Presbyter assigned to it this will prooâ—e that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan as all Cathedrall Churches bee and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedrall as children from the mother were such as that of Cenchreae That which is testified for Ephesus Act. 20.28 is such as vpon like occasion might by all in his visitation be applied to aâ—â— the ministers of a diocesse that they should attend the stocke c. For must the word stocke which may be extended either to the vniuersall or nationall or prouinciall or diocesan Church must it needes signifie onely the congregation of a Parish yet he that breathes nothing but nouelties saith it is a new conceit to suppose a Diocesan flocke But this calumny of nouelty I haue by plentifull testimonies of antiquity before cited wiped cleane away As touching Act. 14.27 cited for Antioch where it is said that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church to relate vnto them what God had done by them since they had laid their hands vpon them and had commended them to the grace of God it is apparant that not all the Church consisting of husbands and wiues their children and seruants but some of the chiefe and principall perhappes not many perhappes not any besides those of the Clergy were called to that meeting These were his proofes out of the Scripture His other testimonies are out of Eusebius Ignatius and some of our owne Writers all which testimonies are scarse worth the mentioning Eusebius calleth the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the ancient vse of this word sometimes signifying the whole Diocesse sometimes the whole City and Suburbes I haue spoken sufficiently heretofore as also of that which hee obiecteth concerning the Parish in Ephesus Wherto I adde that Eusebius as he vsed the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same purpose Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus the multitude whereof hee calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations exhorteth them as one might in like manner the faithfull in London though diuided into many congregations to come oft together to giue thanks and glory to God for when you come oft together into one place the power of Satan is weakened c. His other testimony out of Ignatius is out of his Epistle to Hero where he calleth the Church of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Synagogue that is the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being vsed in the same signification with Ecclesia whereof I spake before But whether Ignatius were Bishop onely of one Congregation or parish let his own words testifie Remember me saith he in his Epistle to the Magnesians in your praiers and the Church which is in Syria whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop And in the Epistle to the Romanes towardes the latter end Remember in your praier the Church in Syria the which in stead of me hath the Lord to bee her pastor who saith I am the good shepheard Or if these words bee not plaine inough hee calleth himselfe in the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of Syria Now let my aduersarie tell mee what maner of Parish Syria was And let me heare also what he can obiect against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians and Romanes For euen they which suspect his Epistle to Herâ— which the refuter citeth and foure others acknowledge these two to bee no bastards Eusebius mentioneth both And that to the Romans he not onely mentioneth but also citeth a good part thereof Thus leauing that most pregnant and authentique euidence of Ignatius to my aduersary to muse vpon J come to his testimonies of our new writers all which excepting two testimonies of Tindall he most childishly alleadgeth to proue that the Churches of Ephesus and of other the like Cities were each of them but a Parish because they call a Church a Congregation vsing the word Congregation in as ample sense as before I proued the word Ecclesia whereof that is the English to bee vsed The auncient English Bibles neuer almost vse the word church but in stead thereof doe vse the word congregation not onely where is mention of particular Churches but of the vniuersall or catholicke Church As Mat. 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my congregation Eph. 1. Hee hath made him head of the Congregation which is his body Eph. 5. Yee husbands loue your wiues as Christ loued the congregation And so in the Communion Booke both in the Praiers translation there vsed As in the Praier for the King before the Epistle haue mercy on the whole congregation In the solemnization of Matrimony out of Ephes. 