by reason of his great learning and renowned piety yet were it a sawcie part for him that is but a Presbiter to thinke himselfe equall with a Bishop Ierome was farre from it and therefore in his Epistles to Augustine giueth him titles of great honour vsing this inscription Domino verè sancto beatissimo Papae Augustino c. And this farewell the Lord preserue you Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa and the like I haue said before of Caluin From Augustine he maketh a large step to Erasmus who saith Of olde there was no difference betweene a Presbyter a Priest but that the Refuter left out for feare of excluding his lay-elder and a B. And then hee leapeth backe againe to Theodoret Beda Sedulius Oecumenius Primasius Theophilact c. who affirme the same And doe not I my selfe professe the same in this Sermon doe I not also proue it in the Sermon of the dignity of the ministerie that in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles these two words Presbyter Episcopus were confounded and the same men were called Presbyteri Episcopi what will hee conclude thereof that therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the Church was not gouerned by BB or that the office of a B. and a Presbyter were at any time confounded nay can hee proue so much as the names after the Apostles time were vsually confounded Ignatius who liued in the Apostles times euery where distinguisheth them and so doe the after Writers as Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Eusebius c. sauing that to BB. they giue sometimes the more generall name of Presbyters or Priests which is not to be meruailed at seeing the Apostles Peter and Iohn doe call themselues Presbyters Yea but some Protestant Writers whom afterwards hee will cite haue vnderstoode Ierome and the rest as the Refuter doth and not they onely but Michael Medina a Popish Writer is of opinion that they held the same error with Aerius This is a strange kind of arguing which our Refuter vseth to bring new Writers to depose what the old haue testified Are not their testimonies extant in print may we not read them with our owne eyes and weigh them in our owne iudgements that wee leauing the records themselues should seek to the dâ—positions of new writers to know what the olde haue testified but of the errour of them who suppose Ierome and some other of the Fathers to haue beene of the same iudgement with Aerius I haue spoken before neither doubt I now to affirme that they ioyned in opinion with Aerius no more then I do for they writing on Phil. 1. 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 1. 1 Pet. 5. doe say that in these places the names Presbyter Episcopus were confounded which places my selfe haue alledged to the same purpose After he had alledged what hee was able out of the olde Writers and yet neuer a word to the purpose he proceedeth to the new Writers who as he saith were called out of the thickest mists of Poperie to the light of the Gospell heaping vp a sort of testimonies without order and without iudgement and mingling also some testimonies out of the canon law and some Popish Writers among them And because to follow him were to runne the wild-goose race I will reduce their testimonies to certaine heads and then giue him an answere to them all Some therefore are brought to testifie that in the Apostles times BB. and Presbyters were all one the which is true for the same men were called Presbyters and BB as Heming and Zauch in Phil. 1.1 Isidor and Dist. 21. c. Cleros ex Isidor Duaren de ministr benef l. 1. c. 7. Gloss. ord Hugo Card. Cassander the councils of Constance and Basill Chemnitius Lubbertus D. Fulke D. Willet D. Morton Some that there was no difference betweene B. and Presbyter till after the Apostles times but afterwards BB. were set ouer Presbyters as Danaeus Some that at the first there were no such BB. as were afterwards and when they were brought in they were not Monarches of the Church c. as Chamier Some that iure diuino Episcopi Presbyteri be all one as Iunius and Phil. Morney and D. Whitak which is true concerning the vse of the words in the Scriptures Some that Episcopatus is not a distinct order from Presbyteratus iure diuino as D Holland whose not writings but speeches he citeth vpon report Some that B. and Presbyter by the word of God is the same not in name onely but also in office as Sadâ—â—l Some that in the Apostles times the Churches were gouerned communi presbyterorum consilio but after the Apostles they chose one to be B. as Musculus Some that Christ made ministers equall that there was at the first no contention which how true it is appeareth by Christs appointing twelue Apostles and seauentie Disciples and by the contention among the Apostles themselues for superioritie whiles Christ was with them as Bullinger Some that as the Apostles were equall so their successors which is true for the BB. are equall among themselues though superiour to other ministers as the Apostles were to the seauentie Disciples as D. Whitakers Some that Aerius was not an hereticke for saying that according to the vse of the scriptures Episcopus Presbiter is all one which is true neither had he beene an hereticke if he had said no more and that Ambrose Chrysostome Ierome and Augustine were of the same iudgement as B. Iewell Some that in the Apostles times there were onely two degrees of ministers Presbiters and Deacons as D. Humfrey Some that Bishops were not in the Apostles times as Sadeel Some that BB. he superiour to Prebiters by mans decree and not by scripture by custome of man not by the authoritie of God by mans law and not by Apostolicall institution as Heming in Phil. 1.1 Bulling Iunius B. Pilkington the Canon law falsified de iure positiuo as Cusanus not by Gods law as D. Raynolds no otherwise but by custome as Sadeel Some that Episcopus and Pastor of one flocke was at the first all one as D. Raynolds Some that there was alwaies one principall which by common vse was called a B. being chiefe though not alone both in gouernment and ordination as D. Fulke Some that BB. be in a higher degree of superioritie but not Princes that not they onely are Pastors that they haue the right of consecration though not onely as D. Willet Some that the sole and supreame authority in a B. is tyranny as Bullinger Some that the gouernment of the Church by the first institution was not Monarchicall but Aristocraticall as Chamier Some that elections were not in corners nor by one as Gualther Some that Presbiters may ordaine as being all one with BB. in office as Sadeel Some that Priests had voices and seates in Councils as indeed they haue with vs as the councill of Constance and Basill Some that
not onely said but proued also both in the preface conclusion of the sermon that it is both profitable and necessarie The third It is necessarie indeed to be confuted As if he had said it is necessarie indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needfull to be answered Of these reasons the two first he proueth in the words following the third being as you see nothing else but an absurd begging of the question The first he proueth by diuerse arguments such as they be First then the doctrine of the SermoÌ„ is proued to be vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth to the word of truth to the scripture of truth But how after al these ridiculous amplifications is the doctrine of the sermon proued to be repugnant to the word of truth he had rather take it for granted then that you should put him to proue it But I shall make it cleare in this defence of my sermon that as there is not a sillable in the scripture to proue the pretended discipline so the Episcopall function hath good warrant in the word of God But when in the second place he proueth the doctrine of the sermoÌ„ to be vtterly false because it is coÌ„trary to the iudgement practise of the prime Churches next after Christ his Apostles I caÌ„not tel whether to woÌ„der at more the blindnesse or the impudencie of the man Seeing I haue made it manifest that the gouernement of the Church by BB. hath the full consent of antiquitie there being not one testimonie of the ancient writers for their Iudgement nor one example of the primitiue churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie How durst he mention the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church for the triall of the truth in this question when there is not one testimonie for the preteÌ„ded discipline nor one example of it in all antiquitie let them bring any one pregnant either testimonie or example and I will yeeld in the whole cause And where he addeth that it is contrarie to the iudgement and practise of all reformed Churches