not that we are able to ouersway them without comparison no writer till our age giuing testimonie no Church since the Apostles times vntill this present age giuing approbation to Lay-Elders but all writers and Churches before our time giuing testimonie and approbation to the gouernement of Bishops To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferiour so in the multitude of Churches at this day which doe not admit the Lay-Elders we are farre superiour as hereafter shal be shewed And thus much I hope will suffice for the first point FINIS LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed 1611. THE SECOND BOOKE PROVING That the Primitiue Churches indued with Power of Ecclesiasticall Gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses And that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not Parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The First Chapter entreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocesse and that which is translated Parish IN this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident like the men of Ai though not vpon the like occasion as though my forces were not able to stand before him But forasmuch as in the former assault I haue taken the Acropolis chiefe hold of the Presbyterian Discipline I doubt not but that when he shall with the men of Ai looke backe and see the chiefe Tower of his defence I meane the Presbytery vanishing as it were a smoake his courage will bee abated For the Presbytery being downe what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishoppes For seeing the Primitiue Churches were gouerned eyther by Diocesan Bishoppes as we hold or by Pastors of Parishes assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine who seeth not that vpon the ouerthrow of the Presbyteries the gouernment by Bishops is necessarily inferred Hauing therefore proued the first point of the fiue with such euidence of truth as I am wel assured all the gainesayers thereof will neuer bee able soundly and substantially to confute I need not doubt of preuailing in the rest As for the 2. next points which I handle concerning Dioceses and Diocesans the refuter thinketh they be the weakest of all the fiue and the worst appointed and thereupon would take occasion to cauill at my order as if I were to learne Methode of him whereas indeed his imputation of weakenesse to these 2. parts if it were true would commend my disposition of them as Homericall seeing I haue marshalled them Nestorio more after the manner of Nestor in medio infirma placing the weakest in the middest The chiefest points in my estimation being the first and the two last The truth is I did more lightly passe ouer these two then the rest but not out of an opinion of weakenes in the points themselues but partly in a conceit of their euidence and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthie or so needfull to be insisted vpon as the rest For first I supposed them to be so euident that howsoeuer T. C. in whose steppes our new Disciplinarians tread vpon weaker grounds then a man of learning iudgement should haue stood vpon doth deny them yet scarsly any other man of learning iudgement besides him would gain-say them Secondly that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted and in which these 2. are presupposed were most worthy in that breuity whereto I was confined to be stood vpon And thirdly that J needed not to bee so carefull in prouing of them seeing the chiefest patrones of the pretended Discipline as Caluin and Beza c. doe herein ioin with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians as hath already beene proued Now whereas I brought forth these forces intending only a light skirmish velitationem quandam tanquam leuis armaturae my aduersary bringeth his maine battel into the field as if the euent of this whole warfare depended vpon this encounter I will therefore not onely bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came vpon the men of Ai as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel but also cause these Arguments which now like the troupes of Israel seem in his conceit to flie before him to returne vpon him a fresh And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches Parishes and Dioceses it shall not bee amisse to beginne with the names which are diuersly taken And first with the word Ecclesia which signifying generally any assembly company or congregation of men whatsoeuer ciuill or ecclesiasticall holy or prophane is in all the places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. appropriated to the Companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be diuided into two Companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darkenesse containing manie particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Sathan the other the Kingdome of God this latter is called Ecclesia signifying a Company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the Greeke word importeth Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto saluation by Christ that is to say more brieflie the Church doth signifie a companie of Christians And thus it is vsed in the Scriptures either more Generally to signifie eyther the Vniuersal company of them that are elected in Christ or called to be Saints as Ephes. 1.22 3.21 5.23 24.25.27.29 32. Act 2.47 Colos. 1.18.24 The two main parts of the vniuersall Church Triumphant in heauen as Heb. 12 23. Militant on earth as Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 3.10 1. Tim. 3.15 and that eyther dispersed in diuers nations and Countries throughout the world 1. Cor. 10.32 15 9. Act. 8.3 Gal 1.13 Phil. 3.6 Congregated in an vniuersall or Oâ—cumenicall Synode Particularly that either Definitely to signifie the Church of a Nation in the nuÌ„ber Singular Act. 7 38. Plural Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1.19 2. Co. 8.1 Ga. 1.2.22 And these either dispersed or coÌ„gregated into a Synode or consistory Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 Congregation whether set or vncertain as Act. 11.26 14.27 1. Cor. 11 18 22. 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3 Ioh. 6. City and Country adioyning Act. 5.11 8.1 11.12 12.1.5 13.1 14.23 20. 17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2 Co. 1.1 8.23 Col 4.16 2. Thes. 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4 11.20 2.1.7.8.12.18 3.1.7.14 Village or towne Rom. 16 1. Family Rom. 16.5 1. Cor. 16 9. Col. 4.5 Philem. 2. Indefinitely signifying any company of Christians not defining either the Place Society whether of a Nation City c. quantity whether an entire church or but a part as Act. 9. â—1 15 3.4.41 18.22 Rom. 16.16 23.1 Co. 4.17 6.4 11.16 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24 â—1 8.28 12.13 Phil. 4.15 1. Thes. 2.14 2. Thes. 1.4 â— Tim. 3.5.3 Iohn 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29 3.6.13.22 22.16 The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures
only Presidents of the presbyterie c. Nothing is more plaine The Presbyters saith Caluin in euery Citie chose one out of their number to whom specially they giue the title of a Bishop least from equalitie as is wont dissentions should arise But yet the Bishop was not so in honour and dignitie superiour that hee had dominion ouer his colleagues But what office the Consul had in the Senate to propound matters to aske voyces to goe before others in counselling admonishing exhorting by his authoritie to rule the whole action and to execute that which by common counsell hath bene decreed that office did the B. beare in the assemblie of the Presbyters Againe euery Colledge of Presbyters onely for preseruation of peace and good order were subiect to one Bishop who did so goe before others in dignitie that himselfe was subiect to the assemblie of the bretheren meaning the Presbyterie Caluin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops nothing else but presidents of the Presbyterie or moderators of the Assemblie Beza as by each of these Angels he vnderstandeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the President of the Presbyterie as before I noted So he will acknowledge the first Bishops to haue bene no other but presidents of the Ecclesiasticall Senate Presidents ouer the assemblies of Pastors to wit of diuerse Parishes belonging to one Church whose authoritie he will acknowledge to bee nothing else but the Dignitie of the first place