And no ciuil magistrate in Councels assemblies for Church causes can be chief moderatour Iudge or gouernour And no ciuil magistrate hath such authoritie as that without his consent it should not be lawful for Ecclesiasticall persons to make any Church orders or ceremonies For as much therfore as God hath established kingdomes but a presbytery and a kingdome cannot both stand together because one standing the other falleth They are enemies not onely to Gods ordinance but also to the state of Kings which goe about to establish this Eldership in a kingdome Of Diocesan Bishops MAister Iacob in his Booke of reformation obiecteth against the state of Bishops and Cathedrall Churches that of right there are no Diocesan but onely parochiall Bishops that the authoritie iurisdiction and rites of a Bishop are no other then belongeth to all parsons of parish Churches and consequently that euery parson is a Bishop That there is no visible Church ministeriall besides the parish Churches and that they as depending vpon no other nor subiect to any other nor parts or members of any other haue absolute authoritie and power as wel of gouernment as of teaching within themselues and so consequently there are no cathederal Churches And as one absurditie being granted a thousand will followe so vpon these proemises which without proofe he taketh for granted he inferreth these fiue conclusions to the slander of our state as absord as the proemises were That the case standing thus 1. Our Bishops be no Christians for saith he euery Christian is a pastour or one of the people of the people they denye themselues to be and pastours they are not 2. Being not lawfull Diocesan Bishops much lesse may they be Lord Bishops 3. Hauing no lawfull authoritie nor calling their selues they cannot conferre Ecclesiasticall orders and lay handes vpon others and so consequently our ministers by them ordered haue no lawefull ministerie 4. That by their meanes wee are defrauded of a mayne point of our ordinarie meanes of saluation which is the true Ecclesiesticall discipline 5. That in our state Christ is robbed and spoiled of some parts of his kingly and propheticall office his kingly office being to appoint vs and his prophetical office being to teach vs solely of himselfe the true Ecclesiasticall gouernmēt which our Bishops take from him and ascribe vnto men altering that discipline and gouernment which he alone as king hath appointed and as a Prophet hath taught in his holy word which cōclusions because they are inferred vpō false groūds the grounds being shaken the conclusions will fall of themselues Therefore let vs come to the examination of these grounds to shewe how weake and vnsufficient a foundation they be to build vpon He impugneth the Church state of Bishops first by shew of argument secondly by his own idle conceits vaine coniectures and imaginations He maketh shew of two arguments the first is this that the state of Bishops is a breach of the 2. commandement and by a consequent idolatrie For in this cōmandement Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen image thou shalt not bow down to it nor worship it saith he are forbidden all meanes being humane inuentiōs wherby men would giue honour to the true God But one of these meanes of diuine worship being an humane inuention he saith to be the state of Bishops our Diocesan prouincial Churches vsing gouernment with the ministeries offices proper to them For answer to which argument I denie the MINOR proposition which consisteth of 2. parts meanes of diuine worship humane inuention And because he bringeth no proofe of his MINOR being the subiect of his disputation which all opponents ought to doe I will disproue it and each part of it And first Diocesan prouinciall Churches vsing gouernment and their ministeries which are of Archbishops Bishops were neuer intended by the founders of them nor vsed by the officers ministers of them nor held by the defendours maintainers of them nor conceiued by men of vnderstanding to be any meanes of diuine worship but of gouernment God can be and is worshipped without these and was worshipped as sincerely as now hee is when they were not but the Ecclesissticall state vnder a kingdome cannot be peaceably gouerned without these God is worshipped alike in Geneua and in England though this gouernment and these offices are not in Geneua which are in England And God is worshipped as sincerely and as fully and amplely in our parish Churches as in our cathederal churches and by ordinarie pastors as by Bishops so that their ministeries and high callings doe not afforde them any greater or other meanes to worship God then they had when they were first admitted to be priuate ministers But their places and high callings do strengthen and arme them with authoritie for the better gouerning of the churches which are committed to them wheras being but priuate ministers they had no such charge of gouernment These things therefore are not morall or doctrinall therefore belong not vnto worship but politicall and therefore belong vnto gouernment And according to the course of the holy Bible that which is politicall that which is morall being of sundrie natures are to be distinguished the one from the other God in his word established 3. lawes among his people one politicall which did bind the Iewes to the obseruation of it but it was not imposed vpon other nations that they should be bound to receiue it further then that it might stand with the peace and good of the state The other ceremoniall which was to abide in force till the cōming of our Sauiour and by his death to be abolished so that now ceremonies vnder the Gospell doe cease excepting those only which serue not for worship but decensie comlinesse and good order and so the primitiue Church did in the dayes of the Apostles and the Church of Geneua now doth deuise ceremonies witnes their owne Booke of Lawes and that all 1. Cor. 11. Churches may doe the like witnes Caluin Beza Vrsinus their owne Doctors The third morall which containeth rules of Gods worship which was from the beginning and must continue as a patterne of holines to the ende and bindeth all to the obseruation of it But this is no part of that lawe and all these three Lawes differ in nature one from the other Secondly that such Churches and Church offices are not humane inuentions I proue by euident demonstration For the first Church ministeriall that euer was had ordination from God which was the Church of the Iewes vnder Aaron and his successours and that Church was both Diocesan and prouinciall and also nationall hauing all rites and iurisdiction which a Diocesan or prouinciall or nationall church euer had or coulde haue Also vnder the Gospell Saint Paul by warrant from the holy Ghost appointed Timothy a prouinciall Bishop of Ephesus hauing many Bishops vnder him and Titus a nationall Bishop ouer all the kingdome of Crete hauing many Churches and