since the reestablishing of the Gospell by the worthies in these latter times is it not strange that a maÌ„ professing sinceritie should so ouerreach seeing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is gouerned by BB. and Superintendents then by the presbyterian discipline as I haue shewed in the latter ende of this booke But he addeth foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land saying that it is against the doctrine of our Martyrs contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthie writers contrariant to the lawes of our land and contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England The first he expresseth thus Against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whom were worthy Martyrs he quoteth in the Margent Latimer Cranmer c who in their submission to king Henry the 8. at the abolishing of the Popes authoritie out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparitie of Ministers Lordly primacy of B B. was but a politicke deuise of the Fathers not any ordinance of Christ Iesus and that the gouernement of the Church by the Minister certaine Seniors or Elders in euery parish was the ancient discipline Which allegations would make a faire shew if they might passe vnexamined The witnesses which he quoteth for both were Archbishop Cranmer other BB. who allowing the Episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost vncredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alleadged against the same And I doe greatly wonder at the large conscience of our reâ—uter in this behalfe who throughout the booke taketh wonderfull libertie in citing Authors alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them For the former he alleageth the booke of Martyrs whereunto that part of the BB. booke which he mentioneth is inserted which hauing pervsed I finde nothing at all concerning the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superioritie of BB. among themselues all whom with the ancient Fathers I do confesse in respect of the power of Order to be equall as were also the Apostles whose successours they are But we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselues that therefore they were not superiour to the 72. disciples or because BB. are equall among themselues that therefore they are not superiour to other ministers For the latter he quoteth the book called Reformatio legum EcclesiasticaruÌ„ Which was a proiect of Ecclesiasticall lawes which if King Edward the 6. had liued should haue been set forth by his authoritie drawne by Archbishop Cranmer B. May other Commissioners and penned as is supposed by D. Haddon In alleadging whereof whiles the refuter goeth about to make the reader belieue that they stood for Lay-Elders and the pretended parish-discipline he plaieth the part of an egregious falsifier And forasmuch as sometimes in his booke he citeth the 10. and 11. chapters I will transcribe the same the bare recitall beeing a sufficieÌ„t coÌ„futation of his forged allegatioÌ„s For amoÌ„g other orders to be obserued in parochijs vrbanis in parishes which be in cities which begin at the 6. chapter of that title de diuin off in the tenth this order is prescribed CoÌ„fectis precibus vespertinis c. euening prayers being ended whereunto after the Sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne Churches the principall Minister whoÌ„ they call Parochum the Parson or Pastor the Deacon if perhaps they be present or in their abseÌ„ce the Ministers Vicar Seniors are to coÌ„sult with the people how the money prouided for godly vses may best be bestowed and to the same time let the discipline be reserued For they who haue committed publike wickedness to the common offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sinne and publikely to be punished that the Church by their holesome correction may be kept in order Moreouer the Minister going a side with some of the Seniors or Ancients of the parish shall take counsell how others whose maners are said to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselues thankes is duely to be giuen to God But if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receiue such sharpe punishment as we see in the Gospell prouided against their contumacie Then followeth the 11. chapter how excommunication is to be exercised But when the sentence of excommunication is to be pronounced first the Bishop is to be gone vnto and his sentence to be knowne Who if he shall consent and put too his authoritie the sentence of excommunication is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so
the Pope and his consistorie of Cardinals are set as gouernours of the vniuersall Church in whom the Popish Hierarchy so farre forth as it is properly Antichristian consisteth For seeing it is proper to Christ alone to be the head and gouernour of the vniuersall Church he is said properly to be Antichrist who taketh vpon him to be head and gouernour of the whole Church And their gouernement is iustly called Antichristian who are his assistants in this vniuersall gouernement As for the gouernours of Prouinciall and Diocesan Churches that is to say Archbishops and Bishops in the Church of Rome they are not Antichristian in respect of the large extent of their iurisdiction but in regard of their subordination to the Pope and dependance from him as being members of that body whereof they acknowledge him to be the head And therefore are no more Antichristian then their parish Priests And as well might the refuter call the Persons or Pastors of parishes among vs Antichristian because the Popish parish-Priests are Antichristian as our BB. Antichristian because the Popish BB. are such Neither is the function of Bishops more or yet so much to be ascribed to the institutiō of the B. of Rome as that of parish Ministers For Bishops as we shall shew were ordained by the Apostles and set ouer Dioceses but the parishes were first distinguished in the westerne Churches and Presbyters peculiarly assigned to them by the ancient Bishops of Rome whose example other Churches did imitate as diuerse Authors report Againe vnder the Deacons the Papists reckon fiue other orders which they esteeme so many Sacraments whereas we with the primitiue Church and in the same sense with it doe reckon onely 3. orders or degrees of Ministers or Clergy men Bishops Presbyters and Deacons It is strange therefore that the doctrine of my Sermon concerning Bishops alone should vphold the Popish Hierarchy from the highest to the lowest or as they vse to speake frō the Pope to the Apparitor as well as our owne This therefore was a shamelesse vntruth Besides howsoeuer the same three orders or degrees in name are still retained in the Church of Rome as well as in ours yet with great difference For their Priests be Sacerdotes sacrificing Priests ordained to offer a proper externall reall sacrifice Ours are not Sacerdotes that is Sacrificing Priests but as the Scriptures and ancient writers call them Presbyters that is Priests or Ministers ordained to preach the word and administer the Sacraments Their Bishops are subordinate to the Pope and haue their iurisdiction as they teach from him as the Vicar of Christ succeeding Peter not as he was an Apostle as all other Bishops suceed other Apostles but as the head and chiefe gouernour of the whole Church from whom as the head and fountaine of all Ecclesiastical iurisdiction the iurisdiction of other Bishops is deriued and doth depend Our Bishops are not subordinate to the Pope neither haue any depēdāce or deriuatiō of their iurisdiction from him but from God partly as it is spirituall by the ordinance of the Apostles who ordained the first Bishops leauing them as their substitutes or successors in the gouernement of the seuerall Churches and partly as it is corporall or coactiue by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes furnishing them with plenary power to enquire after disorders in the estate Ecclesiasticall all manner errours Heresies schismes abuses offences and enormities and to punish them Which differences being cōsidered betweene vs and the Papists it were more then a wonder if the very same reasons which are brought to proue the Apostolicall gouernement of our Church should also serue to proue their Antichristian Hierarchy But as the young man that Crassus speakes of in Tully hauing found in the strand a smal piece of a Galley would straightway build a ship thereof so out of one small agreement with the Romane Church concerning the superioritie of Bishops ouer Prebyters wherein they retaine the doctrine of the primitiue Church he would build a total consent and conformitie to their Antichristian gouernement Thus we haue heard what