in the sacred Assemblie with the right of ruling the common action without any dominion ouer those which sit with him And such a presidentship hee acknowledgeth to bee a Diuine ordinance And whereas Ierome saith there was a time when the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters hee would not haue him so vnderstood as if they had not alwayes a president And whereas D. Sarauia objecteth that in Saint Iohns time these 7. Churches of Asia had by Diuine ordinance 7. BB. set ouer them whome hee calleth the Angels Beza replieth Wherefore vrge you this against Ierome vs For when he saith that the Churches at the first were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters wee may not thinke he was so vnwise as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President of the assemblie And most plainely in the next Chapter As touching the first Presbyter saith hee or Bishop of the Diocesse what his Dignitie was and wherein it did consist I haue often shewed that it was wholly of Order and not of degree Euery one of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Parish and that first Presbyter or Byshop of the Diocesse hauing a super-intendencie or in-spection ouer all his fellow-Presbyters thus farre as to admonish them of their dutie as also hauing assembled his Presbyterie either on set dayes or extraordinarilie to propound matters to them concerning the Diocesse or the Censure of manners to aske their voices to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good From which iudgement it was lawfull to appeale to a Prouinciall Synode As touching the last point what the learned disciplinarians hold may be gathered by the practise of Geneua and other Churches which they did reforme as was pretended according to the discipline of the primitiue Church the Presidents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetuall or for terme of life but for a short time But omitting the rest Beza often vrgeth this point that the ancient BB had this presidentship but for a short time and that by course And as hee professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of euery Church to be a diuine ordinance immutable So hee acknowledgeth those BB alone for diuine who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course How be it hee confesseth that howsoeuer the order it selfe Namely that there should bee a president in each presbyterie is perpetuall and immutable as beeing essentiall Yet ordinis modum the manner of this order though it were a diuine ordinance that it should bee by course and for a short time was variable as being but accidentall But his wordes which most plainely testifie that which I deliuered are these In what sense it is to be taken that Ierome saith The Churches in the beginning were gouerned by the common Counsell of the Presbyters Ambrose teacheth namely so as there should bee one among them not superiour in degree but first in the dignitie of Order and Honour to which office euery one should succeede in their turnes Now what space of time was prescribed to this Presidentship Ambrose describeth not But it is probable that it was a weekely course such as that of the Aaronicall Priest-hood And after speaking of that change which Ierome noteth hee giueth this reason thereof That the Primacie of Order by course or turnes of mutuall succession was by experience found not sufficient for auoyding of Schisme the dignitie of this Primacie being communicated vnto each of the Pastors in their turnes Therefore that which had bene common to all in their turnes it was thought good to translate vnto one and that one chosen by the iudgement of the whole Presbitery Let the refuter therefore take home those foure vntruths to himselfe which hee obiected against mee whether out of vnmannerly ignorance or rather cunning-rudenes For it can hardly be thought that such bolde challengers of the BB. and so confident an vndertaker of this busines could simply be ignorant of these things but rather cunninglie sought to conceale the diuision which is among themselues fearing lest their fauourites whereof some followe some goe before them out of a zeale not guided by knowledge should take notice that the aforesaid challengers and this Champion stand for a Discipline neither taught by Caluin and Beza and such other learned men nor yet practised by the reformed Churches whereof I desire all men to take notice And verilie for my part I was of opinion till I sawe H.I. booke to the King and the vnmodest vnchristian offer of disputation that they who stand for the pretended reformation among vs had sought for no other discipline then that which Caluin and Beza taught and the reformed Churches especiallie of Geneua doth and Scotland did practise But when I saw the nouell Assertions wheron the new-found parish discipline is founded vrged with such bold vehemencie I must confesse I was much alienated from that side And so I hope will all moderate Christians when they shall consider how they make no ende of broaching more and more Nouelties Serm. Sect. 4 pag. 6. Now for the clearing of this matter which we haue in hand Forasmuch as both sorts obtrude Lay-Elders to extrude Bishops I would first proue against both c. to the end of pag 7. Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explication haue beene propounded to be discussed Now in this Section I made way to the proofe hereof by enumerating distinctly the seuerall
the better gifts chiefly to follow after loue and to couet after spiritual gifts but amōg them to desire rather to prophecie that is to preach then to speak with tongues And whereas the holie Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God according to their worthines saying First second third if by helpes he should meane Deacons and by gouernments Elders then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders which will not be granted If anie man doubt whether helps and gouernments are to be accounted gifts Chrysostome may resolue him who as of the former he saith that is in especial maner the gift of God so also of the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be fitte to gouerne and to administer spirituall things and he addeth that our duties are called Gods gifts to teach vs that our abilitie in performance of our dutie is the gift of God So Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also he calleth a gift though it require our labour also and industrie Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit For the spirit saith he is one but the graces are not equall nor yet the receptacles of the spirit For to one by the spirite is giuen the word of Wisedome and contemplation to another the word of knowledge or reuelation to another firme vndoubted faith to another the inoperations of powers high wonders to another the gifts of healing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpes that is Presidencies or Patronages Gouernements that is Poedagogies of the flesh kindes of tongues interpretations of tongues I am not ignorant that some before our time haue vnderstood diuerse of these members to haue bene Ecclesiasticall functions But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the gouernment of our Church not with the pretended discipline For by Apostles they vnderstand not only the 12. Apostles but their successors also in the gouernment of the Church that is to say the Byshops and by helps they vnderstand them who help the Bishops in the gouernment of the church as the Deanes and Archdeacons and by gouernements the gouernors or rectors of seuerall parishes These with 1. Tim 5.17 are the testimonies of Scripture which vsually be aleaged by the patrons of the presbyterie not one of them almost either omitting any of them or adding any other So that this Disputer might trulie cōclude that this is the strength and indeed all the strength they haue out of the Scriptures Which how strongly or strangely rather they haue concluded for the Lay-Elders it doth sufficiently appeare to them that haue not either a strong preiudice or a weake iudgement Assuredly if the Fathers be no stronger for them then the Scriptures then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weake and languishing CHAP. XI Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-Elders OF the Fathers he also braggeth as he did before of the Scriptures But in the vpshot all the force of his argumēts either out of Scriptures or Fathers relyeth vpon