5. I speake of Christ and the Congregation But you shall heare his particulars First Tindall translateth the word Ecclesia by congregation thus to the angell of the congregation of Ephesus c. 2. Iohn Bale translateth and expoundeth the word Candlesticke and Church by Congregation The reasons why the first Translaters of the Bible into English in these latter times did auoid the name Church and insteed thereof vsed Congregation doe seeme to haue been these two The first because Church or Kyrk being deriued from the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth more properly signifie the place of meeting then the congregation it selfe which is meant by ecclesia and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation The second because the Papists had abused the word Church whether it were generally vsed to signifie the Romish Church or particularly to import the Romish clergy So saieth Tindal Because the clergy had appropriated to themselues the name Church therefore I translated the word Ecclesia by this word Congregation For when the people vnderstood that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ the name Church is euery where vsed as the translation of ecclesia Thirdly Yea but D. Fulke iustifying the translation of Ecclesia Eph. 5.23 by congregation argueth plainely that he held the Church of Ephesus to consist but of one particular congregation onely Which allegation sheweth extreame want either of iudgement or honesty for what church or congregation is there mentioned the Church of Ephesus or the vniuersall Church of Christ when it is said as Christ is the head of the Church Vpon which words when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles which did not vse the word Church but congregation in stead thereof D. Fulke answereth that the Translator rather vsed the word Congregation then Church to auoide ambiguity because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians and that the people might know that the Church is a gathering together of al the
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
who first were called Protestants my assertion had been sufficiently confirmed though the refuter could haue alledged the iudgements of more particular men then he hath done to the contrarie But I added in the Sermon that howsoeuer the first reformers of religion whom they cal Protestants did not disallowe the Episcopall gouernment but simply desired the continuance thereof as I haue now proued by their owne testimonies notwithstanding when together with the Gospell c. ad pag. 97. li. a fine 4. In which words I doe partly excuse the auncient Protestants who first yeelded to the deposing of Bishops and partly accuse the innouatours among our selues The former I excuse because they desiring chiefely and aboue all the instauration of religion propagation of the gospell which could not be obtained while the Popish BB. retayned their authoritie were forced with the losse of the Episcopall gouernment to redeeme the free profession of the gospel The refuter as if he were desirous to leaue them without excuse saith that is a bad excuse because it was easier to choose one fit man among them to be their B. then to finde diuers Pastors and Elders meet for the Presbyteries I deny not but that among them there were some fit to haue been BB. yet the speech of the refuter is vntrue It being an easier matter as the Fathers of the Affricane council professed to find many fit men to be Presbyters especially if the laitie also afford fit men for that purpose then to finde one fit to be a B. But the refuter doth not consider first who should haue ordained them secondly how they should haue been maintained thirdly and chiefely whether the assistance of the ciuil Magistrates could haue been had for deposing the BB. vnles they had yeelded both to the dissolution of the Bishoprickes and to the alteration of the forme of gouernment c. Now that the Protestants which subscribed to the Augustane confession did simply desire the continuance of the Episcopal gouernment I proue because so soon as they could they procured the restitution thereof though vnder other names because the names of BB. Archbb. by reason of the corruptions of the Popish prelates were odious And because the refuter shall no longer doubt whether those Superintendents and generall superintendents placed in Protestant churches be for the substance of their calling the same with BB. Archbb. he shall heare the iudgement of Zanchius in this behalfe Who after he had signified his approbation of the auncient forme of gouernment by BB. and Archbb. and had confirmed the same by the testimony of M. Bucer he addeth for further confirmation the practise of reformed churches some wheerof both in deed name haue retained BB. Archbb. and besides saith he in the churches of Protestants there are re ipsa in very deed BB. and Archbb. whom hauing changed the good Greeke names into bad latin words they call Superintendents and generall Superintendents Heare the history of the Augustane confession Ministers may bereduced into 3. orders Deacons Pastors superintendents Deacons we cal yong Ministers who are ioyned to Pastors c. We call them Pastors to whom though alone some church is safely cōmitted not doubting but that they may rule the same without a colleague Superintendents we cal these Pastors who are set ouer other Pastors Deacons With vs saith Heerbrand there are Deacons Pastors speciall superintendents and ouer them generall superintendents But why in other churches the learned men haue not restored BB. I gaue this reason for that they could not eyther because the Popish BB. were still countenanced by the ciuill Magistrate as in France or because the forme of ciuill gouernment being after the expulsion of the B. changed into a popular state could no more endure the gouernment of a B. then Rome after the expulsion of Tarquinius the regiment of a King The refuter saith they could