aduantage the Papists haue by my Sermon Now let vs see what harme was like to redound to others thereby Others saith he would be much scandalized those that were in loue with their owne ease would easily crouch downe like Isachars asse c as for others it would remoras obijcere ardentiorib Cast blocks in their waies that ran well or retardare zelum make them slacke their pace at least Sāctorum spiritus inquietare disquiet the minds of all the Saints to see a Sermō of that consequence preached published by a man of that name note in the Church That is to say if I vnderstād him aright the Sermō if it might be let alone were not vnlike to haue these effects in those that are accounted the forwarder sort First they that were more moderate then others desired the peace of the Church hauing yet some scruples in their mindes and somewhat doubting of the lawfulnes of our Church gouernement were like enough to haue their doubts satisfied and their consciences setled Others that were more ardent whose zeale ouerranne their knowledge censuring and condemning they knewe not what would be brought to suspend their iudgement or at least to moderate their zeale others who are factious and of the diuided brotherhood whom he calleth all the Saints would be grieued at the heart to see such likelihood of peace and vnion which is so contrarie to their humour to be established in the Church But as hee had a strong opinion that my Sermon was needfull to be refuted so had he as strong a desire it might be answered after some fashion that the Schisme or rent which is in our Church being so beneficiall as it is to some might not be healed but that people might be retained in the former tearmes of a factious and Schismaticall alienation from the state of our Church and the gouernours thereof Which his desire was much inflamed when he vnderstood that this worke hauing beene vndertaken and committed to the presse the answere and presse were taken the Printer and concealer of the Author imprisoned For then good man his soule was cast downe within him to see a truth so profitable and necessarie as is the doctrine of their pretended discipline hauing no ground neither in the Scripture nor antiquitie obtruded as the ordinance of Christ the onely lawful forme of Church gouernement suppressed Being therefore thus possessed with so strong an opinion and transported with so earnest and vnquiet desires he grewe vnto his most valiant resolution Which in effect though he guild it ouer with glorious words was nothing else but this to publish and disperse a malicious diffamatorie libell and hauing so done after the manner of other malefactors to hide his head You haue heard the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this busines and his valiant resolution to vndertake it now
CleruÌ„ which is translated inheritance the sacred companie Euen as we now also do call it that is to say the Clergie Which exposition if we follow then those presbyters to whoÌ„ Peter writeth prescribing vnto them how they should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is saith Caluin Episcopatu fungi exercise the office of a Bishop and noting their authority ouer the Clergie were such as we call bishops But of that by the way Now if the presbyters Act 20. were ministers and teachers as I haue proued and as all writers almost euen those that are parties in the cause do teach then by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding which belongeth to pastors and teachers and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders The refuter hauing with such successe as you see endeuored to maintaine that the presbyters Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers and that the duties both generall of attending to themselues the whole flocke and also special of feeding the Church were required as common to Ministers with Lay-elders which assertions I haue confuted with euidence of truth in this exposition or opposition rather he doth so please himselfe as that hee doubteth not to retort my Syllogisme vpon me after this manner If the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 be not onely ministers but gouerning Elders also and the same with those 1. Tim 5.17 then the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also But the presbyters spoken of Acts 20 28 are not onely ministers but gouerning elders also the same with those 1. Tim 5 17 Therefore the presbyters spoken of 1. Tim. 5.17 are not onely Ministers but gouerning Elders also Heere this great Logick-maister that taketh vpon him to teach and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke bewrayeth himselfe to bee a Logicaster or smatterer in Logicke For an entire and a better Syllogisme concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine is here tumbled into the proposition the proposition and assumption therof not only idlely but with disaduantage to himself if he had meant to haue proued it repeated But because he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignoraÌ„ce I will teach him to make his sillogis thus The Presbyters to whom Paul did speake Acts 20.28 were not ministers onely but Lay or gouerning Elders also The Presbyters of whom hee speaketh I. Tim. 5.17 were the Presbyters to whom he spake Acts. 20 28. Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh Tim. 5.17 were not onely ministers but Lay or onely gouerning Elders also This propositioÌ„ which is but part of his own assumption wheÌ„ he shal be able to make good by any sound proofe I will subscribe to his Lay-Elders For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith that hee hath already iustified it by the ouerthrow of mine it is a most vaine bragge as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader For what one reason or shew of reason hath hee brought or can bring to proue that the Presbyters mentioned Acts. 20. were Lay or onely gouerning Elders CHAP. VI. Maintaining the third reason that Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 11. And that hee speaketh not there of Lay or onely gouerning-Elders it may further be prooued by plaine euidence out of the text For seeing by honour in that place the Apostle vnderstandeth honourable maintenance which by their owne confession is not due to Lay-Elders it is therefore certaine that this place acknowledgeth none such Thus therfore I argue To all those Elders who are mentioned or meant in this place the honour of maintenance is due for their worke sake To the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Therefore the Lay-Elders are not mentioned nor meant in this place c to pag. 13. THe refuter hauing neither learning enough to beare the weight of this argumeÌ„t nor wit enough to forbeare it in answearing therto he vttereth more gall then would well become an honest man The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leaue to himselfe The virâ—s and force of his arguments and answeres I will take vpon me plainely to confute and both here and euery where else by the helpe of God to put him to silence First as his manner is though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogisme to be most true and vndoubted yet he must needs cauill with it And because hee hath nothing to say against it hee hopeth with it to wound some of our side who among other interpretatioÌ„s of this place haue thought the former part of this Text might more probably be vnderstood of not preaching Ministers or Deacons c then of Lay-Elders And although I would bee loth to become a Proctor for vnlearned Ministers especially when learned may be had yet thus much I will say that if the Disciplinarians doe rightly ground vpon this place a distinction of Presbyters into two sorts that there be some preaching Presbyters some not then this text doth without coÌ„parison fauour the not preaching ministers more theÌ„ the Lay-elders Because it is a most certaine truth which I haue manifestly proued and which the refuter will neuer be able to disproue that by Presbyters ministers only are meant As for DeacoÌ„s I meane not your Lay Deacons D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them vnder Presbyters then your W. T. had vnder the name of Deacons to vnderstand your Lay-Elders though T.C. himselfe did subscribe to his opinion And wheras you challenge those reuerend men for seeking by warraÌ„t of this place to surcharge the Church with maintenance of vnpreaching Ministers and Deacons I answere they do not hold that in euery parish such ought to be maintained as you would haue your Presbyterie erected in euery parish but where better more sufficient Ministers cannot be had which was the case of many parishes in England at the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne c. But all his spite is against the assumption though hee spend his spite neither in disproouing it with force of argument nor in answering my proofes with any substaÌ„ce of reason but in sophistical cauilling odious wrangling For wheÌ„ he hath said what he was able I cannot tell whether he doth denie the assumption or graunt it onely hee cauilleth with my proofes of it My assumption was this To Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake Hereunto I require a direct answere If hee say that the honour of maintenance yea double honor that is as not only Theodoreâ— but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentifull maintenance is due vnto them he should haue brought sufficient proofes both to confute the iudgement of those learned Diuines who reformed as directors other Churches and condemne the practise of all reformed Churches which hauing those Presbyters doe not
