but a small towne vsing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I will speake of when I come to Nazianzum which also is termed so For saith Theodoret Eusebius beeing desirous to install Maris a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of vertues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Episcopall throne he came to Dolicha by which phrase it appeareth he did not ordaine him the Presbyter of a parish but such a Bishop as others were at least of that time being the fourth century after Christ So farre hath our refuter also ouershotte his marke For though Dolicha were but a small city or towne as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be yet that hindreth not but that it might haue a diocesse belonging thereto as wel as ours haue though perhaps not so great The third Asclepius of a small towne in Africke For this T. C. quoteth Ierome tom 1. catalog Gennadij vir illustr Gennadius indeed saith that he was vici non grandis episcopus But Ioannes de Trittenhem in his booke de scriptorib ecclesiast saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus so that although his seat was no great town yet his diocesse was that whole territory But when was this about the yeare 440. so farre doth my aduersary who complaineth of my ouershooting my marke when J alledged the councill of Sardica ouershoot me for when he wil scarse suffer me to shoot tenscore he as if he were shooting for the flight shoots 22 euen tweluescore beyond the marke I say vnto him it was not so froÌ„ the beginning But by councels of Africk held towards the end of the fourth century permitted namely that in part of the diocesse belonging to the B. of a city new Bishoprickes might be erected if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto it were agreed vpon by the prouinciall Synode But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way in granting popular requests against the canons of other receiued councels and ancient practise of the Church that Leo the great Bishop of Rome was faine to write vnto the Bishops of Africke to stay that excesse The fourth What was Nazianzum but a small towne where that famous Gregory the Diuine was B For which T. C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City what if Gregory the Diuine were not B. of Nazianzum Nazianzum though Socrates make mention of it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meane city yet he calleth it a citie and though somwhere it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a little city or towne yet was it such a city that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitane BB. not that I thinke it had any other cities or Bishopricks subiect vnto it I will not stand to argue that question whether Gregory the Diuine were Bishop of Nazianzum For although diuers good Authors affirme it yet I beleeue Gregory himselfe who saith he was not B. but onely coadiutor to his Father there He was by his dear friend Basil the great made Bishop of Saâ—â—â—â— partly against his wil and afâ—er was made Bishop of Constantinople but leauing both the former being seized vpon by Anthimuâ— the Bishop of Tyana who placed another there the latter resigning it into the hands of the councill of Constantinople which preferred Nectarius to bee his successor hee returned vnto Nazianzum where finding the See void obtained of Helladius who was the Bishoppe of Caesarea after Basil that Eulalius might bee ordained Bishoppe there But I will not dispute this
question Perhaps his conscience told him that he knew of no testimony nor example of the Presbyters concurrence with the B. in ordination before that time and that in the foresaid Councell their assistance to the B. in ordaining was first ordained which if it did as worthily it might then had he no reason to vrge that canon to proue the practise of the Church in the first two hundred yeeres in a particular which by that canon was first appointed Hauing thus remoued their two maine obiections which stood in my way I proceeded in the proofe of my former assertion that the right of ordination was in the iudgement of the antient Church appropriated to BB. As first that the Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one and consequently presuppose the right of ordaining to bee in one which I proued by foure testimonies This reason because the Refuter did not well see how to answere he passeth by it as if hee had not seene it To make it therefore more conspicuous I will inlarge it affirming that both Scriptures Councels and Fathers speake of the ordainer as of one Timothy was ordained by the imposition of Pauls hands Paul left Titus in Creet that he should ordaine Presbyters and chargeth Timothy that he should not lay hands hastily on any man c. The Canon called the Apostles appointeth that a Presbyter and so a Deacon be ordained of one The Councell of Antioch acknowledgeth euery Bishop within his owne diocesse to haue authority to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons The Councell of Africke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Bishop may ordaine many Presbyters The Councell of Hispalis or Ciuill A Bishop alone may giue to Priests and Deacons their honour Chrysostome describeth the Bishop by this property 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that is to ordaine vs. The people of Hippo wanting a Presbyter lay hold on Augustine and as it was wont to be done bring him to Valerius the Bishop desiring him to ordaine him To these adde the penaltie inflicted vpon the B. alone when any ordination was irregular Sozomen reporteth that Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra Eleusius among other faults obiected against them were deposed because euery of them had ordained contrary to law The aforeâ—aid Councell of Carthage decreeth that if a B. wittingly ordain a penitent he shall be depriued of the power of his Bishoprick at least from the power of ordaining And to the like penalty doth it subiect a Bishop who shall ordaine such a one as hath married her that is diuorced c. But you shall neuer reade that the Presbyters were fouÌ„d fault with for vnlawfull ordinations vnlesse that any of them did encroach vpon the Bishops right in ordaining