the authority of certaine new writers who are the most almost all of them parties in the cause Which is a kinde of arguing deuised to retaine the vnlearned in their former opinion that because so many late Diuines vnderstand the Scriptures and Fathers according to their receiued opinions they may be confirmed therein But is not this a strange kind of reasoning Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose which are all the Fathers hee nameth but nameth as though with their names hee hoped to ouercome vs giue testimonie to Lay-Elders therefore Lay-Elders were in vse in the primitiue church when we quietly grant this consequence only desire them to proue the antecedent Is it not strange I say that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselues endeuour by necessary euidence to demonstrate that they are to be vnderstood as speaking of Lay-Elders but to bring in a sort of new writers the most wherof are parties to depose that these ancient Fathers say as they would haue them Did they heare them say so or did they read their writings If they read their testimonies are they the same which we haue in print or some speciall manuscripts which yet are not come to light if such why are they not produced If their testimonies be vpon publike record in print why should not we examine the records thēselues trust to our owne eyes and iudgmēts rather thē to the opinions of them who are partiall in the cause Or if these new writers had reasons to perswade vs that these Fathers doe speake for Lay-Elders why are not their reasons produced By your leaue I will produce their testimonies for you And because it pittyeth me the to see well-meaning people abused I had almost said guld with glorious shewes I will let them see that not any one testimonie which you doe vse to produce out of the Fathers doth conclude for Lay-Elders And first as touching Ignatius whom hee first nameth because his testimonies were belike too hot to be handled yet hee putteth him off fairely saying that hereafter he will shew how he is to be vnderstood when he commeth to answere my quotations out of him But I quote him not in the question of Elders but among my proofs for Bishops And if hee haue no stronger proofes out of Ignatius for elders then the selfe-same that I alledge for Bishops may you not think that he is very strōg for them The truth is he perceiued they were too weake to bee vrged by him as an opponent and therefore chose to speake to them as an answerer hoping to perswade the simple reader that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proued by Ignatius his testimonie if they be not disproued thereby as hereafter you shall heare T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison the demonstrator of discipline almost who not cite this sentence of Ignatius There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsell Vnto which H.I. addeth 2. more out of his epistles to them of Tarsus Smyrna In the 1. of these Epistles Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subiect to the Bishop as to the Lord a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ our hope Of the Deacons in the next words he sath that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ Iesus and not of meate and drinke A reason of the former speech he rendreth in these words the Byshop is the type of the Father of all the Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Consistory of God and a band or Colledge of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without these that is BB. Presbyters Deacons no elect Church is no holy congregation no assemblie of Saints This testimony proueth that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons so also Presbyters and a presbyterie But what manner of presbyters they were it appeareth 1. by
the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gentiles Well Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres afterwards sendeth Timothy to be their Bishoppe who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time hee maketh mention of the Churches of Asia Saint Peter likewise had preached and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia to whom among others hee directeth his first Epistle After the death of Peter and Paul because those Churches were as Paul had foretold much annoled with heretikes Saint Iohn by the direction of the holy Ghost went into those parts preached the Gospell for many yeeres ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was To the ministery of the Apostles adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them and disciples which they had instructed by whose ministerie not onely many particular Christians but some Churches were brought to the faith As that of Colossae which was in the confines of Phrygia bordering on this Asia in Pauls time planted by the ministerie of Epaphraâ— as their founder watered by the ministerie of Archippus as their Bishoppe Now I appeale to the conscience of euery indifferent Reader whether it bee not vnlikely that not in any one of these famous Churches no not in that of Ephesus there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it any more then one ordinary congregation after the preaching of such and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres And so much for the first of his assertions the other two I will ioyne together For if there were but one Bishoppe for the Church both of the citie and country as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches and but one Presbytery if the Churches both of the citie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bishoppe nor Presbytery but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them if the Presbyters of the country were ordained by the Bishoppe of the citie and not onely they but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authoritie all which I haue by most euident arguments and testimonies proued already then did the seuerall congregations and parishes which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia cathedra episcopi or the cathedrall Church neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake as I haue also proued before I come to the assumption wherewith hee cauilleth egregiously because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes were not onely the cities but the countries adioyning that is as I expressed my meaning in the syllogisme before that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and country which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe But saith hee Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing and the Church another But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple c. As touching this foule imputation that I may beginne with it J thanke God I am free both from desire and intent of dazâ—ling the eyes of the simple But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence to vphold and maintaine the truth against the nouelty of your inuentions and the subtilties of your sophistications wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple So much of that by the way If hee discerned the speech which I vsed to bee improper had hee not so much neither Art I meane either Rhetoricke or Logicke nor grace I meane charity as either to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope or to explane my speech by such an enunciation as the nature of the arguments doth require When it is said in my text the seuen starres are the Angels will he say who euer heard that starres were Angels Or when Christ saith This cup is my bloud that is shâ—d or the new Testament in my bloud will he say who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testament When I said the Churches are the cities and the country could he neither vnderstand me as speaking after that most vsuall metonymy of the Christian people in the citie and country nor yet explane my words as the nature of the argumeÌ„ts contained in the speech doth lead him If I should say a man is not onely body but soule also or the body is not one member alone but many you would vnderstand me thus Man consisteth of body and soule the body consisteth not of one member alone but of many Or thus Whole man containeth these two parts the bodie containeth not one member alone but many Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is that is containeth not only the City but the Country But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11 and hee shall finde that the seuen Churches were Ephesus Smyrna c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose These few testimonies may suffice Eusebius saith that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch and that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch c. The Councell of Nice writing to the Church of Alexandria maketh mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius calleth Damasus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the great Citie Rome and Dionysius the B. of Alexandria The first Councell of Constantinople mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople Dionysius the Archbishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the great Citie of Alexandria Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba Alexander Bishop of Alexandria c. to the Councell of Sardica Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia and in like maner all the rest stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops or vnto Bishops Ignatius stileth himselfe thus Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Antioch Leo in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome sometimes Vrbis Romae of the Citie of Rome Basil writeth to Eusebius