Bishops vnder him witnesse Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 3 Eeseb hist l. 3. c. 4. not onely the Scriptures but also Eusebius his wordes being these Timotheus sanè primus Ephesinae paraechiae sicut Titus Cretensium Ecclesiarum Episcopatum sortitus scribitur Timothy was the first Bishop of the whole praecinct of Ephesus in as ample manner as Titus of all the Churches of Creete Thus haue I freed our Church Gouernment vnder Diocesan and Prouinciall Bishops from that slanderous imputation of idolatry seeing their institution is of God and no way opposite to his commandement In his second argument he defineth that onely to be a visible Church which is indued with outward spirituall gouernment And so concludeth that there can be no Diocesan or Prouinciall or Nationall Church nor by a consequent any such Bishop but onely parish Churches and by the like consequent parish Bishops The reason of this sequell he produceth onely this Because if there might be such Diocesan or Prouinciall or Nationall Churches ministeriall or indued with Church gouernment then also would it follow that there might be a Catholike or vniuersall Church visible ministeriall and so by a consequent the Papists might lawfully inforce a Catholike gouernment and so establish the Papacie againe To the sequell of which sequell I answer it is no good consequence that it being granted one may be a Bishop ouer one Diocesse Prouince or Nation therefore one may bee a Bishoppe ouer the world For first one Bishoppe cannot gouerne the whole worlde consisting of manie Kingdomes Oligarchies and Democraticall states and subiect to seuerall Princes and temporall gouernours as he can one Diocesse Prouince or Nation subiect to one secular Prince And secondly we haue no example of any vniuersall Bishoppe that euer was since the beginning of the world not the Pope himselfe which chalengeth that title For the east part of the world which is the Greeke Church was neuer yet subiect vnto him neither could be induced to vse the same rites ceremonies leitourgie which he vseth But of prouinciall and nationall Bishops wee haue examples out of the Scriptures the high Priestes among the Iewes were so ordained of God that office not only ceremoniall but also politicall which office so farre as it was politicall might as well continew and be executed in the same Temple by Saint Iames the first Archbishop of Ierusalem vnder the Gospel as it was by the high Priests vnder the Law that which was ceremoniall being abolished euen as the obseruation of the Sabaoth beeing partly ceremoniall partly morall the ceremony being out of date that which is morall doth abide Our Sauiour in the Gospel reformed the Temple but he did not plucke it downe to shew that it Ioh. 2. 15. might continue still being lawfully vsed Hauing answered his arguments we will come to his suppositions and bare coniectures which without shew of argument he bringeth in defence of his assertion Hee distinguisheth Bishops into sixe sorts two lawfull a parishionall Bishop or ordinary Pastour and a Diocesan titular Bishop who hath a bare title aboue others but no Episcopall iurisdiction at all these two sortes it pleaseth him to allow A Diocesan ruling Bishop which hath more power than Parsons of parish Churches yet not sole power to rule in his Diocesse a Diocesan Lord Bishop ' which ruleth by his sole authoritie a Patriarke and a Pope which foure sorts he condemneth as repugnant to the lawes of the Scriptures To speake therefore of the first which is but a Parson of a parish what example can he alledge to proue that euer there was or place of Scripture to proue that there ought to be such a Bishop His bare opinion without proofe can be no satisfaction to perswade others howsoeuer in his owne conceit he may please himselfe He alledgeth that all Bishops mentioned in the new Testament and in the Ecclesiasticall writers which were within 200. yeares after our Sauiour Christ were such Bishops But that is his owne assertion without proofe neither doth hee instance in any author which doth affirme the same To disproue him besides that neither parish Churches nor parishes were erected or instituted vntill 260. yeares after our Sauiour Christ in the Platina dvitis pontiofiâ—um Charion Monarch 4. daies of Dionysius Bishoppe of Rome and that they had their institution not from God but from the Pope whereas wee haue examples of Diocesan Churches out of Gods word as before I haue proued that all the Bishoppes mentioned in Ecclesiasticall writers within 200. yeares after our Sauiour Christ were not parish Bishops wee haue for instance Iulian the tenth Bishop of Alexandria in the yeare of our Lord 181. which was Bishop of many Churches For Eusebius Euseb hist l. â— c. 9. writeth Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accepit he tooke vpon him the Bishopricke of the Churches of Alexandria And againe Eusebius writeth of a Bishop which was set ouer many Bishops long before that time in the daies of Saint Iohn the Euangelist and by the appointment of St. Iohn himselfe His words are these Post mortuo tyranno quùm Easeb hist l. 3. c. â—0 ex insuâ—â Pathmo Ephesum reuersus esset abijt etiam rogatus ad vicina gentium loca vt partim constitueret Episcopos partim totas Ecclesias componeret partim clerum ex his quos spiritus sanctus indicaâ—aâ— sorte deligeret Quùm ergò ad ciuitatem quandam haud procul dissitam cuiui etiam nomen nonnulli dicunt venisset verso ad cum vultu qui supèr cunctos Episcopos erat constitutus adolescentem corpore valido facie eleganti animoque feruenti conspicatus hunc inquit tibi summo studio testibus Christo Ecclesiâ commendo When the Tyran meaning Domitian was dead hee returned out of Pathmos to Ephesus at the request of others he visited the places bordering there vpon that he might ordaine Bishops constitute Churches and elect clergy men by lots whom the holy Goost had assigned And comming to a Citie not farre of which by many other writers is expressy named hee cast his eye vpon that Bishop which was set ouer all the rest and committed to his tuition a young Gentleman proper in body and faire in face youthfull in courage saying I doe earnestly commend vnto you this young man witnesses Christ and his Church Such pregnant examples all making against him and none for him that ye may know what motiue hath induced him to write that all Bishoppes within 200. yeares mentioned in Eusebius were but parish Bishops surely he suffered himselfe willingly to be deceiued by the fallacye called fallacia figurae dictionis For Eusebius saith he sheweth that the Churches of most famous Cities were but parishes onely as the parish of Ierusalem the parish of Ephesus of Alexandria Assert 2. Euseb hist l. 3 c. 11. l. 3. c. 28. l. 2. c. 13. l. 4. c. 11. c. 22. Hierapolis c.