which is a plaine euidence that the power of ordaining was in the B. and not in the Presbyters When Epiphanius being at Constantinople ordained a Deacon he was blamed as offending against the Canons not because hee wanted the presence of his Presbytery but because hee did it in Chrysostomes diocesse Secondly that the power of ordination was peculiar to the Bishop in the iudgement of the Fathers J proue first by the authority of Councels then by the testimonies of Epiphanius and Ierome To the former he answereth It is to no purpose to meddle with these allegations out of the Councels which were well nigh three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times and some of them such as deserue neither imitation nor approbation Here let the Christian Reader iudge what credit he deserueth that so contemptuously shaketh off the authority of antient Councels euen the second among the foure antient generall Councels which are and haue been from time to time receiued in the Church as it were foure Gospels But let vs examine the particulars consider whether they deserued to be so lightly reiected The first testimony was taken out of an Epistle written by the Presbyters and Deacons of Mareot in the behalfe of Athanasius the Great their Bishop who was accused for that by his appointment Macarius had disturbed one Ischyras a pretended Presbyter in the administration of the Communion and had broken the sacred cup. They testifie these things to be false and among the rest they deny that Ischyras was a Presbyter because hee was ordained of Colluthus the Presbyter who was but an imaginary or phantasticall Bishop and afterwards by a generall Councell to wit by Osius and the BB. who were with him commanded to remaine a Presbyter as he had been before For which cause all that were ordained of Colluthus among whom was Ischyras returned to their former place and order The like is testified by the Synod of Alexandria which denieth that Ischyras could be ordained Presbyter by Colluthus seeing Colluthus himselfe died a Presbyter and all his ordinations were reuersed and all that were ordained by him were held as lay men Hereunto we may adde another most pregnant testimony expressed in the acts of the same generall Councell of Sardica wherein it was decreed that forsomuch as Musaeus and Eutychianus were not ordained Bishops that therfore such Clerks as they had ordained should be held as lay men My second testimony is out of the second generall Councell concerning Maximus who being by birth an Alexandrian by profession a Cynick Philosopher before hee was conuerted to Christianity and receiued into the Clergy by Gregory the Diuine against whom he ambitiously sought the Bishopricke of Constantinople bribing the BB. of Egypt Who being come to Constantinople and excluded out of the Church went into a certaine minstrels house and there vnlawfully chose Maximus the Cynick to be Bishop of Constantinople The generall Councell therefore assembled at Constantinople determineth thus concerning Maximus that he neither was nor is a Bishop neither they Clerks who had been ordained by him in what degree so euer of the Clergy And to this I will adioyne another testimony out of the fourth generall Councell where Bassianus who had been Bishop of Ephesus and now sought to recouer it alleaged for himselfe that if he were not Bishop then were not they clerks which had been ordained by him Neither were ordinary Presbyters alone forbidden to ordaine but Chorepiscopi also that is country BB. sometimes were restrained and sometimes forbidden altogether to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Restrained whiles there were such as had receiued episcopall ordination that they might not ordaine without the leaue of the Bishop of the Citie whereunto both the Chorepiscopus himselfe and his Country is subiect Forbidden altogether when they ceased to haue episcopall ordination and were ordained as other Presbyters by the B. of the Citie alone It seeemeth to me that Chorepiscopi vntill the Councel of Antioch had sometimes episcopall ordination being ordained by two or three Bishops And therefore to the Councell of Neocaesaria and Nice they subscribed among other BB But forasmuch
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
was prouided as a remedie against Schisme lest euerie one drawing after him should rend the Church of Christ. What say you Ierome were Bishops first ordained after Saint Iohns time doe not your selfe testifie that Saint Iames a little after the ascension of Christ was by the Apostles made Bishop of Ierusalem that Marke was Bishop of Alexandria that euer since his time and he dyed almost 40. yeares before Saint Iohn there hath beene a Bishop in a degree superiour to other Presdyters that Timothe was Bishop of Ephesus c. That word afterwards therefore is not to be referred to Saint Iohns time but to those testimonies where he prooued the name Episcopus to be giuen to Presbyters which custome as he supposeth continued vntill one of the Presbyters beeing chosen from among the rest was called Bishop for indeed whiles Apostles or Apostolicke men were made BB. BB. were called the Apostles of the Churches But when out of the Presbyters one was chosen he began for difference sake to be called the Bishop the Angell of the Church Now that BB. were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters he prooueth by the example of the Church at Alexandria For euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto Heraclas and Dionysius BB. who were not chosen from among the Presbyters the Presbyters haue alwaies called one chosen from among themselues and placed in a higher degree the Bishop euen as if an army doe choose their generall or Deacons choose from among themselues one whom they know to be industrious and call him the Archdeacon His fourth argument is this There be many things which a Bishop by the power of his order may doe which a Deacon cannot but there is nothing which a Bishop may doe by the power of order excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not doe A Presbyter is therefore by so much superior to a Deacon by how much he is nearer to the Bishop this is the verie scope of this place and to the same