thereby insinuating that they would not But doth he thinke that the Popish BB. in France countenanced by the state would endure Antibishops to be set vp against them in their Diocese And for Geneua is it not a plaine case that that state was so farre from admitting againe the gouernment of BB. that Caluin being out of hope to get a Presbytery established of Ministers alone was faine to accept of a Presbyterie wherin twelue Citizens are ioyned to sixe Ministers neither is that to be omitted which Zanchius in the place before cited doth adde in the next words But euen in those Churches also where neither the good Greeke names nor the bad Latine names are vsed notwithstanding there vse to be some chiefe men in whose hands all the authoritie almost is Where therefore these be vpheld and Bishops repelled it may seeme to be but a controuersie concerning the names but when wee agree of the things why should we striue about the names At Geneua while Caluin liued he was the perpetuall president of their Ecclesiasticall Senate differing rather in name then authoritie from a B. And Beza likewise for the space of ten yeares had the like authoritie till Danaeus comming thither that course was altered Since which time Beza finding some inconueniences which he knew not how to redresse hath sometimes signified his desire to some whom I know wishing with all his heart that with the reformation of religion the Episcopall gouerment in that church had beene retayned And I haue beene very credibly informed that the most learned and iudicious Diuines both in France and Geneua could well be contented that the ancient gouernment by BB. were renewed among them which neede not seeme strange to vs seeing in the Church of Scotland where the Geneua Discipline had for a long time beene practised notwithstanding when the matter was referred to voices of that great number which were assembled to that purpose there were not aboue fiue which stood for the Presbyterian discipline as I haue beene informed by some that were there But there are two things more in the refuters answere to be touched the one that against sense he chargeth me twice in this place as holding the gouernment by BB. to be so necessary as that there cannot be a visible Church without it I say against sense because in the former part of this section I acknowledged that where this gouernment could not be had others might be admitted and in this place I doe not onely excuse those Diuines which wanting the Episcopall gouernment brought in the Presbyteries but also commend their fact as wisely performed The other is that out of a desire of contradicting me hee denyeth the state of Geneua to be popular But let Bodin vvho could discerne betweene the diuers formes of policie be iudge betweene vs. The selfe same yeare saith he that Andreas Doria did establish the Aristocracie at Geneua did they of Geneua hauing expelled their B. change the Monarchy into a popular state And after libertie was restored to
must be giuen him as deseruing it whether he need or not For although it be a crying sinne and doe offend more against charitie to hold it from him if he need yet it offendeth as much against iustice to withhold the stipend from the workeman that is not in need The stipend which Paul appointeth to Presbyters in respect of their paines in edifying the Church which is the house of God is as due in iustice to them for their worke sake as the stipend is due to a Carpenter that buildeth an house And as it were iniustice ioyned with folly for a man not to thinke himselfe bound to giue the Carpenter his stipend vnlesse he be poore the like is to be conceiued of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth which is due for their worke The rest of his speech is vttered in rancour and gall but the points be these First that it doth not become me c to call it a beggerly maintenance Secondly that it is more then is giuen to our Church-wardens that are crept into their roomes The third which is more plainely vttered in the abortiue booke that the like perhaps will not make D. D. rich In what sense I called it beggarly almes giuen onely in charitie opposing it to honourable stipend due in iustice I haue already explaned To the second I answere our Church-wardens hauing lesse trouble haue notwithstanding no lesse allowance then your Elders for they haue none at all And where you say our Church-wardens are crept into their roomes you must first proue that euer they had a roome in the Church For we will neuer grant that our Church-wardens be your Elders successours till you haue proued your Elders to haue beene their predecessors And whereas you make your selues merrie with my want of riches as you did before with my want of preferment I tell you plainely I had rather be poorer then M.D. is with a good conscience then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction to be maintained by it Thus haue I maintained my assumption and the prosyllogisme thereof concerning their confession Now I will proue by another argument that the honour of maintenance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God nor hath any warrant in the scriptures We haue often heard great words that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church if not an article of your faith that it is to little