see what the refuter can obiect why our Sauiour writing to these seuen Churches should not vnder them comprise all the Churches in Asia Because euen there or near saith he we find diuers other churches as those of Colossa Hierapolis Troas mentioned in the Scripture to let passe Magnesia and Trallis recorded in other writers But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia Troas beeing the same with phrygia minor and Hierapolis and Colossae Cities of Phrygia maior It is recorded by Eusebius that in the yeare of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero these three cities Laodicea Hierapolis and Colossae were ouerthrowne with earthquakes And although we read that Laodicea was quickly reedified and flourished againe when Saint Iohn wrote the Reuelation and Hierapolis not long after seeing we read that Papias Saint Iohns Scholler was by him made Bishop there yet of Colossae as Caluin obserueth that shortly after the Epistle was written to them that Church with the rest perished so that it stood in Saint Iohns time I read not neither doe I remember any mention of it or of the Bishops thereof in or neere those times Howbeit in processe of time it was reedified and called Conae or Chonae whereof Nicetus the writer of the annales because he was of that citie is called Coniates Oecumenius saith that Colossae was a citie of Phrygia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is now called Chona and by that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned among the Bishopricks as they are digested by Leâ— the Emperour That Colossae was no parte of Asia Theodoret sheweth For beeing of opinion that Paul had beene at Colossae he prooueth it because it is said that he went through Phrygia Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden of God For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bithynia not of Phrygia As touching Magnesia and Trallis it appeareth not that they were as yet conuerted vnto the faith when they were conuerted as not long after I confesse they were seeing Ignatius a little before his death did write vnto them they were inferiour to those seuen which Saint Iohn nameth as the principall and both of them subject to the Bishop of Ephesus as appeareth by the subscriptions in the Councill of Chalcedon where Eutropius the Bishop of Ephesus subscribing as other Metropolitanes did for himselfe and the Bishops which were vnder him beeing absent among twentie others mentioneth Alexander of Magnesia and Maximus of Trallis Likewise in the distribution of the Churches made by Leo the Emperour among the Bishops subiect to the Bishop of Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Tralles and of Magnesia vpon Maander are numbred Vpon these weake premisses the Refuter inferreth a very confident conclusion It is cleare therefore saith he that our Sauiour intended not to write to all the Churches of Asia but onely to those seven which he nameth to noâ—e of which so many and so famous Churches could belong Whereto I aunswere according to that which I haue prooued that euery Church that was in Asia in these times was either one of these seuen or depending on them As for those Churches which he mentioneth in Asia maior or Asia minor yea euen those which were in Phrygia minor or Troas or in Phrygia maior as Hierapolis and Colossae were not any of them in Asia so properly called there remaine only Magnesia and Tralles to prooue his conclusion Which either he cannot prooue to haue beene Churches at this time or if they were hee cannot disprooue that they belonged to one of these seuen So that nothing which he can obiect doth hinder but that vnder these seuen our Sauiour did write to all the Churches in Asia Thus the former parte of the assumption remaineth true and so will the latter though he say it is vtterly false for his reason is no other but that which I haue alreadie confuâ—ed that they were neither mother cities nor cities at all And whereas he obiecteth that the Epistles were directed to the Angell of the Church in Ephesus in Smyrna c. and not of Ephesus the Church Smyrna the Church as of the whole cities were the Churches I answere that although the whole citie of Ephesus meaning Civitas was not the Church vntill it was wholly conuerted to the profession of Christianitie notwithstanding the whole citie meaning vrbs was contained within the circuite of the Church intended by the Apostles and acknowledged by the iudgement and practise of that Church conformable to the iudgement and practise of all other churches in christendome Neither is that materiall that the church is said to haue bin in Ephesus as it also was when the whole city was conuerted to christianity seing in vrbe in the city the church was chiefly seated as was said before Now that some of these were Metropoleis that is as I said not onely mother cities but also Metropolitan churches I wil briefly declare Those cities which were capita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heads of the ciuil iurisdictioÌ„ where the presideÌ„ts of the Roman prouinces held their assemblies kept their courts were mother cities to the rest which were vnder the said iurisdiction But such were fiue of these as hath beene heeretofore noted out of Plinie viz. Ephesus Smyrna Pergamum Sardes Laodicca Where also Philadelphia is noted as one of the cities subiect to Sardes and Thyatira to Pergamus This distinction the Church followed in al excepting Pergamus which it selfe was subiected to Ephesus and Thyatira which had belonged to it sometimes to Synada for in the councel of Chalcedon Marmianuâ— the Bishop of Synada among the BB. which were vnder him reckoneth Helladius of Thyatira sometimes to Sardes as in the Emperor Leo the Philosophers time The Bishops of the other 4. in the council of Chalcedon in the condemnation of Dioscorus are stiled Metropolitanes and in the diuers subscriptions to that councill are placed among the Bishops of the mother cities In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or distribution of the Churches by the Emperour Leo Ephesus is a Metropolis hauing 36. Bishopricks vnder it among which Pergamum is the 19. Sardes likewise is a Metropolis hauing vnder it 24 Bishopricks whereof Philadelphia is the first and Thyatira the third to Laodicea likewise 21. Bishoprickes were subiect and to Smyrna 7. And so much may suffice for the first argument grounded on the text CHAP. 4. That Presbyters were appointed not to parishes but to dioceses THe Analysis of the 2. argument is mistaken by him to say no worse for hee should haue looked to the end of that which though he make the 3. section should haue beene ioined to the 2. Where hee should haue found this to be the main conclusioÌ„ of al that which followeth the first argument concerning the 7. churches to that place viz. That the Presbyteries in the Apostles times
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