are all the arguments following referred c. the summe whereof is that the Presbyterie is a degree betweene the Bishops and Deacons You see then what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures not that the office but the name of Bishop and Presbyter were for a time confounded Now let vs see what he prooueth by the practise of the Church at Antioch he would say at Alexandria that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one See you not how he prooueth it when he saith that euer since Marks time the Bishop hath beene placed in a higher degree aboue the Presbyters Was this to prooue that a Bishop and Presbyter are equall or all one or did Ierome intend any thing else but to prooue the Presbyters superiour to Deacons and that by such arguments as before I analysed We haue heard what Ierome prooueth out of the Scriptures and practise of the Church at Alexandria now at the last let vs heare the end of his speech That he I know not who might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop euen then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Toto coelo errat it was not Ieromes end to prooue the Presbyter equall with the Bishop but superiour to the Deacon For if the former had beene his intent this and the other from the practise of Alexandria had beene very vntoward arguments to prooue his purpose At Alexandria the Bishop euer since Marks time was superiour to Presbyters in degree therefore they were equall The Bishop is superiour in the power of ordination therefore Presbyters be his equals Hath not the Refuter now great cause thinke you to crake of this answere was this among all the testimonies which I alledged chosen as most misalledged by occasion whereof he might pay me mine owne and tell me that it was wherried in with â—areâ— by him that looked an other â—ay Blessed bee God that so guided me in the way of truth that among all my allegations the refuter hath not beene able to charge mee with misalledging any one As for this nothing could bee more pregnant and pertinent to proue that BB were superiour to Presbyters in ordination then as I said in the sermon that Ierome himselfe euen when and where he seeketh to aduance the Presbyters as high as hee can aboue the Deacons doth confesse ordinatioÌ„ to be peculiar to Bishops Now whereas Ierome saith a Presbyter may doe any thing which a Bishop doth excepting ordination I did easilie forsee it would bee obiected that if BB. bee superiour onely in the power of ordination then are they not superiour in iurisdiction This obiection I preuented in these words Where you are not to vnderstand him or other of the Fathers speaking somâ—time to the like purpose as though the B. were not superiour in any thing else but that potestate ordâ—nis as touching power of order â—e is superior only in ordination For that he is superior potestate iurisdictionis they euery where acknowledge I know some answere that in Ieromes iudgement BB. are iure diuinâ— superiour to other Ministers onely in the power of ordination but in the power of iurisdiction iure apostolico in that hee acknowledgeth that superiority of BB. was brought in by the Apostles necessarily for auoiding of schismes Which answere I refusing because Ierome saith the like of the superiority of the BB. in generall and of the power of ordination in particular that it was reserued to the B. ne a multis disciplina ecclesia vendicata concordiam sacerdotum solueret et scandala generaret made choice of this other as the more like to bee true Not that J absolutely was of this iudgement that the right of ordination doth belong to the power of Episcopall order as appeareth by that supposall which J made in the sermon page 44. l. 3. but that I supposed it to be the iudgment of Ierome and some other fathers who acknowledging the Bishop to bee superiour in iurisdiction and yet affirming that hee is superiour onely in the right of ordination or imposing hands must thus bee vnderstood as iudging the Bishop to bee superiour onely therein quoad ordinis potestatem as touching the power of order they holding other things belonging to the power of order as the ministry of the word and Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper to bee common to BB. with other ministers but the power of ordination to bee peculiar to the BB. and in their iudgements not communicable to Presbyters because as Thomas saith ea quae sunt ordinis non possunt committi nisi habenti ordinem Hereunto the Refuter after his malepert and saucy manner answereth that I vnderstand not this distinction For saith he potestas ordinis power of order is not potestas ordinationis power of ordination but power to doe all that which belongeth to the order of that ministery which hee hath receiued as Tolet sheweth But
â—â—daciousnes of wicked men be feared that what they cannot doe by right and equity they may â—ccomplish by rash and desperate courses actum est de episcopatus vigore de ecclesiae gubernandae sublimi ac diuina potestate then farewell the vigour of episcopall authority and that high and diuine power of gouerning the Church But more fully is this authority described in the Councels of Antioch and Constantinople and also in the writings of Ierome Euery Bishop saith the Councell of Antioch hath authoritie of his owne See both to gouerne it according to the feare of God which is before his eies and to haue a prouident care of the whole Countrey which is vnder his Citie as also to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to gouerne all things with iudgement The Councell held in Trullo decreed that forasmuch as some Cities being occupied by the Barbarians inuading Christian kingdomes the Bishops of the said Cities could not enioy their seat and performe such offices there as belong to the episcopall function that they should retaine their eminent dignitie and authoritie so that they may canonically exercise ordination of the diuers degrees of Clerkes and that they may vse within their bounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authoritie of their Prelacie and that all their administration be firme and lawfull But what saith Ierome He hauing intreated of the other degrees of the Clergie at the last commeth to intreat