purpose to receiue the doctrine vnlesse we also embrace the discipline of Christ meaning the pretended discipline that your discipline is the kingdome of Christ wherein your Presbyters hold as it were Christs scepter that to denie this discipline yet to professe Christ to be our King is with the souldiers that crucified him to put a Reede in his hand and a crowne of thornes on his head that in the second petition of the Lords prayer Let thy Kingdome come wee are to pray that your Discipline may be aduanced that the question betweene the BB. and you is about no lesse matter then this whether Iesus Christ shall bee King or no that in denying your discipline wee are the men that say Luke 19. Wee wll not haue this man to raigne ouer vs and to vs is applyed that terrible doome Those mine enemies that would not haue mee to raigne ouer them bring hither and slay them before mee and many such like speeches concerning the kingdome of Christ which being applied to your owne deuices are not farre from blasphemie These confident speeches considered a man would think that you haue most euident certaine and vndeniable grounds for your Presbyteries But when I come to examine your proofes to search the Scriptures and records of antiquitie I professe vnfainedly in the feare of God that I cannot sufficiently wonder that men of reading should approue men of sinceritie should vrge so confidently and maintaine so resolutely euen vnto silencing and depriuation such not onely humane deuices but meere nouelties as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Sauiour for which after all the search which hath beene made there cannot be produced any sound testimonie But to come to the point you say if you deny my aforesaid assumption that to Lay-Elders gouerning well double honour is due by the word of God for their worke sake I say the holie Ghost is so farre from assigning this double honour to them that neither their worke or office it selfe for which that honour should be due to them nor their qualities whereby they should bee qualified for that office nor themselues or their names wherby they should be knowne are once mentioned or intimated in the holy scriptures For first as touching their office it is by them assigned either to their Elders seuerally or to the Elder-ship iointly Their duty seuerally is to be watchmeÌ„ in the Church hauing their seuerall Wards or precincts appointed to them wherein they are to obserue the manners of men for auoiding offences and other occurrents for peruerting disorders The manners of men they are to enquire into and to prie into their faults that if they be secret or small they may admonish the offenders priuâ—ly if opeÌ„ or great they may informe the Consistory therof And for other occurreÌ„ts they are to looke that good orders be kept especially respecting the sacraments As they are to informe their pastor if there be any childe in their Warde to be baptized if there be any in their precinct lately come into the parish to acquaint the Minister before the Communion and at the Communion to keepe backe those whose religion and honestie is not knowne and whom the Ministers haue not dealt withall before Wherfore as in respect of manners they are by them coÌ„pared to the Censors of the Romanes so in respect of good orders they are as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Athenians The ioynt-office of the Elders is the office of the whole Presbyterie or Eldership Consistorie or sacred Senate which in the Assemblie of the Elders of the Church who by common counsell and authoritie do rule and gouerne the same For as Lacedemon had her Seignorie Athens her high court of the Areopagiâ—â—s Rome her Senate and euery kingdome their counsell so euery Church that is euery parish according to the new disciplinarians must haue her Presbyterie or sacred Senate vnto which Christ hath giuen the keyes of the kingdome of heauen whereby is meant all Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie This authoritie respecteth either the Officers of the Church or the offenders Officers as Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons Concerning whome the Eldership hath authoritie to elect ordaine depriue or depose them As touching offenders the Eldership hath authoritie to censure them either by reproofe suspension or excommunication Belieue mee if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders then haue they an office 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
this distinction of Ministers is so frequent in the ancient Canons that if a man do but open the booke at all aduentures he shall not often light vpon such a place where this distinction is not to be found Jn the ancient Canons called the Apostles it is mentioned 20. times at the least in the Council of Nice 3. or 4. times in the Councill of Ancyra and Antioch often and so in the rest Which of the ancient Fathers doth not acknowledge this distinction of Ministers Ignatius as we shall heare giueth plentifull testimony to it Clement in his Epistle to Iames translated by Ruffiâ—â—â— testifieth this to haue been the Doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ that Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishops in all things And again that Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergy must take heed that they doe nothing without the licence of the Bishop Dionysius an ancient and learned writer if not the Areopagite propoundeth the same distinction vnder the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tertullian acknowledgeth it Orogen likewise terming the Bishop him qâ—â—totim Ecclesia aâ—cemobtinet So doth Cyprian and Cornelim and almost who not Yes saith the Refuter Anacletus and Damasâ—â—â— afformâ— there were but two degrees Bishops and Priests and Ignatius diuideth the offices of the Church into Bishops and Deacons But hauing thus as he thinketh set them and others of the Fathers togither by the eares he will not go about to part them Let them saith he agree about the matter as they can Howbeit the reconciliation is easily made For Anacletus if that were his Epistle speaketh only of Priests and of two orders of them ordained by Christ but Deacons were not called Sacerdotes as Bishops and Presbyters were Sacerdotes being vsually distinguished into maiores which be Bishops and minores which be Presbyters Neither were Deacons ordained by Christ himselfe but by the Apostles And with this distinction of Anacletus those vnsuspected fathers agree who hold that these two degrees of ministers were ordained by Christ when he appointed twelue Apostles whose successours are the Bishops and the three score and twelue Disciples whom the Presbyters succeed Now if the Bishops succeed the Apostles and the Presbyters succeed the 72. Disciples as diuers of the ancient approued Fathers do teach then it cannot be denied but that the calling of Bishops and their superioritie as also the inferior degree of Presbyters is of Christs owne institution The like is to be said of Damasus who acknowledgeth but two Orders among the Disciples in Christs time the twelue Apostles and the 70. disciples and by that reason rejecteth the Châ—râ—piscopi because they neither were Bishops as he proueth nor Presbyters as themselues pretended Among the Disciples of Christ saith he we know but two Orders that is of the twelue Apostles and soâ—mentie disciples Whence this third order is 〈◊〉 we know not As for Ignatius his testimonie is falsified In his Epistle ad Tralliâ—â—os he wisheth them To 〈…〉 without their Bishop to be subiect to their Presbyters and to please their Deacons as being the ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Againe He that doth any thing without the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons such a one is without For what is the Bishop but he that hath power aboue all c. What the Presbyterie but a sacred companie counsellors and coassessors of the Bishop What the Deacons but imitators of the Angegelicall powers c. he that disobeyeth these reiecteth Christ and impeacheth his ordinance And in the end Farewell in the Lord Iesus being subiect to your Bishop and likewise to the Presbyters and Deacons His other Epistle ad Phil. is so wisely quoted that I know not whether he mean the Philippians or Philadelphians But it is no great matter whether he meane for as neither of both doth testify that for which he quoteth them so both of them doth mention the distinction of ministers into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons In the Epistle to the Philippians he exhorteth them to be subiect to the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons And towards the end he saluteth Vitalius their Bishop the sacred colledge of Presbyters and his fellow ministers the Deacons The Epistle to the Philadelphians he directeth especially to them who were one with the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons In the Epistle it selfe that al who be Christs are on the Bishops side And besides that testimony alledged in the Sermon he saith attend to the Bishop the Presbyters and Deacons To conclude in these 3. Epistles Ignatius giueth testimonie to this distinction into 3. degrees noting their callings 9. times and not once letteth any thing fal which may seeme to insinuate any such thing as the refuter alledgeth and therefore with what conscience he citeth authors let the reader iudge Now that these three orders were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 degrees it should not seeme strange seeing the Apostle vseth that word in that sense 1. Tim. 3.13 noting the Deaconship to be a degree to the Presbytery as it is with vs. Cyprian saith of Cornelius that he came to the Bishopricke not suddainly but hauing been promoted through all the Ecclesiasticall offices he ascended to the height of Priesthood by all the degrees of Religion In the Councill of Sardica it is decreed That if any rich man oâ— Rhetorician be from the court desired to be Bishop he shall not be ordained vntill he haue performed the ministry of a reader Deacon and Presbyter that so through euerie degree of he be thought worthy he may by way of promotion ascend vnto the height of Bishopricke and the degree of euery order shall haue a good time c. and he being thought worthy of the diuâ—es Priesthood shal be made partaker of the greatest honor The same Councill in their Synodicall Epistle report of the Arians that they had not only receiued thosâ— who had bin expulsed for Arianisme but also preferred them to a greater degree as from Deacons to be Presbyters and from Presbyters to be Bishops