publican that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided shunned hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance And least any man should lightly esteeme the iudgement of the Church that is of such spirituall gouernors as haue authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders Verily I say vnto you saith our Sauiour speaking to his Apostles and in them to all their successors to whom the keyes of heauen are committed Whatsoeuer you for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen Neither thinke when I mentioned the church I meant a great assembly only or the whole congregation for I say vnto you that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name I am there in the middes of them therfore if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God as namely pardon for the penitent sinner it shall be graunted vnto you If against this exposition it shal be obiected that the Churches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudiciall to Magistrates I answere offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions Of offences some are open notorious some are secrete priuate Some againe are grieuous and capital crimes which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished other be offēces not so hainous or enormous but they may be concealed and pardoned where is hope of amendment For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course but for the priuate and lesse offences Againe offenders are either in the iudgment of charity our brethren in Christ or the sonnes of Belial For the latter we may take the ciuile course of Iustice for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie that wee may winne our brother vnto Christ or recouer him beeing fallen which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth By Church therefore or assemblie our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto consisting for the most part of Lay-elders Not the former for Christ speaketh of such as should meet in his name to whō he promiseth what they bind vpon earth shal be bound in heauē neither are we to think that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes as Caluin also saith It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza not only to imagine that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place Or if that were true how should this direction belong to vs seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished and their whole policie abrogated Not the latter for our Sauiour by Church vnderstandeth such as should haue power to bind loose sinnes as appeareth by the words following Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners of retaining and remitting sinnes our Sauiour Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments as nothing more Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate as they speake of mixed of the Priests and Leuites with the Elders of the people as I am now to shew in answering the assumption For if this be true that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth 18.17 Caluin saith that the Iewes after their returne from captiuitie had a chosen counsell to which was cōmitted the censure of doctrine manners which they called Sinhedrin or Sanedrin in Greek Synedrion T.C. holdeth that the Synedrion was not then first instituted but restored which seemeth to be the truth Howbeit his reason as almost all the rest is but a meere colour For it would follow saith he that the Priests other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench had then their first institution when it is plaine that the Priests and Leuiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion and so might haue cōtinued their functiō though the Sanedrin had neuer bin Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses the instauratiō therof whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod 4. With his Elders therefore as being the eldest in conceit I will beginne This order of Eldership saith hee was taken from the gouernement of the people of God before and vnder the Law Before the Law the Elders which Moses assembled Exod 4. were Ecclesiasticall officers for it is not likely that vnder such a Tyrant they should haue Magistrates of their owne I answere briefly the state of the Hebrews if you respect the whole people was neither a settled Church nor established common-wealth But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families they were ruled by the Elders of the people which were the heads of the Families who as alwayes from the beginning so at that time vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui to the priestly function were both priests and magistrates to their seuerall kinreds and Families Wherefore let them who will needes haue these to be Lay-Elders tell vs who were then the priests whome these Elders did assist Vnder the Law he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house 2. King 6. and in Ezekiels house Ezek 8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could haue the ciuill Gouernors to consult with is it not more vnlike that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell vnder Achab and Iehoram or in Mesopotamia whether Ezekiell and those Elders of Iuda were transported who could neuer be found vnder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem Againe hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra and on the left Nehem 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites and from the people From the people because they stood by Ezra From the teaching Leuites because he speaketh of them after Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders as though either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra or that these might not haue beene priests or that all the Leuites were teachers or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those which are mentioned then and there to haue taught the people Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause must needs thinke this cause to be very badde which he was not able to make good by better arguments then those most vnlikely likely-hoods Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses which should be held both in Ierusalem the
place which God did choose in other cities whereof the one was ciuill the other ecclesiasticall consisting of the priests Leuits scribes or teachers also the seniors of the people But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem which was the highest court chief councel of state hauing power of life death authority to deale in causes both ciuill ecclesiasticall coÌ„sisted of the high priest other priests and Leuites together with the Princes Seniors of the people being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number Of which that in Deut 17.8.9 is to bee vnderstood These were called Sanedrin and did sit in Gazith In which number those which were priests were called Seniores SacerdotuÌ„ and those which were Princes were called Seniores populi as Sigondus saith And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people Iosephus saith that to euery coÌ„sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites The reason heereof was because the lawes wherby that church coÌ„mon-wealth were gouerned were the lawes of God wherein the Priests Leuites Scribes were most skilfull and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law And therfore another sort which should consist of Priests Leuits and elders of the people which should respoÌ„dere de iure as Beza imagineth this shuld was altogether needles But his proofs are as weake as his imagination was strong His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat is Leuit 10.10 where they were ordained saith he to shew the difference