question seeing it is confessed that Nazianzens father was B. of that diocesse These bee all the instances which T.C. bringeth in this cause excepting one more out of the canon law which our refuter thought not worth the obiecting But his inference hereupon is worth the obseruing Al this M.D. could not choose but know if he had read but somuch as M. Cartw. 2. reply with as good a mind as hee did D. Bilson Whereto I answere that I read with resolution to yeeld to the trueth whersoeuer I find it But God hath giuen me so much iudgment as not to be perswaded by meere colours such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to bee and such as in this treatise I haue prooued many of them to bee and so will the rest if the Refuter shall vrge them or take vpon him to maintaine them Hauing so substantially answered the substance of my argument hee taketh occasion to shewe his learning in giuing a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani then I did I said and I am sure haue read it in some learned author that they are so called because the people who liued in the country villages which are properly called pagani a pag◠and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Pomp. Festus saith quia eadem aqua vterentur remained for the most part heathenish after the cities for the most part were conuerted to Christianity Hee thinketh the heathen were called pagani because they are not Christs Souldiers induced so to thinke because Tertullian saith Apud hunc tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis Which hee englisheth thus as well a faithfull Souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan Which if it were Tertullians meaning as well Christians as infidels should be called Paganes But Tertullian is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 darke and writeth as it seemeth aboue some mens capacity With Christ saith Tertullian as well a belieuing pagan is a souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan meaning by Pagan according to the vse of the Romanes him that is not a Souldier Whereas therefore among the Romanes and all warlike nations those who were Souldiers were greately honoured as the vse of the word miles and armiger with vs doth shew and contrariwise those who were not Souldiers were of base esteeme called Pagani perhaps in some such sense as Villani with vs that is to say villaines clownes boores Tertullian disswading Christians from going to warre vnder infidels perswadeth thē not to be moued with this respect of being honoured if they be souldiers and dishonoured if they be not for saith he with Christ a faithfull man though despised in the world as a pagan is highly esteemed and honoured and also an vnfaithfull man though honoured as a souldier or cheuallier in the world is of base account with Christ. But how heathē people should from hence be called Pagani I know not vnlesse christians were also called milites or cheualliers for Pagani here as a base terme signifying villains or clownes or boores is opposed to milites as a name of honour Serm. sect 4. pag. 25. Thus then parishes were distinguished both in the cities countries and seueral presbyters particularly assigned c. to promiscuously pag. 26. In this section I proue that the BB. both before after the diuision of parishes were diocesan and first I answere an obiection for wheras some might imagine that Bishops before the diuision of parishes were parishional after diocesan as being set ouer many churches I shew which before hath bene proued that the circuit of the Bishops charge or diocesse was the same before the diuision of parishes which it was after c. And to this purpose I declare that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the country subiect vnto it And wheras some vnderstand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie a parish according to the vulgar vse of the English word I shewed that in the best authors euen after the diuision of parishes it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs My reason standeth thus To whose iurisdiction both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the city suburbs though containing manie parishes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the whole country belonging to the same citie is subiect he is ouer the Churches both in citie and country and consequently a diocesan But to the iurisdiction of the antient Bishoppes both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the citie and suburbs and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the country thereto belonging were subiect Therefore the antient BB. were ouer the Churches both in the citie and country and consequently were diocesans The proposition is of vndeniable truth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so vnderstood as I prooued before The assumption J proue by two most pregnant testimonies the one being one of the ancient canōs called the Apostles the other a canon of the councell of Antioch whereof I haue also spoken before But to them we may adde the next canon called the Apostles which is also recited in the councell of Antioch That a Bishoppe may not presume out of his owne limits to exercise ordinations to Cities and Countries not subiect to him And if he shall be conuinced to haue done this without the consent of them who hold those Cities or Countries let him be deposed and those also whom he hath ordained This syllogisme being too strong to be refuted his best course was not to see it Notwithstanding he cauilleth with some points therein For whereas his chiefe proofe before was that the Church of Antioch of Ephesus of Ierusalem of Alexandria c. were each of them but one particular congregation c. because Eusebius calleth each of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby abusing the Reader as if Eusebius had by that name ment that which we cal a parish here he disauoweth the authority of Eusebius alledged according to his true meaning vnlesse he had said it was of that signification in the end of the Apostles time and the age following Which is a silly shift seeing Eusebius speaking of the Churches of whole Cities in the first two hundred yeeres euen of such as he had expressly mentioned as containing many Churches he calleth them by that name As at Alexandria he acknowledged the Churches to haue beene instituted by Saint Marke and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards yea after the number of them was increased vnder the name of the paroecia in Alexandria as I haue shewed before And where besides Eusebius I quote Epiphanius and the Councell of Antioch he saith It is to no purpose to cloy the Reader with multitude of allegations concerning the decrees or practises of latter ages Which also is a very friuolous exception seeing it is easie
in the fourth century then in the third or in the third then in the second or in the second then the first the first Bishops in all likelihood hauing had rather a more eminent then lesse authority yet our new Disciplinarians for a poore shift and euasion deny this superiority of Bishops in degree and maiority in power to haue been in the first two hundred yeeres because they conceiue there is not the like euidence for the second as for the third Now our Refuter perceiuing there is better euidence then he imagined for the second century will needs haue the times of the primitiue Church restrained to the time of the Apostles And when they are driuen from that they were best to flie to the time of Christs conuersation vpon the earth For my part I make no doubt but that Anianus who succeeded S. Marke at Alexandria being a man beloued of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euery way admirable had the same episcopall authority which S. Marke had before him and that he and those which succeeded him euen in the Apostles times viz. Abilius and Cerdâ— had no lesse authority as diocesan Bishops then those which came two hundred yeeres after them Indeed when the Churches multiplying there was a consociation of dioceses in the prouince the Bishop of Alexandria became actually a Metropolitan Bishop which from the first might bee intended and when there was a consociation of prouinces subiected to him he became a Patriarch the antient Fathers in godly policie so thinking it necessary Now if any man shall thinke that the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop at the first and vpon consâ—ciation of parishes subiected to him became a diocesan he is to vnderstand that the diocesse and the mother Church of the diocesse was before any parish that parishes arise out of the distribution of the diocesse that thâ— Bishop and his Presbytery of the mother Church were appointed not for one