The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon diuers times for a penaltie threaten Bishops Presbyters and Deacons with the losss of their degree And most plainly the Council of Carthage mentioneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these three degrees 〈◊〉 Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And againe all the degrees of Clerkes from the hiest to the lowest The like testimonie to that which Cyprian gaue to Cornelius doth Nazianzen giue both to Athanasius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing gaue through all the degrees in order and hauing been in euery of them as Theodoret saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was chosen Bishop and also to Basil that he ascended to his Bishoprick by the order and law of the spirituall ascent and Socrates to Prâ—clus that he was first a
order and iurisdiction yet doth he both here and there bewray himself not to vnderstand it For though euery Minister as hee is a Presbyter hath potestatem ordinis yet it doth not follow that hee may at his owne pleasure exercise that power We must therfore take knowledge of two distinctions the one of the power of order and of iurisdiction for euery minister hath the power of order as hee is a Presbyter simply but the power of iurisdiction as he is praelatus or pastor The former he hath giuen him in his ordination the latter in his institution By the former hee is qualified and authorized to preach and administer the sacraments and to doe other â—spirituall actions peculiar to his order which another man who is not of that order neither can doe nor may haue leaue to doe But hee may not performe these duties which belong to the power of his order to any congregation as the Pastor therof vnlesse that flocke be assigned and committed to him by the Bishop who hath the charge of the whole diocesse A presbyter therefore though he haue potestatem ordinis may not perform pastoral duties to any congregation which are part of the Bishops charge vnlesse hee be authorized therto by the Bishop from whom hee receiueth potestatem iurisdictionis curamque animarum et regimen ecclesia parochialis in his institution Againe we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and the exercise execution of it For although euery minister hath thesame power of order which is common to them with Bishops in respect of preaching the worde and administring Baptisme and the Lords Supper yet the exercise of their power is and alwaies hath been subiected to the authority of the Bishop to be permitted directed restrained and suspended by him This subordination and subiection of the presbyters to the Bishop for the exercise of their power which euer hath beene practised in the Church doth not make either their function to be a mockery of the ministery as the refuter malepertly speaketh nor themselues to be no ministers But plainly proueth the contrary as I haue shewed For whereas he obiecteth out of Tertullian that any lay man might baptize by the Bishops 〈◊〉 he falsifies his testimony His words be these Dandi baptismum ius â—abâ—t summus sacerdos qui est episcopus c. The cheif Preist which is the Bishop hath the right to giue baptisme Then the presbyters and deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop for the honor of the Church which being safe peace is safe Otherwise euen laymen haue right Where Tertullian sheweth that the ordinary right of baptizing appertaineth to Bishops Presbyters deacons as belonging to the power of their order though for the honour and peace of the Church the Bishop bee superiour in the exercise of that power which the Presbyters and Deacons are not to exercise without his authority otherwise that is extraordinarily and in case of necessity the lay man euen without the Bishops leaue hath right in Tertullians iudgement to baptize Where he saith That in Tertullians time who was himselfe a Presbyter Presbyters and Deacons were not ministers and much lesse in Ignatius time I hope he wil râ—call this foule error proceeding from extreme ignorance when he hath read what before hath been alledged to the contrary And whereas the last testimony which I alledged out of Ignatius for these three degrees of the ministery plainely excludeth their lay Presbyters and lay Deacons reckening Presbyters and Deacons as degrees of the clergy he answereth two things the first That the Epistle strongly sauoureth of corrupter times then those Ignatius loued in by that very word clergy apprâ—priated therein to the ministers which is of a far latter breed He should haue done well to haue shewed how late the breed is For I am well assured that Cyprian vseth the word clerus for the clergy ordinarily who was little more then a hundred yeares after Ignatius And Origen before him mentioneth this distinction of the clergy and laity Tertullian who liued in the same century with Ignatius distinguisheth each company of Christians as sometimes into gregem duces the flocke and the guides ecclesiâ— ordinem laicos the order of the Church meaning those which were in orders and the lay people so sometimes in ecclesiaÌ„ cleruÌ„ the assembly and the clergy The clergy also or guides he distinguisheth into these three degrees Deacons Presbyters Bishops The antient Canons called the Apostles often mention those of the