But all the cunning resteth in the proofe therof to shew that Eusebius did call them parishes Eusebius indeed writeth that Celedion and Agrippa were Bishops in Alexandrinâ paraechia and so that Dionysius in paraechia Corinthiorum Episcopatum tenuit But can Maister Iacob be so simple as to take that weake aduantage of the word and so to interpret that Latine word paraechia parish in the English tongue and to restraine that word in Eusebius to as small limits and confines as a parish is with vs that all the Christians in it might meete together in one place to heare Diuine seruice as with vs for the most part they doe though in some places they cannot doe so Can hee thinke this a good argument that the praecincts of their Bishoprickes were called by this generall name paraechiae bounds or borders containing and including some set compasse of ground and place and this generall name paraechia may also include the small circuit of a parish as well as a larger iurisdiction therefore they were but parish Bishops that the precincts of their Bishoprickes were no larger then the praecincts of a parish and that their Episcopall authoritie was no more then the iurisdiction of euery priuate Pastour In like sort may I as well conclude that paraechia doth also signifie a larger iurisdiction so as it haue confines and a certaine limitation as a Diocesse a Prouince a whole Kingdome therefore that they were Diocesan Prouinciall and Nationall Bishops It is well knowne that Alexandria conteined many Churches as appeareth by Eusebius whom I haue alreadie cited where he saith that Inlian the tenth had Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum Euseb lib. 5. hist c. 9. the Bishopricke of the Churches of Alexandria And againe where we writeth Primus post Marcum Apostolvm Euangelistam Eeseb hist l 4. ca. 24. Anianus paraechiae Alexandrinae administrationem suscepit Anianus immediately succeeded Marke the Apostle and Euangelist in the gouernment of the paraechia of Alexandria That this parechia was such a limitation as contained in it many Churches it is manifest by the confession of Eusebius where he hath these words that Saint Marke did primuus Ecclesias Alexandriae constituere first institute the Churches of Hist l. 2. c. 16. Alexandria So then if because of the word paraechia Ananias Bishop of Alexandria should be held onely for a parish Bishop by the like absurditie Saint Marke which was an Euangelist and did first conuert the Citizens of Alexandria and instituted many Churches there should not haue authority ouer his owne Churches which his selfe instituted but onely pastorall authority ouer one of them because hee was Alexandrinae Ecclesiae administrator gouernour of the Church of Alexandria as Eusebius writeth And that being an Euangelist and of higher authority which founded many churches should not be Bishoppe ouer as many as Iulian his successour which was no Euangelist nor founded none and therefore was of lesse dignitie and authority because the argument must follow being deriued from the word in the singular number hee did Alexandrinam Ecclesiam administrare gouerne the Church of Alexandria And what is the true grammaticall signification of this Greeke word paroicia of whom paraechia the Latine is deriued no better witnesse then Scapula himselfe which in his Lexicon writeth That it signifieth any iurisdiction which is limitted or any Church bee it great or small or manie Churches His wordes are these paroicia incolam esse item accolarum conuentus accolatus sacraqúe vicinia prò Ecclesiâ vsurpari dicitur Can 18. Concilij Ancyrani And to speake of the Bishoppe without a Bishopricke whom hee calleth Titular Diocesan I would gladly haue for instance when and where there was anie such Bishoppe For proofe thereof hee alleageth nothing else but his owne doubtfull coniecture saying Perhaps Iulian the tenth Bishop of Alexandria was the first of that sort And againe It seemeth to me that this was Ieroms meaning that the first ruling Bishop was Diony sius the thirteenth Bishop of Alexandria And againe At Heracles it is probable there was a period of one sort of Bishops and with Diony sius began another That priority of order of one Bishop ouer a parish seemeth to haue cōtinued from Marcus to Iulianus And againe Nothing letteth vs but that we may thinke c. To which I answer his bare naked coniectures and idle surmises grounded vpon no reason nor authoritie or proofe but onely vpon perhaps it seemeth it is probable nothing letteth but that we may thinke are no warrant to the state to disturbe the peace and discipline of our Church so long established and to ouerthrow the gouernment of Bishops which hath continued among vs since Christian religion was first planted and the land conuerted to the faith And therefore to him may fitly be applied the saying of St. Paul They would be Doctours of the law and vnderstand not what they 1. Tim. 1. 7 speake neither whereof they affirme It is more safe to beleeue with the Church that Iulian the 10. was not the first Bishop which had many Churches vnder him in title and name but that all his nine predecessours Marcus Anianus Albialus Cerdon Pius lustus and the rest had the same praeheminence which hee had and especially Saint Marke being an Euangelist and the first conuerter of that people and founder of those Churches And that in other places Bishoppes were set ouer many Churches before his time because I haue instanced out of Eusebius alreadie in a Bishop in Saint Iohns daies which was suprà cunctes Episcopos constitutus set ouer all the Bishops in that place And it is far safer to beleeue the wordes of Eusebius Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accepit suprà omnes Episcopos constitutus est hee was Bishoppe of the Churches of Alexandria and hee was set ouer all the Bishoppes to bee vnderstoode of both title and iurisdiction according to the interpretation vse and practise of all Churches and not of bare title without iurisdiction rather then to subscribe to Maister Iacob his opinion which hath nothing to ground vpon but his owne opinion which hath no better proofe then teste me ipso witnesse my owne selfe And not to passe ouer with silence those foure sorts of Bishoppes whom hee condemneth as vnlawfull Maiority saith he of ruling Bishoppes in the Diocesse seemeth to haue begun with Dionysius the next successour after Heraclas To which I answere as before Quaedam videntur non sunt many things seeme to be otherwise then they are among which this his supposition is one Againe Quoedam videntur paucioribus indoctioribus quaedam pluribus san oribus that may seeme so to the fewest and vnlearnedest but to the most and soundest of iudgement it seemeth otherwise that this maiority of ruling in the Diocesse began in Alexandria not with Dionysius which was the fourteenth but with S. Marke which was the first Bishop of that place and with