betweene holy profane betweene cleane vncleane to teach the law of God But no such thing can with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text where the Lord speaking to Aaron coÌ„mandeth him his sonnes the priests by a perpetual law that they should not drink wine nor strong drink wheÌ„ they were to enter into the sanctuary whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly soberlie either in iudging betweene holie profane between cleane and vncleane or in teaching the people which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary by the priests as well seuerally as ioyntly no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted or if there were it should according to Bertrams conceit consist wholy of the Priests to whom alone this speech is directed As for Elders of the people they were not to intermeddle with these things The high Priest indeed if it pleased him might consult with other Priests and vse their assistance as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God we doe not read and that it should consist in part of Lay-men there is not the least semblance of likelihood His proofes that there were two diuerse Synedria instituted are these First because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former I answere there is neither number set downe nor time of that which neuer was His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Synedria or counsells the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God ouer which the high Priest was chiefe the other ciuill for the causes of the King ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe But it is euident by the text that it was one and the same high counsell of state which afterwards was called Sanedrin or Synedrion Hierosolymitaâ—uÌ„ coÌ„sisting of the Leuites and Priests and of the heads of the chiefe families in Israel ordained for the iudgements of God and controuersies of men which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities were to iudge betweene blood and blood that is slaughter and slaughter betweene the law and the precept betweene statutes and iudgements hauing among them in the causes of God Amarias the high Priest and in the causes of the King Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda as chiefe and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law For whereas he would proue that Iosaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Ierusalem by these reasons because the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God the other of the King the one should determine de iure the other de facto the one had for the president the high Priest the other a Prince of Iuda none of these reasons doe proue that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that which before had beene appointed by God namely that the difficult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague should be brought to the Synedâ—ion or counsell of the place which God shoulâ— choose the which is there noted to consist of the Priests Leuites and â—udge that is iudges saith Caluin as appeareth by the holy historie where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the Pâ—iâ—sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel for the godly King would decline nâ—uer a whit from the rule of Gods law To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as weâ—l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall as well de facto as de iure were to be brought from other ciuill courts as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8 and also 2 Chron. 19.20 Besides it is ridiculous to imagine that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall the rather because that counsell which was appointed by God Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficultie or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate it is absurd to imagine that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure As for the causes of God which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized verse 10. and Deut. 17.8 betweene blood and blood betweene law and precept c. we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill so farre as either they were to be decided bâ— the lawes of God or concerned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law whereby that land was gouâ—rned in iudging whereof they also exercised Gods iudgement The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house or his eschequer And it is fond to imagine that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and morâ—ll lawes of God were not the causes
of God as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others who by the causes of God vnderstand Ecclesiasticall causes and by the causes of the king ciuill causes because it is preiudiciall to my defence but because it is repugnant to the truth for though their interpretation were admitted it would no more proue that there were two distinct Synâ—dria then that which I doe embrace For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell as Iosephus also doth witnesse For speaking of this act of Iosaphat he saith that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priests and Leuits and of the chiefe or principall men of the people requiring them to exercise iust iudgement but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats but the chiefe or presidents of them as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda and relating the law Deu. 17.8 he saith if the iudges in the cities be not able to determine any cause it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius and the senate assembling together pronounce what seemeth right Besides it is manifest that the counsell at Ierusalem after the captiuitie which consisted of priests and Leuits besides the Seniors of the people and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth hauing authoritie to assemble it c. Act. 5.21 Matt. 26.57.59 was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion or coÌ„sistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuil and in causes criminall and capitall Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation as Caluin witnesseth in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie as before so Ezekiell prophecieth that the Priests after the captiuitie should not onely teach the people and iudge betweene holy and prophane betweene cleane and vncleane but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies iudging according to Gods iudgement Iosephus also testifieth that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers of all iudges of controuersies and punishers of such as are by the law condemned And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem vntill I come to answere Caluins opinion As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures For the courts of iudgement which both Moses instituted and Iosaphat renewed though they had Leuites among them were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall but also in ciuill and criminall causes The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three First because the Archisynagogi had as it is probable Seniors of the people ioyned with them Secondly because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them which could not be vnlesse they did consist of the laitie as wel as the clergie Thirdly because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates so the Ecclesiasticall in the Synagogues To the first I answere that a probabilitie if this were such as indeed it is not is no proofe to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name with whom he promised his presence and to whom he committed the power of the keyes to whom also the name Ecclesia which may be giuen to any company of Christians be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ doth fitly agree Thirdly he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses and renewed by Iosaphat sitting in Synagogues when there is not once mention in the old testament either of Ecclesiasticall consistories or yet of Synagogues And in the new such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues as punished by stripes Bertram also witnesseth that in the Synagogues of the cities iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges the greater and weightier causes as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell â—t Ierusalem And againe that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer to heare the law and the Prophets and to heare the iudgement of Moses law as well ciuill as Ecclesiasticall And so much of Beza Caluiâ— by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sanedrin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon which he conceiueth to haue beene an Ecclesiasticall senate to which belonged the censure of doctrine maners hauing the power oâ— excoÌ„munication c. What this Synedrion was Caluin himselfe shall tell vs It is certaine saith he that the Iewes when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment because they might not make a King did imitate this example of appointing 70. Elders Num. 11 in ordaining the Synedrion Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours in whom should be the chiefe power And this course continued vntill Herod c. The Sanedrin indeed was the high counsell of state which was to iudge of causes not only Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminal yea capitall hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death Whereby they adiudged malefactors conuicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death stoning burning killing with the sword and strangling hauing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth that is the consistories of iudges in other cities to whom alone it appertained to iudge the cause of a tribe of a false Prophet of the high Priest c. And howsoeuer their power was much restrained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Romanes notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 libertie to liue according to their owne lawes permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iudging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment and sometimes by death Moreouer by the law of God he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell was not as our Sauiour Christ heere saith to be held as an heathen or Publican but he was to die the death Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appointment of God and that in the
the Bishop of Samosata to Athanasius the Bishop of Ancyra to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly calleth himselfe the B. of Caesarâ—a This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes plainly prooueth also that they were not Bishops of any one parish but of all the Churches in the Citie and of the whole diocesse My assertion therefore that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie but the countrey also adioining would according to the true meaning thereof haue beene consuted if hee had beene able and not the words fondlie cauilled with But not contended heere with he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning as if I had said that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Christians Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more I meane vntill Constantines time Neuerthelesse this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute And therefore full soberly he goeth about it telling vs that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants nor it was not then in Ephesus as it is now in London And very learnedly out of hâ—s reading telleth vs that Polycarpus was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude in the sight of his people when euery body knoweth that in all Cities and Countries for the space of almost 300. yeeres the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles If any man aske how it may bee said that the Church contained the Citie and Country when but a few Christians in comparison of the heathen were in either of both I answer as before that the circuit of the Church or diocesse was the same when there were few and when there were many yea when all were Christians Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians then when there were but a few the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country as well when all were Christians as when but a few which J prooued before by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times which ought without comparison to preuaile with vs aboue the authoritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vs who are not so singular for learning as they are singular in opinion whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places and in all ages since the Apostles times is intolerable Yea but saith hee the Church of Smyrna writing of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse it was seated chiefely in the Citie as the soule which is in all the bodie is said to bee in the head and God who is in all places to be in heauen or but that part which did inhabit the Citie you are not to maruell if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City are called a Church seeing the companie of Christians in a parish or in a familie deserueth that name Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it And thus much may suffice to haue spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee Now are wee to examine the second M.D. saith he perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength sought to fortifie it by two reasons This is my aduersaries vsuall though odious fashion sophistically to argue euery assertion of weaknesse for which I bring proofe when rather the proofe if it bee good as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any doth argue the weakenesse of their iudgement who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued and the strength also of the assertion which is armed with such proofe The former reason he propoundeth thus If our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen and some of them mother Cities then were they great and ample Cities and not the Cities alone but the Countries adioining But our Sauiour writing to the Churches of Asia numbreth but seuen c. To let passe his vnmannerly gibing not worth the mentioning and to referre you to the manner how this Syllogisme is to be framed before mentioned let vs see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashioned He denieth after his vsuall manner both the proposition and the assumption So hard is my happe that scarce any one proposition or assumption which hee frameth for me may be acknowledged to be true and yet so hard is his happe that he is not able to prooue any one either proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue The proposition hee would confute by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia yet it will not follow that therefore all the rest depended vpon these as children vpon the mother To which he addeth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in denying the former part of the assumption viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case If the Emperour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia should haue written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses with intent saith he that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe of them which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case might a man conclude thereupon that all other Townes and Cities of Asia were subiect to the gouernment of these seuen But say I put the case that the Emperor so should doe with that intent which is and also hath beene vsuall in such cases that is to the intent that what hee writeth to them might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction would it not strongly proue that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them Come we to our selues When the King or his Counsell would haue any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties are not warrants directed to the Lieutenants of each County from them to the high Constables of euery hundred from them to the Constables of euery towne and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred and much more to the gouernours of the County In like manner when the Archbishop would haue any thing imparted to euery parish hee directeth his letters to the Bishops they to the Archdeacons they to the officers