de praecipuo gradu Ecclesiae of the chiefe degree of the Church qui ordo episcopalis est which is the order of Bishops the power whereof he setteth downe in these words Hee ordaineth Priests and Leuites that is Presbyters and Deacons c. Hee gouerneth the Church of God he sheweth what euery one ought to do he condâ—mneth he receiueth he bindeth hee looseth that which was bound hee hath the keyes of the kingdome of heauen hee openeth and shutteth the throne of God meaning heauen hauing nothing meaning no ecclesiasticall order aboue him c. But the superioritie of Bishops ouer Presbyters I shewed in the sermon by comparing the iurisdiction of BB. with that which Presbyters haue both in regard of the greatnesse and largenesse and also in respect of the deriuation thereof The Presbyters iurisdiction is ouer the flocke of one parish the iurisdiction of the Bishop is ouer the whole Diocese The Presbyters is priuate in the court of conscience the Bishops publike and in the externall Court also The Presbyter gouerneth the people onely of one flocke the Bishop gouerneth not only the people of the whole Diocese but the Presbyters also themselues The Presbyters receiue institution vnto their iurisdiction from the Bishop and exercise it vnder the Bishop of the Diocese who hahauing as the Councell of Antioch and Ierome say the care of the whole Church or Diocese admit the Presbyters in partem solicitudinis into part of their care by giuing them institution to their seuerall parishes The Presbyters doe answer to the sonnes of Aaron and are the successours of the 70. Disciples as diuers of the Fathers doe teach but the Bishops answer to Aaron and are the successors of the Apostles as I proue by the testimonie of Ierome who saith that in the true Church Bishops doe hold the place of the Apostles and of Irenaeus that the Apostles left the Bishops their successors deliuering vnto them their owne place of gouernment To all this the Refuter maketh a dilatorie answer not purposing indeede to answer these allegations at all Of these points I purpose not saith he to say any thing in this place because the former concerning the difference of the Bishops and Presbyters iurisdiction must presently be disputed the latter is to be discussed in the last point of his fiue And thus hath he by a cleanly deuice auâ—ided these allegations which he knew not how to answer and very featly rid his hands of them But if the Reader shall vpon examination finde that hee speaketh nothing to these allegations and proofes in the places whereunto he is differred hee must needes thinke that their cause of sinceritie as they call it is not very sincerely handled Hauing thus in generall noted the superioritie of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction let vs now descend vnto particulars The authoritie therefore of the Bishop respecteth either the things of the Church or the persons Whatsoeuer things saith the Councell of Antioch appertaine to the Church are to be gouerned husbanded and disposed by the iudgement and authoritie of the Bishop to whose trust the whole people is committed and the soules of the congregation And againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Bishop hath the power or authoritie of those things which belong to the Church And this authoritie the Bishops had from the beginning for as what was at the first giuen to the Church was laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards what was contributed was committed saith Iustine Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Bishop Heereof you may reade more Conc. Gangr c. 7. 8. Concil Tol. 3. c. 19. 4 c. 32. Balsam in Concil Carth. Gr. c. 36. alias 33. As touching persons they were distinguished at the first into Clericos Laicos vnto whom afterward a third sort was added viz. Monachi monasticall persons who though they were sequestred from the companie and societie of secular men as they count them yet were they not exempted from the iurisdiction of the Bishop The great Councell of Chalcedon determined that no man should build a monastery any where or house of prayer without the consent of the Bishop of the Citie and that those which in euery Citie or Countrey did leade a monasticall life should bee subiect to the Bishop See more c. 8. Conc. Afric c. 47. Agath c. 27. 58. Theod. Balsam saith that Monkes were more subiect to the Bishop then to the Gouernour of the monasterie As touching the Laitie I said Serm. sect 10. pag. 46. to pag. 47. l. 6. I should not neede to prooue the Bishops authoritie ouer the people of their Diocese if I demonstrate their rule ouer the Presbyters thereof c. Not neede saith the Refuter Yeâ— you must prooue the power of censuring the people to be their only right vnlesse you yeeld that preeminence to be giuen them jure humano as indeede it must be seeing they haue it not potestate ordinis by the power of their order The Refuter is to be borne with if hee talke at randon seeing he is as it seemeth out of his element The thing which I was to prooue if it had beene needfull was that whereas Presbyters did gouerne each one the people of a parish and that priuately the Bishop gouerneth the people of the whole diocese and that publikelie the which I held needlesse to prooue because before it was prooued that they had the charge of the whole Diocese