the Apostles in other places and so continued by succession from them vntill these daies vnlesse when their succession was interrupted by warres or schisme or persecution But to come to a Diocesan Lord Bishop ruling by his sole power which is indeed the chiefe matter now in question Such a Bishop saith hee seemeth not to haue beene established in Ambrose Ierom and Augustines time It may be it seemeth not so to Maister Iacob but it seemed so to Zozomene that Saint Ambrose himselfe did rule like a Lord Bishoppe Sozom. l. 7. ca. 24. by his sole authority when meeting the Emperour Theodosius as hee went to Church without any consent or consultation had with other Priests on a suddaine took him by the gowne in the sight of the people interdicted him both from the holy communion the Church for the offence he had committed and the Emperour obeyed his authority His wordes are these Imperator quum Mediolanum venisset ad Ecclesiam processit vt oraret Sed quùm ad ostium iam pernenisset occurrit et Ambrosius eius ciuitatis Episcopus apprehensâ illius purpû-â in praeâ—entiâ populi siste gradum inquit homini enim ob peccata prophano manus innoxio sanguine comaculatas habeÌ„ti faâ— non est antequaÌ„ poenitentiaÌ„ egerit vel sacrum ingredi solium vel ad diuinoruÌ„ mysteriorum communionem admitti Imperator libertatem sacerdotis admiratuâ— cogitationibus conscientiam accusantibus regressus est poenitentia compunctus The Emperour when he came to Millanie went towards the church to pray wheÌ„ he was but at the doore Ambrose the Bishop of that citie ran to him caught him by his purple robe in the presence of the people coÌ„manded him to stay there shewing that it was not permitted him hauing defiled his hands with innocent blood to goe into the Church nor to be partaker of the Sacrament before he had shewed himselfe penitent The Emperour meruailed at the great spirit of the Bishop his conscience pricked him vpon his remorse hee went backe and repented And afterward more plainly he saith Ambrosius Imperatorem insimulans vt consentaneum est ab Ecclesiâ arcuit à communione seclusit Ambrose laying to the Emperour his charge his crime which he committed as it did behooue him thrust him out of the Church secluded him from the communion In this Story that action is ascribed solely vnto the Bishop no mention is made of any other whose consent was required Though soone after we doubt not saith Maister Iacob it tooke place in the Church Therefore by his owne confession the office of Lord Bishop ruling by his sole authoritie is of great antiquitie and therefore to be preferred before the Eldership which is but a nouelty and neuer preuailed vntill our age and that but in some few Churches And that I may speake something for the iustification of Bishoppes ruling by their sole authority Timothy and Titus were such Bishops Maister Iacob replieth two manner of waies First he saith the Apostles did not ordeine Ministers nor censure offenders by their sole authority much lesse then Timothy and Titus which were inferiour to the Apostles For answer to his reply which consisteth of nothing but manifest vntruthes I do instance in S. Peter which by his sole authority censured Ananias Suphira when they lied to the holy Ghost smiting them with present death St. Paul which alone censured Elymas the sorcerer wheÌ„ he smote him Acts. 5. Act. 13. 11 with blindnes for seeking to peruert the deputy froÌ„ the faith And both these censures were then in the place of excommunicatioÌ„ Vide Bucerum dè clauibus 1. Cor. 16. 22. anathema marannatha Politiae Iudaicae c. 2. which is now the ordinarie censure of the church And besides that Saint Paule by his sole authoritie excommunicated in general all that loued not the Lord Iesus euen vnder the time of nature Henoch as Cornelius Berâ—ram writeth in his booke Printed at Geneua and allowed of by that church did alone anathema illud solenne suoe aetatis hominibus proponere quod extat Iudae ver 14 15. pronounce that solemne sentence of excommunication against the men of his time of which mention is made in S. Iude ver 14. 15. Behold the Lord commeth with thousands of his Saints to giue iudgement c. And so did Saint Ambrose by their examples And as for making Ministers our Bishops doe not conferre orders alone but assisted with other ministers which ioyne with them in prayer imposition of hands Yet still the chiefest authoritie resteth in Bishops as S. Paule writeth to Titus For this cause I left thee in Creete that thou shouldest ordaine Elders in euery citie And to Timothy Tit 1 5. lay hands sodainly on no man by which words it appeareth that ordination imposition of hands belong to the Bishops 1. Tit 5. 22. principally and to the inferiour Ministers but as assistants to the Bishop But that it belonged to the same men to censure offenders rule by their sole authoritie the places of Scripture doe make it so plaine that ir may not be denied Rebuke 1. Tim â— v. 1. 9. 11. 17. 19. 21. not an Elder but exhort him as a Father Let not a widdow be taken into the number vnder 60 yeares old Refuse the yonger widdowes The elders that rule wel let theÌ„ be had in doble honor Obserue these things without preferring one before another doe nothing partially Receiue no accusatioÌ„ against an elder but vnder 2. or 3 witnesses Secondly he saith that if these things were granted that Timothy Titus ruled by their sole anthoritie it would not follow that therefore our Bishops might do the like his reason is this For saith he they are not to be reckoned in the catalogue of Bishops neither were they properly called Bishops because they were not affixed to certaine places but often remoued to other churches as the Apostles did Which reason I refute by manifest text for as much as Timothy was affixed to Ephesus as his proper charge and so Titus to Creete as to his peculiar place witnesseth the Apostle I besougbt thee to abide still in Ephesus For this cause haue I left 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. thee in Creete that thou shouldest continue there to redresse the things that remaine But what then though they afterward remoued and were called to other places so are our Bishops also and priuate pastours oftentimes called from one congregation to another I cannot deny but the cannon Lawe hath determined that Bishops shal not remoue from one Bishopricke to another without some vrgent cause as when they are required by another Church their gifts beeing thought fitter for a greater charge and the lawe is grounded vpon the decrees of the first generall councell of Nice which so concludeth Episcopus Presbyter aut diaconus non aebet transferri ab vnâ ciuitate ad aâ—iam quia id est contrà regulas