in his throne In which throne of Iames reserued as Eusebius saith till his time the BB. of Ierusalem hauing the honour of Patriarches did succeed As touching Alexandria it is euident by that which before hath been shewed that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae belonging to Alexandria and all in one and the same sense which plainely sheweth that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee doth not meane that which we call a parish Which wil then better appeare when I shall proue that from Saint Marks time there were more Churches or parishes there and yet but one Church and one Bishop But suppose it were granted him that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number the proportion of an ordinary congregation yet this would not proue them to haue been parishes as hath been shewed Thus and thus weakely to vse his owne words the Disputer hauing prooued his cause notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag Now let any man iudge whether M.D. hath better proued that the Churches in those times were dioceses or I that they were parishes So say I let any man now iudge who is of iudgement and if there be any comparison betweene the plaine euidence which I haue brought and his slender proofes let me be taken for a man of no iudgement Yea but saith hee the worst is still behinde for his cause indeed but to mine aduantage For if there were not onely diocesan but also prouinciall Churches and that within the first two hundred yeeres then is it absurd to imagine that there were no Churches but parishional Neither did or doth the being of prouinciall Churches hinder dioceses or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceipts of this disputer and his fellow challengers of disputation First that euery visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority immediately deriued from Christ for the gouerâ—â—ent of it selfe in al causes ecclesiasticall Secondly that euery parish is or ought to be such a Church From the former of these this disputer seemeth to inferre that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the prouinciall Churches and BB that then the prouinciall be the onely Churches And by the same reason when the prouinces were subiect to the Patriarches none but patriarchall Chuches as that of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem were to be esteemed Churches But let vs heare the disputer Admit the Churches were then diocesan what is that to vs who haue none such in these daies if G.P. say true And how is this proued because he saith the BB. of either prouince in England are Suffraganes or rather Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes in their seuerall prouinces euen their deputies exercising ecclesiastical iurisdiction from and vnder them It shall not be amisse therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth In the meane time you should haue answered for your selues and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others But though you cannot confute him yet you can abuse him as by reuiling and scornefull termes in other places of your booke so here by notorious falsifying of his words For where doth he say that our Bishops bee but Suffraganes or Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes as you without shame or conscience doe belie him saith hee or meaneth he any more but this that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation wherby the iurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended that ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which he practiseth he doth exercise from and vnder the Archbishop as his deputy And what is this to our purpose Yea but If we may iudge saith our Disputer by the outward practise we haue onely two Churches and they are prouinciall the one of Canterbury the other of Yorke vnsubordinate either to other or to any other ecclesiasticall power and so entire Churches such as hee would haue euery parish to be Heere by the way let the Reader iudge with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft obiected against our Bishoppes that they be petite popes hauing sole and supreme authority seeing now himselfe confesseth that according to the order and discipline of our Church they are subiect to the Metropolitanes But to the point none of these things which hee obiecteth doe hinder the being of dioceses or diocesan Bishoppes no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffraganes For whereas the Bishoppes haue been by authors which haue written within these nine hundred yeeres called Suffraganes to the Archbishoppes they meane thereby comprouinciall Bishoppes who in the election of the Metropolitanes and in the prouinciall synods held by the Metropolitanes did giue their suffrages with them not that they bee such as commonly we call Suffraganes but are as absolute Bishoppes as haue been since the first appointment of Metropolitanes and they were actually acknowledged as they were at the first intended so soone as the diuers cities of one prouince had their Bishops In all which as there was consociation among themselues as being all of one body so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis or mother Citie as being their head Thus was it prouided in the canons which for their antiquity are called the Apostles canons that the Bishops of euery nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them and esteeme him as the head and that they should doe nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne iurisdiction without his consent And that euery one may doe those things alone which belong to his owne Church and the Countries which bee vnder it Neither may hee meaning the Primate doe any thing without the consent of all The same is repeated and explaned as yee heard before in the Councell of Antioch calling the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishoppe which gouerneth in the mother Citie appointing him to haue the care of the whole prouince because there is concourse of men who haue businesse from all parts of the country to the mother Citie And although they forbad Bishoppes to attempt any thing beyond their compasse without his consent according to the antient canon yet they say Euery Bishoppe hath power or authority of his owne diocesse to administer or gouerne the same according to his conscience and to haue prouident care of the whole Country subiect to his Citie and to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons and to dispose of all things with iudgement It is apparant then that the being of prouinciall Churches doth not hinder the diocesan nor the authority of Metropolitanes take away the iurisdiction of diocesan Bishops Neither is any Church in the world more agreeable to the forme and gouernment of the most antient and Apostolicall Churches then this of England For at the first Metropolitanes were not subordinate to any superiour Bishoppes but were as Balsaâ—â— saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads by themselues of their prouinces being Bishoppes of
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
answere For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters but that the vse of them was voluntarie after the example of Moses as Ierome saith and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition as Cyprian by name did follow their example resoluing to doe nothing of moment without their counsell and aduise seeking therein the good and peace of the Church And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops vntill as I said the Presbyters aduise and assistance to themselues seeming troublesome and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse grew out of vse whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed And so much may suffice to haue answered an obiection which the refuter doth not acknowledge I proceede therefore to the third which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke Presbyters and Bishops were all one therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition To this obiection I returned two answeres the first that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one it may be vndertooke of the names vvhich hee proueth by many testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles And in this sense it is true that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church as before I haue noted out of Theodoret And in the same sense Augustine is to be vnderstood vvhen hee saith according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium The refuter comming to examine this answere saith I denyed the Antecedent vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent in that sense vvhich I giue in the answere denyed the consequence That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition but by the custome of the Church yet that hindreth not but the function may be of Apostolicall institution Seeing they vvhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles sometimes the Angels of the churches So that when the names were confounded the offices were not But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it As though it needed excuse vvhen I brought iust defence of it vvhich hee is not able to answere For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one but by the proofes vvhich he bringeth for it but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles and that the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places For if hee would haue concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded his consequences would be very weake The second defence of my answere vvas this