dissolued the former standing thus If in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it be presupposed that Paul had ordayned Timothie and Titus Bishops of Ephesus and Creet then is it true that they vvere by him ordayned BB. of those Churches But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent That the antecedent is true I proue by this reason because it is presupposed in the Epistles that the Apostle had committed to them Episcopall authority both in respect of Ordination and Iurisdiction to be exercised in those Churches Against which consequence this onely thing can be obiected that the Episcopall authority might be committed to them not as ordinarie Bishops or Pastors of those Churches but as extraordinarie gouernours or Euangelists which afterwards is answered To this argument the Refuter answereth not The second he frameth thus If the Epistles written to Timothie and Titus be the very patternes and precedents of the Episcopall function whereby the Apostle enformeth them and in them all Bishops how to exercise their function then Timothie and Titus were Bishops But the antecedent is true Therefore the consequent First he taketh exception against the proposition saying though it make a goodly shew yet was it confuted long agoe by M. Cartwright Whose confutation either he thinketh to be insufficient or else he doth but kill a dead man in seeking with a new on-set to disproue the consequence First for the consequence it selfe I auouch thus much that from that antecedent I might not onely haue inferred that particular that therefore these two to whom the Epistles were written were Bishops but in generall that the function of Bishops whose authority and office is described and the manner of the execution thereof prescribed in the directions giuen to Timothie and Titus in these Epistles hath warrant in the word of God and when they can make as good an argument for their lay-elders out of the Scriptures I will subscribe to their Presbyterian discipline Of T. C. answere to that consequence I haue taken speciall notice heretofore and did greatly wonder that hee could satisfie himselfe with such a friuolous answer And I do no lesse wonder at the Refuters either lacke of iudgement who tooke that answere for good payment or want of consideration and care of T. C. credit in referring vs to so sleight and friuolous an euasion For whereas D. Whitgift argueth thus That Timothie was Bishop the whole course of the Epistles written vnto him declareth wherein is contayned the office and dutie of a Bishop and diuers precepts peculiarly pertayning to that function T. C. answereth that by this reason he might as well proue that Timothie was a deacon or a widdowe an olde man or an olde woman seeing in those Epistles the Apostle wrote of their duties Yea rather that hee was a Deacon considering that there is nothing in the description of a Deacon which agreeth not to him but in the description of a Bishop that which he requireth of not being giuen to wine and not being a young Christian could haue no place in Timothies instruction Not to argue with T. C. but to let him rest in peace can the Refuter be so ignorant or without iudgement as to thinke that D. Whitgift when hee spoke of the whole course and tenure of the Epistles did meane onely the description of a B. or Minister set downe in the beginning of the third chapter of the former Epistle if that had beene his argument hee had argued thus Paul directeth Timothie what manner of men to ordayne Bishops or Ministers and likewise Deacons Therefore Timothie himselfe was a B. or Minister or likewise a Deacon Is it not plaine that by the whole course hee vnderstandeth all those directions which are giuen to Timothie throughout the Epistles for the discharge of his office either in respect of the Ministerie common to all Ministers or of his Episcopall function chiefly in regard either of Ordination or Iurisdiction vnto which heads the precepts directions in those Epistles are to be referred for when he speaketh of the duties of men and women olde and young hee directeth Timothie and in like manner Titus what to preach When hee describeth the qualities of Ministers and Deacons and Widowes he directeth him what manner of Ministers and Deacons to ordayne and Widowes to admit And whereas D. Whitgift hauing said that in those Epistles diuers precepts pertaine peculiarly to the Episcopall function T.C. chalengeth him to shew him any one precept in those Epistles which is proper to a B It is not hard to shew him more then one as lay thy hands hastily on no man Against a Presbyter or Minister receiue not an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. These are perpetuall directions which were not common eyther to other Christians or other Ministers therefore peculiar to BB. And this was T. C. confutation of the Proposition Now let vs heare what the Refuter can say The Proposition saith hee is grounded vpon a false supposition and what is that that the Apostle by describing in these Epistles the rules to be obserued in ordination and iurisdiction intended to informe Timothie and Titus as BB. and in them all other BB. how to carry themselues in those matters Is this the Supposition whereon the Proposition is grounded Alas good man you know not what the Hypothesis or Supposition of an Hipotheticall Proposition is this which you suppose to be the Supposition of the Proposition is plainly the Assumption of the Syllogisme which your selfe framed But because the Refuter hath confounded himselfe with his owne hypotheticall or connexiue Proposition I will propound my Argument in another forme Whosoeuer describing vnto Timothie and Titus their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof and that as afterwards I shew to be performed by them and their Successours till the comming of Christ doth plainely describe the office and authoritie and prescribe the dutie of BB hee doth presuppose them to be BB the one of Ephesus the other of Creet But Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus describing vnto them their office and authoritie as they were Gouernours of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet and prescribing their dutie in the execution thereof to be performed by them and their successours vntill the comming of Christ doth plainly describe the office and authority and prescribe the duty of BB. Therefore Paul in his Epistles to Timothie and Titus presupposeth them to be Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet This Proposition because I know not what can be obiected against it T. C. and the Refuter hauing assailed it in vaine I will once againe take for granted The assumption I proue by those particulars wherein the Episcopall authoritie doth chiefly consist both in respect of Ordination Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 5.22 and also of Iurisdiction they being the censurers of other Ministers