againe that there were many churches in those cities which he named eueÌ„ in the Apostles time I haue alreadie proued when I shewed out of Eusebius that not onely Iulian the 10. did Alexandrinarum Ecclesiarum Episcopatum accipere take vpon him the gouernment of the Euseb hist l. 5. cap. 9. l. 2. c. 16. churches of Alexandria but also that Saint Marke did pâ—imus Ecclesias Alexandriae constituere first institute many churches in Alexandria And that the beleeuers were not so fewe as that they might be assembled in one congregation it is euident by the storie of the Acts of the Apostles and because he nameth Ierusalem I will instance in Ierusalem It is written in the Acts there were men at Ierusalem that feared God of euery nation Act. 2. 5. vnder heauen which heard the Gospell preached in their owne language and concerning the multitude of these saith Maister Beza they are to be vnderstood Quicunqùâ—xâ—eri illo Beza in annotat maiâ—rib in â—ilum locum tempore Hierosolymis vrsabantur adeò vt non modo exteros comprehendat quisedes illic vt in vrbe maximâ frequentissimâ posuerunt sed eos quoqùe qui studiorum religionis discendae cansâ illic ad tempus commorabantur quorum distributa fuisse collegia intelligimus ex ijs quae narrantur Cap 6. verse 9. and 9. 29. All strangers which at that time were resiant at Ierusalem that such a multitude comprehendeth not onely the strangers which had dwellings there being so great and populous a citie but also those which were students and came thither as vniuersitie men for learning sake which were diuided into Colledges as appeareth by the Act. Ch 6. 9. Where there arose certaine of the Synagogue which are called Libertines Cyrenians and of Alexandria and of them of Silicia Asia which disputed with Stephen and Act ch 9. 29 where the Grecians disputed with Paule And againe saith he Oportuit tam amplam ciuitatem ad quam etiam vndiqùe Iudaei tanqum ad coÌ„munem Academiam suos erudiendes mittebant in varios caeâ—us distribuâ— quos apparet ex hoc loco pro nationum varietate fuisse distinctos vt hedie Lutetiae multa collegia c. So spatious a citie to whom the Iewes farre and wide sent their sonnes as to a common vniuersitie to be trained vp was of necessitie diuided into many Colledges as it is now at Paris according the diuersitie of the nations as out of this place it appeareth c. Againe how did they all heare the Gospel preached in their owne languages Narrat Apostolus varijâ— linguis loqui coepisse id est modò hác modò iliâ non tameÌ„ coÌ„fusè aut furiosê sed prouâ— hâ—c vel ille in varias gentes inciderat The Apostle sheweth that they spake diuerse languages not coÌ„fusedly like mad men but as this or that Apostle did happen vpon this or that nation so he spake to them in their owne language Therefore at the very first there were diuerse Preachers and seuerall congregations speaking seuerall languages vncapable of hearing the word preached before them al at one time as they which be but one church or congregation And againe in the same chap v 41. there were added to the church in one day about 3000. ver 47. the Lord added to the church from day to day Yet Maister Iacob would haue all these being so many thousands so many nations not of one language but speaking diuerse languages to haue bin but one coÌ„gregation Neither were they first all one congregation then by reason of their great increase as not able to assemble in one place diuided themselues into many congregations vpon the persecution of S. Stephen as Mr. Iacob affirmeth but they were many churches at the first as I haue already proued being seueral nations and speaking seuerall languages and those many Act. 8. 1. churches were scattered as it is written A great persecution was raised against the cburch of IerusaleÌ„ they were scattered abroad through the regions of Iudaea Samaria In which words the holy Ghost calleth Ierusalem but one Church which wee haue proued to haue consisted of diuerse congregations because all those congregations were but one church therefore they could not be diuided bodies absolute of themselues c. And wheras Mr. Iacob obiecteth that these congregations so diuided were not to be called churches because they were vncertaine and but occasionall I answer that so were all other churches in time of persecution euen those churches which he mentioneth out of Ignatius for as much as al the time of Ignatius there was persecution long after his time therefore they were but occasionall vncertaine But this disproueth me not but that I do rightly alledge against him that the beleeuers in IerusaleÌ„ were more then could be assembled in one congregation so in Alexandria and other cities Secondly he goeth about to proue that euery congregation is a diuided body absolute in it selfe because the Scriptures still speake of the churches as of one There is one Body one Spirit one Lord one Eph. 4 4. 5. faith one baptisme c. To which I answer that these words are vnderstood of Christ his vniuersal church which is inded vnica sponsa vnica columba one Doue one spouse betroathed to one husband one body knit and vnited to one head which is Iesus Christ for one head cannot haue many diuided bodies And therfore this argumeÌ„t maketh against himselfe The whole church is but one therefore parish churches are but members of that one and not diuided bodies for vnitas non potest diuidi that which is but one cannot be diuided And that euery parish or particular congregation must vse gouernment within it selfe he taketh vpon him to proue by the wordes of our Sauiour If thy brother trespasse against thee Mat. 18. 17. goe tell him his fault betweene thee him alone if he heare thee thou hast won thy brother if he heare thee not take with thee one or two that by the mouth of two or three witnesses euery thing may be confirmed if he refuse to heare them tell it vnto the church if he refuse to heare the church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican Out of these words saith he is proued that euery ordinary congregation is a proper visible Church and a visible Church is but one congregation and euery such Church is indued immediately from Christ with power absolute to gouerne within it selfe and euery member of the Church must haue a sensible and visible vse of the whole intirely together In which wordes he ascribeth the Ecclesiasticall gouernment to the whole multitude of euery parish Further he diuideth this Church gouernment into these two parts to wit excommunication and elections so that euery priuate man be hee neuer so vnfit should haue his free voice and consent in all excommunications and elections Eor answer whereof