clergy as opposed to the laity But if I should say that S. Peter vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense when writing to Bishops whom he calleth Presbyters himself their Compresbyter he willeth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not exercise lordship ouer the clergy I should deliuer that which is agreeable to the interpretation of the antient Writers and as I am perswaded to the truth Neither doe I doubt but the vse of the word clerus was first taken from that place of Peter who therein followed the phrase of the old Testament wherein it is oft said that the Lord was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the portion or the inheritance of the Priests and Leuites For therefore are they called Clerici saith Ierome vel quia de sorte sunt Domini vel quia ipse Dominus sors i. pars clericoruÌ„ est Either because they are the Lords portion which notatioÌ„ some late writers do mislike not without cause the people also being Gods inheritance or because the Lord is their portion which is agreeable with the scriptures His other answer is that though the Presbyters and Deacons were of the clergy yet they were not Ministers for there were many of the clergy which were not Ministers Let him therefore tell me whether there were any Ministers in the clergy adioined to the Bishop or not if he say no hee is worthy to be hissed at if yea who were these Ministers if the Presbyters and Deacons were not Besides it is plaine that the Clergy of the antient Churches consisted wholly of schollers which were trained vp in learning the Clergie belonging to each Bishoppe being the seminary of the whole diocesse out of which not only euery parish both in the Citie and Country was to be furnished with Ministers but also the Bishop himselfe in the vacancie of the See was to be chosen Moreouer ordinarily those of the clergy ascended by degrees from the lower to the higher the Bishop being chosen out of the Presbyters Deacons for euen Ignatius his successor was his deacon Herâ— the Presbyters deacons out of the inferior orders as of sub deacons or readers c. Wherby it is most euideÌ„t that presbyters deacoÌ„s were not such as the lay-elders and lay-deacons which are now adaies in some reformed Churches but men brought vp in learning and seruice of the Church hauing attained degrees
to impose hands to belong to the power of order First because imposition of hands is a sacred action of spirituall efficacy indeed a sacrament not onely by the doctrine of the scholemen and Papists but also by the confession of Calum though not such a sacrament as Baptisme and the Lords supper which are seales and pledges of our vnion and communion with Christ yet in a more generall sense as a sacrament is defined a visible signe of inuisible grace I say it is a sacred action of spirituall efficacie consecrating a man to the seruice of God in the Ministery conueiing vnto him the power of that order whereunto hee is ordained whereby he is qualified to performe sacred actions of spirituall and supernaturall efficacie Wherefore I doe not see why the power of begetting spirituall Fathers to the Church by ordination as Epiphanius speaketh should not be thought to belong to the power of order in BB. euen as the begetting of sonnes to the Church by baptisme to the power of order in all Ministers Secondly because this power is conferred vpon each Bishop in their consecration and belongeth to him as being a Bishop simply and cannot be taken from him whiles he remaines a Bishop though his Bishopricke be taken from him and may be exercised by him where he hath no iurisdiction Whereof examples might be produced of Athanasius Eusebius Vercellensis and other godly Fathers who when they were turned out of their Bishoprickes and others placed in their roomes not onely retained their power but also exercised the same as occasion was offered in other Churches Thirdly because all ecclesiasticall power being referred either to the power of order or of iurisdiction this must therefore be referred to the power of order because it cannot be referred truly to the power of iurisdiction and that for these two reasons both because the Bishop cannot communicate this power to others as he may iurisdiction and also because he doth not lose it with his iurisdiction but retaineth it when his Bishopricke is taken from him and may as well exercise it without his diocesse where he hath no iurisdiction as another Minister may preach or baptize out of his owne parish Whenas therefore I expounded Ierome and some others who say the B. is superior to the Presbyters onely in ordination as not meaning that he is not superiour also in the power of iurisdiction but that in respect of the power of order he was superior onely in the right of ordaining because whereas other parts of the power of order be common to him with Presbyters that of ordaining is his peculiar right and prerogatiue I did not speake without vnderstanding Contrariwise the Refuter as in laying to my charge that I confound the power of order with ordination he spake he knew not what so in the inference which he bringeth vpon his former words hee pratleth without vnderstanding Now if the power of ordination did belong properly to the office of BB. then were the BB. superior to the other Ministers