question which wee haue in hand concerning parish Bishops For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey then the Countrey Bishops were such but they were not such for they were set ouer diuers parishes Againe if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie then much more the Presbyters of parishes who were inferiour and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi as the Bishops substitutes were subiect to the Bishop and their parishes being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops were but a part of the diocesse So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops or their parishes from being entire Churches endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement But the former is true as hath beene proued therefore the latter That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them it is apparant because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes but for a time had episcopall ordination and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and to place Readers in parishes as also they might send Formatas or Canonicall Epistles which the Presbyters might not doe Likewise when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium pronounced void and censured the ordainers As for the partie ordained because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus but so as that hee should not ordaine nor exercise any other episcopall function but only confirme Nouices and consecrate Virgins and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop and as superiour to a Presbyter And this was my second argument whereby I haue prooued that Countrey parishes had no Bishops Neither had each of them a Presbyterie but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of Sardica and by the iudgement of Leo Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes as with vs but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes as namely that of the Councel of Carthage Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice If any Deacon ruling a people shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any c. Againe if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery then was it either of the Ministery or of the Laitie But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities and Cathedrall Churches and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country no not to assist the Chorepiscopi much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries Moreouer Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall sufficient for the gouernment of themselues hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie had the power of ordination as themselues also teach But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne For the Assumption let the Refuter consider with mee what course was taken in Countrey parishes when their Minister was departed Among themselues they had ordinarily none or if by chance they had they could not ordaine him but were as sometimes it happened in Cities to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied vnlesse first it did appeare that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church wherein as the Nurserie of the diocesse diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie did supply their want assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them But if there were none fit as sometimes their store was drawne drie by supplying the wants of many they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse whom they called another Bishops Clerke without his leaue and dimissorie letters for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong and such ordinations were to be disanulled If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse with the consent of his neighbour Bishop he sent to the Metropolitan who either out of his owne Clergie or some other in the Prouince was to supplie them And this as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches so is it confessed by Caluin Each City saith he had a College of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers for both did they all discharge the office of teaching c. to the people and also that they might leaue seede behinde them they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie To euery Citie a certaine region was attributed which should receiue their Ministers from thence and be accounted of the body of that Church It is therefore euident that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities For it was neuer almost heard of that there were at any time more Bishops so properly called then one in a City where notwithstanding were many Presbyters when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop was a parishionall Bishop but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them in the Citie and Countrey adioining there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one not onely of the true Christians but also of the heretikes and schismatickes as before was noted concerning Antioch I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which
were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses From whence the principall question of this part is thus to be inferred The Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but Dioceses therefore the churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement were not parishes but dioceses This consequeÌ„ce the refuter graÌ„teth in graÌ„ting the connexiue propositioÌ„ of the syllogisme which he frameth p. 58. l. 1. If he did not it might easily be confirmed by adding the assumption viz. to visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement the Presbyters ordained by the Apostles were appointed The antecedeÌ„t which is also the propositioÌ„ of the syllogism if the assumption bee added I proue by 2. arguments The first concluding thus They who were appointed to whole cities and countreys to labor so far as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God were appointed to dioceses and not to parishes This propositioÌ„ I omitted also as taking it for granted As for his cauils against his owne proposition which he framed for the nonce to cauill withall they are not worth the refuting For besides that he absurdly cauilleth with me as thogh I had said that al in the city country were in S. Iâ—bus time conuerted he alleadgeth that there is no necessity that they which were conuerted should be of the same church with theÌ„ who did conuert them As for example they of Ceuchrea receiued the gospel from Corinth and yet were a distinct Church For it is called the church of Câ—nchrea RoÌ„ 16. 