parish but for the whole diocesse that at Alexandria in and from S. Marks time who constituted the Churches there there haue been more Churches then one subiected to the Bishop of Alexandria Vnlearned therefore and vngrounded is that distinction of Bishops into six sorts viz. 1. Parishionall 2. Diocesan titular Bishop being the President or Moderator ouer the Pastors of a diocesse 3. Diocesan ruling Bishop though not solely 4. Diocesan L. Bishop 5. A Patriarchall Bishop 6. An vniuersall Bishop Of the first sort it is said all were in the first two hundred yeeres Of the second there beganne to be some in the end of the second century The third began about the yeere 260. The fourth shortly after Augustines time The fifth for he knew not how to distinguish betwixt Metropolitans whom hee outskippeth and Patriarches sometimes before the Councell of Nice And how is all this proued It is strange to see how strong some mens conceits can be when their reasons are full weake The proofes for the parish Bishop J haue before disproued How is the second proued Such perhaps first of all was Iulianus the tenth Bishop of Alexandria Perhaps But why he rather then S. Marke or Anianus or any other of his predecessors Because in his time first mention is made by Eusebius that there were diuers Churches in that Citie and hee Bishop of them This would haue gone for a stout reason no doubt had not Eusebius himselfe testified that Saint Marke constituted the Churches in Alexandria it selfe which euer from S. Marks time had but one Bishop at once How is the third demonstrated It may be this began at Alexandria with Dionysius the thirteenth Bishop of that place Very well perhaps it may be these are very good proofs But why may it be It seemeth to be Ieromes meaning where he saith that some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius Heare Ieromes words Euen at Alexandria from Marke the Euangelist vnto the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius the Presbyters alwaies hauing chosen one from among themselues and placed him in a higher degree called him Bishop euen as an army chooseth a Generall Which words Ierome wrote to magnifie the calling of Presbyters and to prefeâ—re them before Deacons both because they chose their Bishop as also because they did elect him from among themselues vntill Heraclas and Dionysius But it is a world to see what is collected from these words both by that Author and also T. C. By that Author first That some priority in Bishops continued there from Marke to Heraclas and Dionysius As if Ierome had giuen any the least signification of the lesse authority of Bishops before Heraclas then after and had not signified some difference onely in their election For Heraclas and Dionysius who had been Origens schollers and succeded him one after the other in his office of Catechist or Teacher in Alexandria in respect whereof they were no more Presbyters then Origen himselfe had been notwithstanding for their excellent learning the Presbyters who till then had euer chosen one out of their owne number to be Bishop made choice of these two one after the other although at the time of their election they were not Presbyters But what followeth At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort viz. of titular diocesan Bishops and with Dionysius began another viz. of ruling diocesan BB. Priority of order in one Bishop ouer a parish seemeth to haue continued exclusiuely from Marke to Iulianâ—â—s for he was ashamed to say that Saint Marke who as the same Ierome testifieth was the Bishop of Alexandria was but a parish Bishop ouer a diocesse from Iulianâ—â— to Heraclas 〈◊〉 and the maiority of ruling in the diocesse to haue 〈◊〉 with Dionysius O acumen But the proofe is admirable and the conclusion passeth all The proofe is this Nothing lâ—â—teth vs but that thus we may probably thinke More is the pitie For true learning and a sound iudgement would haue let you from entertaining and much more from broching such vnlearned and vngrounded fancies Yea but by this meanes Eusebius and Ieromes relation shall well agree I answere though these fancies had neuer beene heard of there had not beene so much as any shew of disagreement betwixt them The conclusion Howsoeuer it is this is certaine that neither the one nor the other was knowne before these times As if he had said Perhaps Iulianus was the first titular Bishop It may be the ruling diocesan Bishoppes beganne at Alexandria with Dionysius At Heraclas it is probable was a period of one sort c. Nothing letteth vs but that thus wee may probably thinke But how soeuer vncertaine our premisses be wee are resolued vpon a certaine conclusion it is certaine c. Is it not strange that so certaine a conclusion should be inferred vpon so vncertaine premises especialle seeing it is most certaine that before Dionysius his time there were not onely diocesan but also Metropolitan BB. But
will you also heare what T. C. gathereth out of these words of Ierome Godly 〈◊〉 mâ—slikâ—d this order of giuing the name Bishoppe to one in a Church and by all likelihood broke it which Ieromes words do apparently import This custome was in the Church of Alexandria from Saint Marke vntill Heraclas and Dionysius for vnlesse there were some change then why should hee not rather haue said From Saint Marke to his time First to his assertion I say it is vntrue that godly men misliked the giuing of the name Bishoppe to one in Church neither was there any reason why they should mislike it For first as the name of Angels being common to all Ministers is by the holy Ghost appropriated to Bishops in such sort as though euery Minister be an Angell yet onely one is the Angell of the Church so by the same reason Episcopi being in the scriptures a title common to al Ministers is so appropriated to one in euery Church that whereas all Ministers are Bishops in a generall sense one onely is the Bishop of that Church neither was it arrogancy but modesty rather in Bishops who assumed this name For whereas in the Scriptures they are called sometimes the Angels of the Churches sometimes the Apostles of the Churches sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes episcopi they contented themselues with the title of least honour and left the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing the honour of the Ministery in generall to other Ministers Neither is there any more reason as D Raynolds also saith why the appropriating of the name Bishop to the Angels of the Churches should be misliked then of giuing the name Minister to Presbyters which is common to Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Besides it is most certaine that in the writings of Ignatius and others who liued in or neere the Apostles times the name episcopus was appropriated to the Angel of ech Church Ierome plainly testifieth that from S. Markâ— time who was the first Bishop whom three other succeeded in the Apostles times one who was set in a superior degree was called Bishop But that the custome of giuing this name to one in the Church which from S. Marks time had continued should begin to be misliked in the time of Heraclus and Dionysius is against reason vnlesse it may be thought that the estimation of Bishops then decreased which ill agreeth with H I. conceit What antient Writer mentioning Dionysius doth not cal him Bishop of Alexandria Eusebius so termeth him Athanasius who was one of his successors doth not only cal him Bishop ofteÌ„times but also acknowledgeth him to haue bin a Metropolitan B. or rather Patriarch For when as the Bishops of Pentapolis began to fauor the heresie of Sabâ—llicus Dionysius to whose charge those Churches did appertaine sought to reform them You haue heard T. C. assertion His reason is this some change there was therefore in the name Bishop How weake a reason this is I shal not need to note seeing I haue shewed wherein the change was there being lesse likelihood of alceration in this kind then in any other For could any man at that time mislike that the Bishop of Alexandria should be called a Bishop seeing at that time he was without the mislike of any a Metropolitan Bishop yea a Patriarch But to returne to H. I. who saith his Diocesan L. Bishop ruling alone who was not established in Ambrose Ierome and Augustines time tooke place soone after And how is this proued He saith hee doubts not of it though he be not able to shew neither where nor when nor by whom nor how