prophecies when the riches authority and outward pompe of the Church was increased And yet it cannot be said that the ministery of the Gospel was without outward glory in the extreamest pouerty of the Church for as much as the Apostles at Ierusalem had all the riches of the Church layed at their feete and at their owne disposition and when worldly promotion was most of all wanting they had the gift of working miracles which was a greater glory and countenance to their ministery then any Kings or earthly meanes could giue vnto them St. Peter his shadow was more glorious and more honoured then the body and person of any Prince Saint Pauls napkins and handkerchers and such like ragges which came from his body Act. 5. Act. 93. were of more account then the purple robes and golde and siluer of earthly Kings And this gift of working miracles continued as the portion and inhaeritance of Christ his Ministers vntill they obteined peace and so were indewed with worldely possessions and honours which were to countenance their ministerie in the place of miracles which did cease So that still the ministery of the Gospell was outwardly glorious and honourable not vile abiect or contemptible The Lord of his mercy continue the state of it vnto his own glory to the worlds end Amen AN ANSWER TO THE TREAtise of the Crosse in Baptisme contracted into this Syllogisme No humane ordinance becomming an idoll may lawfully be vsed in the seruice of God But the signe of the Crosse being an humane ordinance is become an idoll Therefore The signe of the Crosse may not be lawfully vsed in the seruice of God OF THE SIGNE of the Crosse in Baptisme FOr as much as wee be no plaintiues but defendants neither doth it belong vnto vs as opponents to obiect or allege any arguments for proofe of that truth which is already established but onely as respondents to answere such obiections as are brought by our aduersaries to ouerthrow that hold whereof wee are possessed we will therefore so farre as by the Lawes of disputations we are bound make answer to all points in particular as they are vrged against vs. And therefore first of all we will examine the title of the booke which is contracted into this Syllogisme No humane ordinance becomming an idoll may lawfully be vsed in the seruice of God But the signe of the Crosse being an humane ordinance is become an idoll Therefore The signe of the Crosse may not be lawfully vsed in the seruice of God Because this Syllogisme is intended to be in the first figure we wish the author had explaned his meaning in what mood it is concluded because as it is set downe in these English wordes it is vncertaine whether it be in CELARENT or in FERLO in one of them it must be for else it is no lawfull Syllogisme If it bee in CELARENT then the MINOR must be vnderstood to be vniuersall affirmatiue and then these wordes The signe of the Crosse being an humane ordinance is become an idoll are equiualent to these Euery signe of the Crosse is an humane ordinance and euery signe of the Crosse is become an idoll Which if it be so vnderstood then the MINOR is to be denied as vntrue For the visible and permanent signe of the Crosse which appeared to Constantine the great by which he was conuerted to the Christian faith Euseb dè vitâ Const lib 1. cap 22. was neither an humane ordinance because it was the worke of God and not of men it appeared in heauen and not on earth neither was it an idoll because it was neither worshipped nor shewed to that end that it should be worshipped the Author his selfe in his Treatise saith nothing is an idol vnlesse it be worshipped neither was the inuisible and transient signe Ezech 9. 4. of the Crosse in the Prophesie of Ezechiel any humane ordinance because God commanded it nor any idoll because it was not worshipped Onely it was a marke of them which were ordained to saluation and it was to be signed in their forheads by the Priest in the Surplesse or linnen Ephod resembling the blood of the paschal Lambe which was sprinkled Exod 1â— 7. vpon the dore cheekes in Egypt by the Angell which was to passe ouer the houses so marked and to saue them from death which were in the houses so marked And that in Saint Iohns reuelation was but a resemblance of them both where the elect had the seale of the liuing God in their forheads This Apoc 7. 4. signe in Ezechiel was the signe of the Crosse because it was the Hebrew charactar T AV which letter as it is now printed in the Alphabet resembleth the Gallowes or instrument of execution of thieues and murtherers But as Saint Hierom sheweth when this prophesie was first written the Iewes hauing Hierom in Ezech 9. then the same letters which the Samaritans had according as they were deuised by Moses the Hebrew T A V was of the same forme which the Greeke T AV is of at this day which is such a Crosse in forme as that which was ara mundi the Altar of the world vpon which our Sauiour Christ was crucified And that afterward it was changed into this ordinary forme of Gallowes by Ezra after the captiuitie which altred all the letters in the Alphabet into this forme which is now vsed in all Hebrewe impressions that the letters of the beleeuing Iewes might differ from the letters of the vnbeleeuing Samaritans The signe of the crosse in the forheads of the elect was as especiall in the dayes of Ezechiel as the marke of the liuing God in their forheads in Saint Iohns reuelation the sprinkling of the dore-cheekes in the dayes of Moses and did outwardly shewe that none could escape death which had not interiùs expressam fidem crucis mortis Christi quiqùe exteriùs Cerisium intrepidè profiteretur an inward impression in their hearts of the Crosse and death of our Sauiour Christ and made an outward constant profession of the same to the view of the world to shâ—w that they were not ashamed of their crucified Lord Iesus nor afeard to drinke of his cup and be baptised with his baptisme which was calix amaritudinis and baptismus sanguinis and Math. 20. 23. crucis the cup of bitternes and baptisme of blood and martirdome of the Crosse tribulation Now the Christians in the infancie of the Church did signe themselues with this TAV or signe of the Crosse in eâ parte vbi est signum pudoris vt non puderet eos crucifixi as Saint Augustine witnesseth in their De verbis apostoli Ser 8. De catherudibus cap 20. very forheads to testifie their profession in imitation of the examples of the holy Scriptures which I haue recited as the same Saint Augustine witnesseth and that before popery had crept into the Church witnes Tertullian which liued within two hundred yeares after