1. But I spake of them which did accidentally conuert others but of such as by whose meanes the conuersion of the city and country was originally intended And I say that they whose ministery was intended for the conuersion of the city and countrey to their care or charge both for the first conuerting of theÌ„ gouernment of theÌ„ being conuerted the city country beloÌ„ged As for Cenchreae though it be called a church as euery company of christians may so be termed yet it was not such a church as they speak of indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernement but subiect to the iurisdiction of the Church of Corinth Now followeth the assumption But the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed for whole cities countries therto belonging to labour so farre as they were able the conuersion of al that belonged to God This assumption confirmed with 2. arguments is set down p. 18. the one the end inteÌ„ded by the Apostles in appointing presbyters in cities which was the conuersion of the nation for which themselues first preached in the chiefe cities the other is the 〈◊〉 or as they call it causa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their hope by the ministery of the Presbyters placed in the city to conuert them which belonged to God both in city country grounded on the force of the gospell restified by our Sauior The words are these for it is euident that the Apostles when they inteÌ„ded to conuert any 〈◊〉 they first preached to the chiefe cities therof Wherin when through Gods blessing they had conuerted some their manner was to ordaine Presbyters hoping by their ministery to conuert not only the rest of the city but also in the countries adioyning so many as did belong to God The Kingdom of heaven being like a little leauen which being put into any part of the 〈◊〉 seasoneth all These words thus set downe at large be the assumption of the syllogisme which he hath framed for what cannot he bring within the compasse of his syllogisms and therof he maketh 3. parts About the first he saith hee will not striue viz. the Apostles beginning to pâ—each in the chiefe cities of euery nation which though he think I caÌ„not proue is most easie to bee proued because it was the most wise and likely course to be taken for the conuersion of nations as also because it is manifest both by the scriptures other ancieÌ„t records that they took that course As Paul inteÌ„ding the conuersion of Asia where hee staied three yeares continued in Ephesâ—s all the time intending the conuersion of Macedonia went to Thessalonica Philippi of Achaia to Corinth c. The second also he franckly yeeldeth that the Apostles ordained Presbyters in cities where they had conuerted some to the truth But the 3 which is indeed the assumption it selfe and which is inferred on the former as I set them downe that if the Apostles intending the conuersion of the nation as they began themselues to preach in the cheefe cities so they placed Presbyters to the same intent hoping by them to conuert both city and countrey then were they appointed and it was their duty to labour the conuersion of all belonging to God both in city and country the assumption I say it selfe he doth deny saying it was the office of those Presbyters to attend vpon the flock that is the company already conuerted but that it can neuer be shewed nor may reasonably be thought that it was any part of their proper duty to labour the conuersion of the residue either in citie or country By which few words the deepe wisedom of the parish-disciplinarians may easily be sounded 1. They conceiue that churches in the first constitution of theÌ„ when there were but a few conuerted and before parishes were distinguished were in the same estate that now they are being fully constituted al being conuerted to the profession of the faith parishes distinguished pastors being seuerally assigned to certain particular ordinary set coÌ„gregatioÌ„s 2. That the flocke ouer which they were set was onely that number of christians already conuerted and not the whole number which in those parts pertained to God But our Sauiour calleth the elect not conuerted his sheepe And the Lord in Corinth had much people when but a few were as yet conuerted 3. That their proper office was to attend them onely which were already conuerted not to labor the conuersioÌ„ of the rest As thogh the Apostles intended by their ministry the conuersion and saluation of no more then of those few which at the first were conuerted But for the better manifestation of their wisedome they shall giue mee leaue to appose them with a few questions The Presbyters which the Apostles ordained were they not ministers of the word Caluin confesseth it and if you should deny it I haue manifestly proued that they were not lay nay that there were not any lay presbyters Were not the presbyters many in some places more in some fewer according to the proportion of the cities or countreys where they were placed were these many Presbyters who at the first were sometimes as many as those who were besides conuerted the Apostles conueying by imposition of hands the gifts of the spirit on them whom they had first conuerted who thereby were inabled for the ministry as Acts 19.6 Were they I say being many intended onely to attend that smal number which