that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices But not of the offices therefore of the names If you shall vnderstand Ierome as affirming that the offices were confounded and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition in that sense that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution you shall make Ierome not onely to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie but also to be contrarie to himselfe but this latter is absurd so is the former To the former reason the refuter answereth not but bringeth a reason or two such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere Can any man be so sotttish saith he as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names not offices or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction You see how bragge our refuter is when hee seemeth to haue gotten neuer so little aduantage To his former question I answere that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour yet Ierome might and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters so Presbyters vvere called Bishops Yea but saith he in the second question Ierome would not reason so simply Whereto I answere that not onely learned men but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho haue obtained a greater name For as the Philosophers say names are the resemblances and imitations of the things Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new and I confesse worthy Diuines who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one not in name onely but in office also Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced and namely the second But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish whereby wee are charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie and to be contrarie to himselfe if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares eyther hath beene or can be alledged to that purpose of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent For first that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct haue I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes out of Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian and other auncient writers that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles haue I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian Hegesippus and Clemens cited by Eusebius and can it seeme doubtfull to any that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth And as for Ierome vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired then those vvhich I brought to proue that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles And that Ierome neuer thought that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded it
shew they had then can it not be doubted but that diocesan Bishops much more were in the Apostles times for euery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse being not actually a Metropolitan vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince being constituted there was a consociation among themselues and subordination of them to him as their primate There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches and those which followed as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church either to the end of the second century or of the first with hope to escape that way Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth yea or fifth century for the superiority of Bishops they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question vnlesse they shall be able to shew not onely that no such thing was in vse but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time and the age following for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome so soone as God gaue peace vnto his Church was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning The second corner of his first starting hole wherewith the second also meeteth is that the question is of the seuen Angels And what of no other Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis to the thesis especially when it is confessed by the Refuter that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels in respect of the substance of their calling may be concluded of other Bishops and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church may be verified of these Angels The third that I must proue these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which also is repeated in his second euasion But where doe I say in all the sermon that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction Where doe I deny either that the BB. did or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters for either of both or that in the defect of Bishops both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters In a word where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters But let the Reader vnderstand that there are two maine calumniations whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers The one that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino as though no other manner of gouernment were any way or any where lawfull The other that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers which haue not such BB. to ordaine them His other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or starting hole is that which hee hath already foure times runne into and making vse of it now the fifth time in the beginning of the next section desireth the Reader that it may not be tedious to him that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me for not concluding what hee according to his forced analysis would haue concluded though all men see I doe directly prooue what before was propounded for the proof of my first assertion viz. that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses and themselues diocesan it remained that J should proue that they were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree c which if I did not endeuor to proue directly he might haue had some quarrell against me CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree Serm. sect 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree all antiquitie with one consent if you except Aërius c. to the end of pag. 31. MY reason hee frameth thus If all antiquitie except Aërius who for dissenting in this point was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine with one consent doe acknowledge that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree But the former is true therefore the latter First hee cauilleth with the consequence which no man bearing the face of a Diuine I had almost said of a Christian would doe calling it sore poore feeble and insufficient vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added Where let the Reader consider what is the question which is here concluded viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree This question plainly is de facto of what was for de iure that is of the quality lawfulnes I intreat in the second assertion Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity rather then the truth Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree and hath any of vs the forehead to deny it Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting as ◠proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact as also in respect of the right in the demonstration of the second assertion Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate that the Bishops described in the first assertion are of Apostolicall institution as I am well assured that this Refuter with all his partakers will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth but that captious persons may easily cauill with it And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion to haue produced such euidence as doth testifie onely de facto yet many of the allegations which I bring doe also giue testimony to the right Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie whereon the consequence is grounded Now to the thing testified which is the assumption which I proue by fiue arguments The first If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes condemned by the antient Catholike Church for denying the superiority of Bishops then the antient Church doth giue testimony to the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de iure But the first is true therefore the second Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say but where I said all antiquity besides Aërius did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops against this he obiecteth that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops no more then Ierome did And de iure
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