other tribes vpon which no sacrifice nor incense was offred nor intended to be offred should also be held for a monument of idolatry because the name of Iesus was abused and vainely taken by the coniurers it might not be lawfully vsed by the Apostles so the argument Act 19. 13. doth not followe that because the signe of the Crosse is an idoll to the Papists which worship it therefore it should be an idoll to vs which worship it not The Author his selfe as before I haue shewed saith nothing is an idoll but quatenù◠it is worshipped and againe hee freeth vs from the crime of idolatry saying that our Church ascribeth no worship vnto it therefore hee doth not iustly call it by the name of an idoll and apply it vnto vs. Their abuse cannot disanull our lawfull vse and whatsoeuer may by them bee abused may by vs bee lawfully vsed therefore their superstition cannot make a nullitie of our sincere and true deuotion As the Crosse hath beene abused so hath Gods Temple beene profaned in the dayes of Ezechiel and in the dayes of our Sauiour Christ yet Ezechi 8 Ioh 2. neither of them would haue the Temple to bee suppressed Masses haue beene saide in all our Churches shall wee therefore be as the Brownists which refuse to come to Church to heare our dinine seruice They are the same Churches numero the Crosse is not therefore the argument followeth á maiori ad mious the Churches may bee as well remoued as the Crosse Fourthly the signe of the Crosse he saith is become an idoll therefore he denieth it to haue beene originally an idoll as the golden colfe was which was erected in Horeb and because Ex 32. 4. he denieth it to haue beene originally an idoll he must needes ouerthrowe that first ground which hee layed in his MINOR proposition where hee affirmed that it was an humane ordinance For the Author of the booke of reformation alledging the authoritie of Vrsinus in his exposition Maister Iacob vpon the second commaundement and the Author of the treatise of diuine worship affirme that all humane institutions in the Church are idolatry because they impugne the second Commaundement of the first Table and that the word of God is so perfect and all-sufficient of it selfe that man may ordaine nothing in the Church but all additions of men are idolatry I conclude therefore out of their own wordes that if it be become an idoll it was no humane ordinance and if it were an humane ordinance it could not become an idol because it was an idol ab initio froÌ„ the first institution of it And therfore because he saith it is become an idol he must grant that it was God ordinance And so I deny not but the holiest creatures in the world may become idolls by mans worshipping theÌ„ For so is the bread in the sacrament so is the beginning of S. Iohns Gospel In principio erat verbuÌ„ being hung about childrens necks with certaine charmes of sorcery to keep theÌ„ from stumbling become an idol And the 18. verse of the 50. Psalme When thou sawest a theefe thou didst run with him being vsed with other circumstances by coÌ„iurations to finde out stolen goods which is to ascribe diuine power to these creatures But for as much as originally the vse of the Crosse was lawfull we doe retaine it in our Church as originally it was vsed and therefore wee may iustifie the vse of it Fiftly therefore whereas hee saith that which is an idoll may not be vsed in Gods seruice it maketh nothing against vs which haue proued the Crosse to be no idoll Therefore that I may lay open the manifolde imperfections of this kinde of argumentation to shew that it is no lawfull syllogisme but a flat paralogisme in it I will discouer foure fallacies And that I may not be like them which as it is in the prouerbe will spell law and conster logicke I must be forced to vse such termes as belong to the Logitians which cannot be well expressed in English that I may obserue the lawes of schooles Out of the premisses which before I haue obserued First there is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter quia in conclusione falso id tribuitur rei simplicitèr consideratae quod in praemissis tributum fuit aliquâ conditione seu determinatione circumstantiâ as Abetzon speaketh In the conclusion the signe of the Crosse is condemned as simply vnlawfull being simply considered without any respect of worship which in the premisses is not vnderstood but vpon circumstances and conditions of diuine worship to be ascribed vnto it Secendly it is a paralogisme called ignoratio Elenchi the ignorance of that fallacy quià non est idem respectus res non intelligitur ad idem secundum idem similiter eodem tempore there is not one and the selfe same respect but diuers the thing is not alike but diuersly vnderstoode it is not referred to one and the same things according to the same after the same maner and at the same time but all these circumstances are different one from another Thirdly it is fallacia noÌ„ causae pro cauâ—â such a fallacy wherin that is taken for a cause which is no cause the abuse of them which worship it is here alleaged for a cause why it may not be lawfully vsed amoÌ„g vs which their abuse is no cause at al. Fourthly it is fallacia accidentis a fallacy by reason of the accident which is included in that which belongeth onely vnto the substance and ought to bee vnderstood without any such accident For he draweth his argument from the euent which was meerely accidentall vnto the Crosse vnto the nature of the Crosse it selfe as idolum fit ergo verè idolum est It is among some vsed as an idoll therefore properly and originally the thing it selfe is an idoll They doe à praeteritis accidentibus aut euentis ad praesentiam rei argumentari draw their arguments from the accidental euents which are passed vnto the thing as among vs it is now vsed as for example because the signe of the Crosse was worshipped in the time of ignorance and superstition among Papists that therefore it is now worshipped among the Protestants after the reformation of the Church To leaue the title of the booke and come to the tract it selfe For proofe of the MAIOR hee alleageth Saint Iohns authority Babes keepe your selues from idolls as if that were a Iohn 5. 21 good argument we must keepe our selues from idolis therefore wee may not make the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme which before I haue shewed to be no idoll which is but petitio principij a begging of the question But for explanationof this text of Saint Iohn he vndertaketh two things first to set downe the definition of an idoll and secondly to limit vs how farre wee are to keepe our selues from idolls and therein he presseth vs with the