at the first was conuerted Did not the Apostles in ordaining many Presbyters when few others were conuerted intend the conuersion of more then those fewe and was it not their office theâ— to labour their conuersion Jf they were not to labour their conuersion how were they to bee conuerted Nay if they did not labour it how were they conuerted Were all these Presbyters pastors properly of that one flocke or was there but one who properly was the pastor or Bishoppe the rest beeing his assistants as the Presbytery When therefore more were conuerted then could well assemble together in one ordinarie congregation were not the congregations diuided Vpon this diuision was there a Bishoppe and presbyterie assigned to euerie seuerall congregation or onely a Presbyter the Bishoppe assisted with his Presbyterie hauing a generall superintendencie ouer all not onelie to attend those who were already conuerted but also to procure the conuersion of the rest and still as people in diuers places were conuerted to furnish them with a Presbyter and to guide and gouerne both them and their Presbyter after their constitution to bee a seuerall Church and his institution to bee their Minister To imagine therefore that the state of the Churches and charge of the Ministers was so the same before the diuision of parishes and after that as either before there was ouer one congregation a Bishoppe and presbyterie so there should after to euery particular congregation be assigned a Bishoppe and presbyterie or after as the proper office of the ministers appointed to their seuerall charges was to attend them so before the Bishoppe and presbytery should haue beene prouided properly for that number alone which was conuerted and they should not haue thought it to belong to their charge to seeke or to labour the conuersion of the residue I say to thinke this argueth the parish-disciplinarians to bee of shallow iudgement and the parish-discipline to consist of vndâ—sgested fancies Vpon the proposition therfore and the assumption before propounded this conclusion notwithstanding al his cauills doth follow Therefore the Presbyteries ordained by the Apostles were appointed not to parishes but to Dioceses Serm. sect 3. page 18. Neither were the parishes distinguished c. to page 19. l. 5 The second argument whereby the same assertion in these words is proued may thus be framed When the Churches were not diuided into seueral parishes nor Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures but werein coÌ„moÌ„ to atteÌ„d the whole flock feding them that were already conuerted and labouring the conuersion of the rest so farre as they were able both in citie and country then were not the Presbyteries appointed to parishes but to dioceses In the Apostles times the churches were not diuided into seuerall parishes c. Therefore in the Apostles times the Presbyteries were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses The proposition seemeth to be of necessary and euident truth for when there were no parishes distinguished how could the Presbyters be assigned to seuerall parishes And if they were appointed to labour the conuersion of all which belonged to God both in citie and countrey how were they not appointed to dioceses For can hee thinke that all the people which belonged to God in the city and country and which after also were conuerted belonged to one parish Is it not euident that after their conuersion they were diuided into many both in citie and countrey And what though at the very first all the Christians in the citie and countrey if they had beene assembled together would haue made but a small congregation were they therefore of one parish before there was any parish at all Was not the circuit of the Church as before hath beene prooued and of the Bishop and Presbyteries charge the same in purpose and intention at the first when they were but a few which it was afterwards in execution when all were conuerted The assumption also is that which the Refuter himselfe holdeth that there were not in any Church many parishes in the Apostles times Howbeit I except the Church of Alexandria as after you shall heare But though he know not how to answer directly to either of both yet he wrangleth with both and as a man confounded yet resolued to contradict though against the light of his conscience he denieth the conclusion and contradicteth himselfe The proposition after his perpetuall manner hee propoundeth connexiuely If the parishes were not distinguished c. then were not the Presbyters appointed for parishes c. The force of the connexion as it inferreth they were appointed to dioceses he suppresseth leauing out the words of greatest force viz. that they were appointed to labour the conuersion of those that belong to God so farre as they should be able both in the citie and in the countries adioining And as it inferreth that they were not appointed to parishes he answereth not only he maketh a flourish with the shew of regestion which kinde of answer best fitteth him that is at a Nonplus Howsoeuer the world goeth the consequence must be denied that is resolued vpon though he haue nothing to oppose against it Yes he hath two things to oppose the first a question What if euery one of the Churches then were but one parish As if hee should say What if the maine question betweene vs bee true in that part which wee hold viz. that the Churches were parishes and not dioceses Where are you then Why but I prooue they were not parishes because the presbyteries were not appointed to parishes but to dioceses And come you now with this question What if they were Yea but I will prooue they were You will neede your proofes in a fitter place Yea but in the meane time I disprooue your consequence You will say something perhaps to bleare the eies of the simple but you doe not indeede denie and much lesse doe you disprooue the consequence The deniall of the consequence were this Though it bee supposed that parishes were not distinguished and that the Presbyteries were appointed for the conuersion of all both in Citie and Countrey yet it doth not follow that they were appointed to dioceses and not to seuerall parishes and not this nay but the Churches were each of them but one parish This is to denie the maine conclusion which is already prooued Yea but the proofe of this deniall disprooueth your consequence The consequent perhaps which is the conclusion but the consequence it cannot without supposing as it doth not those things which are supposed in the proposition thus Though there were no parishes yet they were assigned to parishes though they were appointed both for Citie and Country yet they were not appointed for dioceses You deny therefore as a man amazed the maine conclusion the consequence of the proposition you touch not But let vs see how he disproueth the conclusion though his argument come out of time and be here vsed only for a poore shift It may thus be framed