the Bishops authority was increased after Augustines times What if in Augustines time the authority and preheminence of Bishops was abated and restrained namely in the fourth Councell of Carthage more then euer before For whereas the antient Canons referre the power both of ordination and iurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the assistance of the Presbytery And whereas Bishoppes before such as were peaceable and well disposed did voluntarily vse the aduice and assistance of their clergy by that Councell the assistance of the clergy both in ordination and iurisdiction in the Churches of Africk became necessary Neither doe I know any reason why the authority of diocesan Bishops after Augustines time should bee thought to haue increased For as by the lawfull authority of Christian Kings Princes to whom they were subordinate in regard of the coÌ„mon good of the kingdom whereof they were meÌ„bers so much more by yâ— vsurped supremacy of the B. of Rome after the yeer 607. yâ— authority of bishops was lessened impaired We are to come to his fift step which is of patriarchal BB. but he hath cleane marred the staires that the refuter and his consorts vse to talke of whereby the Bishoppes of Rome from being as they say a parish Bishop did arise to the papacy partly by denying such BB. as he esteemeth ours to be to haue been till after Augustines time and partly by out-skipping the Metropolitanes For it cannot be denied but that there were diocesan Bishoppes such as ours be before there were Metropolitanes or Primates actually and there were Metropolitanes before there were Patriarches Now it would be knowne when Patriarches begun In the Councel of Nice held about the yeere three hundred twentie foure it is acknowledged to haue been an antient custome which there was ratified that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue authority of Egypt Libya and Pentapolis and the like custome for the Bishop of Rome in the West and of Antioch in the East is mentioned and the antient priuiledges to each Church espcially to each Metropolis reserued To say nothing of Rome whereof the Papists say too much it is plaine by that testimony of the Nicene Councell of Epiphanius before alleaged of Athanasius euen now cited that the Bishops of Alexandria had of old long before their time patriarchall authority For that of Antioch the testimony of Ignatius added to the authority of the Nicene Councell is sufficient calling himselfe the Bishop of Syria whereby we cannot conceiue him to haue been lesse then an Archbishop Now if I should aske H.I. or this Refuter when Metropolitanes first began they would not be able truly to assigne their originall after the Apostles times And therefore cunningly were they omitted by H. I. though I cannot accuse him of any great skill in making a doubt whether Caesarea in the Councell of Nice be reckoned as one of the foure seats of the Patriarches For expresse mention is made of Aeliâ— which was the new name giuen by Adrian to Ierusalem to which according to antient custom the next place of honor after Antioch was granted the proper dignity notwithstanding to the Metropolis which indeed was Caesarea being reserued But if Metropolitanes had not their beginning after the Apostles times as no man is able to
said that Iacob begat the twelue Patriarches meaning those whom God appointed to bee the first Fathers of the twelue Tribes will the refuter wrangle with him because when they were begotten they were not Fathers euen so BB. are said to beget Fathers because by ordination they beget such as by the institution of their calling and ordinance of God are to be spirituall Fathers And thus much of the assumption The proposition also he denieth finding great fault with me saying that it is a strange and fearefull thing that I hauing so worth he set out in my former Sermon the excellencie of the ministers calling in regard of his labouring in the word doe now turne all topsey turâ—â—y and preferre making of ministers before begetting soules And to this purpose he alledgeth that to beget one childe vnto God is more pretious then to beget a thousand Fathers to the Church and of more comfort at the day of iudgement c. But be of good comfort this fault which he layeth to my charge is but as he saith in his poore vnderstanding For there be three things which shew the pouertie of his conceipt The first that he thinketh I do therefore preferre the ordaining of Ministers before preaching because I say that Bishops are superiour to other ministers in the power of ordination It seemeth he hath not learned the distinction of those three things wherein superioritie consisteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is excellencie imperie and power The magistrate is superior to the minister in imperie and ciuill authoritie but the minister notwithstanding is superior to the magistrate in excellencie But the second thing doth much more shew the shallownesse of his conceipt he conceiueth of ministers as hauing alone the power of preaching and of Bishops as hauing onely the power of ordination whereas if he had but considered that the authoritie of preaching is common to the Bishop with other ministers and the Bishop in respect of his office superior in the exercise because he may licence and he may vpon just occasion suspend this power in others though perhaps in personall gifts the Presbyter may excell the Bishop he could not but haue discerned the superioritie of Bishops without any disparagement to the ministerie of the word for that they being at least equall in respect of their function to other ministers in the power of preaching are superior in the power of ordaining The third that he conceiueth Epiphanius to haue made a comparison betweene preaching and ordaining which he doth not but betweene baptizing and ordaining How is it possible saith Epiphanius that a Bishop and a Presbyter should be equall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the calling of Bishops is an order generatiue of Fathers begetting Fathers to the Church but the order of Presbyters being not able to beget Fathers doth by the lauer of regeneration that is baptisme beget children to the Church and not Fathers verily or teachers And you are to marke how he speaketh of begetting Fathers and children to the Church And who can denie but that it is a matter of greater consequence the begetting of a Father to the Church then of a child But Epiphanius his meaning was that the Bishop hauing power of baptizing common to them with Presbyters as Paul had though he did not greatly vse it whereby they might beget children to the Church hath also the power of ordaining which Presbyters haue not whereby he begetteth spirituall Fathers to the Church And so much of Epiphanius Now I come to Ierome For the Refuter thinketh it verie strange that I should bring him as a patron of the Bishops sole power in ordination It seemeth that the Refuter conceiueth nothing aright I bring in Ierome in this place not as a patron of BB. but as one who pleading for the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons desiring to raise them as neare as he can to BB. doth notwithstanding confesse that Bishops are superiour in ordination What doth a Bishop saith he excepting ordination which a Presbyter may not do To which the Refuter hauing no answere of his owne intreateth another to answere for him which done he craketh as if he had layed me on my backe The answere is that Ierome speaketh of his owne time No doubt for speaking in the present tense whereby he signifieth actum continuum he doth not exclude his owne time But doth he speake therefore of his owne time onely or doth he signifie that there was a time since there were first Bishops which he confesseth was in the time of the Apostles when the Bishops had not this power if this could be shewed then Ierome might be thought not to speake of the Apostles times Nay doth not Ierome speake as well de iure as de facto when he saith What doth a Bishop c. that is what hath a Bishop right to doe by the power of his order which a Presbyter hath not right to doe by the power of his order onely except ordination that I confesse to be aboue the Presbyters power Well and to what end doth Ierome speak this of his owne time That hauing shewed before out of the Scriptures and the practise of the Church at Antioch that of old a Bishop and a Presbyter were all one he might see that in his time also there remained a proofe thereof because a Bishop then did nothing except ordination which a Presbyter could not doe Out of the Scriptures Ierome prooueth that in those times when the Scriptures were written the name Episcopus and Presbyter were confounded because as the name Episcopus was giuen to Presbyters Phil. 1. Act. 20. Tit. 1. So the name Presbyter to Apostles and Bishops as 1. Tim. 4.14 Where Ierome vnderstandeth as before by Presbyterium Episcopatus 1. Pet. 5.1 Ioan. Epist. 