destitute of a medius terminus to proue that conclusion which hee vndertooke to proue If we grant all Crosses which are worshipped to be idolls it cannot follow that our Crosse in Baptisme which is not worshipped is an idoll no more then this that because all altars erected for sacrifice in places prohibited of God were abhomination therfore the altar of which before I spake being not ercted for that end was also abhominable Neither doth he so fitly alleage for his purpose that our Church of England in the Homily against perill of idolatry iustifieth the remouing of images out of churches which were set vp by Papists to be worshipped and are worshipped to prooue that by the same reason the Crosse in Baptisme allowed by Protestants should be also abrogated which neither was appointed for worship nor yet worshipped Neyther is that place of Saint Augustine alleaged against images August in Psal 113. which haue eyes eares noses which doe valere ad curuandum infaelicem animum depraue the minde of man which is very apt to be deluded and carried away and also are an obiect to the eye very dangerous to intice and allure to idolatry fitly applied by him to the signe of the Crosse not visible not permanent and of which none of these things may be verified which are incident to the images which haue eyes eares and noses And for our part we doe as much abhorre such both images and image-makers as this author doth or as euer Epiphanius and Tertullian did whom he citeth how vnproperly soeuer And to answer the conclusion which so idlely he inferreth vpon these authorities That if godly fathers were so vehement against erecting images of Christ and Saints euen at that time before any worship was giuen vnto them much more would they withstand it now after men haue made idolls of them and therefore hee condemneth vs for induring the idoll of the Crosse as he calleth it in the seruice and sacraments of God and contrary to Dauids doctrine keeping an honourable memory of that which the Prophet Esay willeth vs to abandon I say it is no meruaile though they were so vehement against erecting Psal 16. Esa 50 22 of images in Churches for we are as vehement in that cause as they were and it behoued them at that time to be vehement considering that the whole world then was giuen to idolatry and in euery citie the Pagans had their Temples and as they worshipped idolls in their paganisme so they were prone to worshippe images after their conuersion to the Christian religion And seeing they which were not conuerted were readie to offer sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas Act. 14. 13 then aliue no doubt but they would haue worshipped their images when they were dead But all this is vnfitly applied vnto the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme To come to the MINOR in which he indeuoureth to proue that the Crosse is an idoll HE writeth for a marginall note in capitall letters THE PROOFE OF THE MINOR because in his owne conceit it is already proued But for the proofe of it he onely alleageth the authority of Bellarmine Potiformus Hart Costerus Aquinas being Papists which hold that the signe of the Crosse is to bee worshipped with diuine worship and ascribe to it diuine power And grant all this to be true that the Papists worship the Crosse ascribe so much to it I answer as before it toucheth not our signe of the Crosse in Baptisme which ascribe no such thing vnto it Therfore nothing is here alleaged by him for the confirmation of the MINOR which is not already by vs answered and refuted sufficiently in the confutation of the MAIOR The author now commeth to his Ob Sol and in our behalfe obiecteth that our Crosse is neque numero neque vsu the same Crosse which was among the Papists neither yet vsed among vs as it was vsed among theÌ„ The validity of this obiection in our behalfe wee shew to be of as great validity on our side as it was for the tribes of Ruben Gad and halfe Manasses on their side which being chalenged by their brethren for suspicioÌ„ of idolatry wheÌ„ they erected an altar which as it was not numero so they answered it was not vsu such an altar as they suspected it to be which answer coÌ„tented the Iews might as well satisfy our brethren if they were as charitable But let vs examine the answer he maketh to this obiection When saith he God commanded his people to breake downe the images of the heathen and to extinguish the very name of them they could not haue performed that charge if they had burnt all the idolls of Canaan and made others new of the same forme though to another vse not idolatrous so cannot we discharge our duties if hauing defaced the Popish idolls wee erect them new in our Church though not to worship because it cannot be without breach of the commandement Babes keep your selues from idolls So farre disputeth the maker of the syllogisme in our behalfe But because it may be verified of vs which was saide of the blinde man who receiued his sight aetatem habet prò se respondeat we are old enough to answer for our selues we will answer our own selues for our selues we craue no helpe of our aduersary but we will shew the vnsufficiency of this answer two maner of waies First he hath digâ—essed from his matter because the subiect of this disputation is an humane ordinance become an idoll whereas he instanceth in humane ordinances which are not become idolls but which originally were idolls and erected by infidells to this end that they should be worshipped for that was to the imitation of the heathen people this is not so And according to this kinde of disputation he might as well impose a necessity vpon vs of suppressing all our parish Churches as the Brownists do because they were not onely the Popes ordinance but also ordeined for the celebration of the Masse and so imployed from their first erection vntill this late reformation of the Church For according to Gods commandement not onely the idolls their selues were to bee put downe but also the altars groues and high places where the idolatry was committed and the Priests which did offer the sacrifices all they being abhominable as the idoll it selfe Secondly in that he taketh it pro concesso as a thing granted that the Crosse is an idoll it is but a begging of the question as before I haue shewed because it is not yet proued that the signe of the crosse is an idol among vs neither doth it follow that if with the Papists it were so therfore with vs it is so no more then because their bread in the sacrameÌ„t is an idol therfore ours is also an idoll That only numero which is worshipt is an idol for the author coÌ„fesseth wher there is no worship ther caÌ„ be no idol That we may proceede farther For