2. 3. And this is Ieromes first argument that Presbyters are superiour to Deacons But hence it doth not follow that therefore the offices of a Bishop and Presbyter are confounded especially after the institution of a Bishop Doth Ierome thinke that euerie Presbyter is equall in degree with Timothe because the office of Timothe in Ieromes vnderstanding is called Presbyterium or that they are equall with Peter and Iohn because they called themselues Presbyters His second argument to prooue the superioritie of Presbyters aboue Deacons is because Bishops were chosen out of Presbyters and by Presbyters whereas contrariwise he that is chosen from among Deacons by Deacons is but an Archdeacon The former part he first illustrateth by the end which was to auoid Schisme and then prooueth it by the Practise of the Church of Alexandria In his setting downe the end he lets fall one word which if it be not fauourablie expounded will make him contradict himselfe and the truth For vpon the allegation of Saint Iohns second and third epistle he saith Quòd autem posteâ— vnus electus that one afterwards was chosen who should be set ouer the rest it
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
such Archbb. as are aboue Metropolitanes were not ordayned by Christ and his Apostles as D. Bilson who also is alledged as hauing beene of the Refuters minde because he citeth Ierome in Tit. 1.1 ad Euagr. Some that there were two sorts of Elders as Iunius Some vnderstanding Ieromes words of the time when factions began not of the Apostles times but afterward as Iunius These are all his witnesses besides some with whose names onely without their testimonies he thought best to make a simple flourish Now if any one of these allegations were reduced into the forme of a Syllogisme concluding the contradictorie to my assertion viz. that some auncient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernement by BB. was not generally and perpetually vsed it would appeare to euery one how ridiculously our refuter argueth As for example Danaeus Musculus Iunius c. doe testifie that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by BB. was not generally receiued Therefore some ancient Councils Histories or Fathers doe testifie so much Yea but you speake of sound Writers in generall will he say and so I conclude Therefore some sound Writers doe testifie so much But it is plaine say I that I meane the ancient But to his argument such as it is I answere first that if these Writers had testified that which is contayned in the antecedent yet had not they beene competent witnesses in a matter of fact fourteene or fifteene hundred yeares before their time the greatest part of them being also parties in the cause But indeede not all no nor any one of his witnesses doth testifie that in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment of Bishops was not generally receiued but all his allegations accommodated to that conclusion are most ridiculous As for example in in the Apostles times Bishops and Presbyters were the same Therefore in the three hundred yeares after the Apostles the gouernment by Bishops was not receiued Bishops were ordayned not by Gods law c. Therefore they were not in the first three hundred yeares and so of the rest But some body will say though these testimonies be impertinent to the present purpose and I must needes confesse that your Refuter did grossely abuse his vnlearned Readers in making such a flourish with them notwithstanding some of the allegations contayne assertions contrarie to some points in your Sermon Of whom in steed of answere if I should aske this question whom hee conceiueth to be aduersaries to vs in this cause he would answere those that stand for the pretended discipline And who be those Caluin Beza Danaeus lunius Sadeel and the most of those whom the Refuter hath alledged If they be aduersaries in this cause is it to be wondred that they haue deliuered contrary assertions and if they be parties in the cause are their testimonies to be admitted Verily he might better haue alledged M. Cartwright and M. Trauers then some of those whom hee did cite being more parties in the cause then they as not onely hauing written in defence of their discipline but liuing where it is practised but that hee knew the simple Reader vvho cannot be ignorant that T. C. and W. T. are parties vvas ignorant that these outlandish Writers vvere aduersaries vnto vs in the cause to vvhose assertions seeing it is folly to oppose the authorities of learned men vvho are on our side vvhom the Refuter vvould reiect as parties I oppose the testimonies of antiquity and the reasons contayned in this booke desiring the Reader in the feare of God to giue credit without partiality to that side on which there is better euidence of truth And thus hauing turned ouer and as I suppose ouerturned more then fiue leaues vvhich hee blotted vvith these testimonies I come to his examples of vvhich hee hauing not any one betweene the Apostles times and ours therefore giueth instance in the Churches of our time and in the time of the Apostles But marke I pray you vvhat vvas my assertion vvhich hee vvould seeme to contradict Was it not this that no example of any Orthodoxall or Apostolicall Church can be produced to proue that in the three hundred yeares after Christ and his Apostles the gouernment by Bishops vvas not generally receiued No saith hee vvhat say you then to the Churches of Heluetia France lowe Countries c. in our time and to the Church of Corinth Cenchrea Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostles times Marry this I say that the Refuter is a very trifler vvho pretending to giue instance of some Church vvithin three hundred yeares after the Apostles times contrarie to my assertion thinkes to satisfie his Reader eyther vvith examples of some Churches in our age or of those in the Apostles times vvhereof this present question is not I confesse that the Churches in the Apostles times at the first had not Bishoppes excepting that of Ierusalem Notwithstanding before the death of Saint Iohn the Churches had not onely Bishops but diuers of them a succession of Bishops and such were two of those which he nameth to wit Antioch and Ephesus for at Antioch there were Bishops successiuely in the Apostles times Evodius and Ignatius And at Ephesus before the Angel to whom that Epistle is directed Apoc. 2.1 Timothie About the yeare one hundred seauenty and foure Dionysius was B. of Corinth and before him was Primus who was of the same time with Anicetus Anno one hundred fifty sixe before whom there was a succession from the Apostles time as Hegesippus recordeth As for Cenchrea that neuer had a peculiar Bishop of her owne but was subiect as other Townes and Parishes of Achaâ—a to the Bishop of Corinth As touching the Churches after the Apostles times the Refuter hath nothing to obiect but what before he hath alleadged out of Iustin Martyr and Tertullian in whom there is not a word against Bishops Iustin Martyr speaketh but of one gouernour in each Church whom he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the B. saith Beza speaking so plainely for the singularity of preheminence of one B. in each Church that T. C. who would perswade that in the seueral Churches there were more Bishops then one saith that euen in Iustines time there began to peepe out something which went from the simplicity of the Gospell as that the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was common to the Elders with the Ministers of the word was it seemeth appropriated vnto one And whereas this place of Iustine was alleadged to proue the Bishops superiority ouer the Presbyters for euen Beza confesseth hee was the President of the Presbyterie who afterwards was called a Bishop hee answereth if it should be granted that Iustines President had superioritie ouer the Ministers yet how fondly is it concluded that it is Lawfull because it was And as I