potestate ordinis but the former I haue manifestly proued therefore the latter must be granted but that is the question saith he as who should say he were resolued to deny the conclusion But heare him I pray you Notwithstanding to let him inioy his owne distinction of BB. differ onely in ordination from Presbyters quoad ordinis potestatem then in the power of iurisdiction Presbyters are equall with them potestate ordinis by the power of their order Wherefore where afterwards he draweth vnto BB. the whole power of censuring vnder the name of potestas iurisdictionis he maketh that to be adiuine which is but an humane preeminence by his owne distinction All which is meere babling without sense or vnderstanding what he saith as the Reader who vnderstandeth what I haue deliuered concerning this distinction will easily iudge There remaineth the third part of this section wherein out of a Christian and charitable desire to preserue the credit of such reformed Churches as haue no BB. I endeuoured to preuent the obiections of Papists who reason thus against them The right of ordination being peculiar to BB. it followeth that where is no B. there is no ordination where is no ordination there are no Ministers where are no Ministers there is no Church I answered that although the ordinary right of ordination belongeth to BB. in the iudgement of the antient Church that yet it was not to be vnderstood as so appropriating it to them as that extraordinarily and in the case of necessitie it might not be lawfull for Presbyters to ordaine and much lesse teaching absolutely a nullity of the ordination which is performed without a B. Which answer I confirmed by diuers reasons Whereunto I now adde that there seemeth to be the like reason for imposition of hands in confirmation of the baptized in the reconciliation of publike penitents as in the ordination of Ministers But although the two former were reserued as well as the third to the B. yet extraordinarily in the case of necessity and in the want or absence of the B. the antient Church held it lawfull for Ministers to impose hands either for the confirming of parties baptized or for reconciliation of the penitents The former is testified by Ambrose and Augustine the latter by Cyprian and diuers Councels And moreouer the Popish Writers themselues doe teach that the Pope may giue licence to him that is not a Bishop to ordaine so that hee to whom such licence is giuen haue those orders himselfe which he would giue to another If therefore by the Popes licence a Presbyter may ordaine Presbyters much better may a company of Presbyters to whom in the want of a Bishop the charge of the Church is deuolued be authorised thereto by necessity which as they say hath no law To this passage inserted by me onely in fauour of the Churches where the presbyterian discipline is established which I would not lay open to popish cauils the Refuter if he had been led with a good spirit would rather haue answered with thanks then haue set himselfe to wrangle and cauill therewith as if he cared not so he may haue something to speake against what becommeth of those Churches which notwithstanding he would seeme to fauor more then my selfe The which vngracious course he taketh againe in answering the 95. page of my Sermon where I forced my selfe as in this place to speake as much as the truth would permit in fauour of the aforesaid Churches But if my answers for them either here or there do not please the Refuter and his consorts I will hereafter giue them leaue to answer what they please Neither will I any more disaduentage the truth which I defend in a desire to gratifie them seeing my indeuor is so vngratefully taken Which I speake not as though I thought his exceptions against my defence any thing worth For where he obiecteth that if
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse that ordination bring him again to his own Church Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5. Thirdly they might not so much as trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers others as Con. Agath c. 38. Epaunens c. 6. Aurelian 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon c. 11.12 Hereby the Reader will easily discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
vnderstood vvho expound the vvord Apostle by Teacher As Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those vvhom the Refuter nameth For they did not by Apostle vnderstand euery common Teacher or teaching Presbyter but specialem doctorem saith Anselme instructorem praecipuum their chiefe instructor sayeth Dionysius Carthusianus These authors and more as they doe all giue testimony with my exposition so against that interpretation of the word Apostle which the refuter bringeth who would haue him called Apostle not in respect of any sacred function which he performed towards them but because he was their Messenger to the Apostle And of this iudgement he saith are Primasius Haymo Caietan and two others which be as much partyes in this cause as himselfe Beza and Piscator And Caluin acknowledgeth it to agree with the place Primasius saith that Epaphroditus had receiued gradum Apostolatus the degree of Apostleshippe among them Caluin doth indeed mention that interpretation but so as he preferreth the other sed prior sensus meliùs meo iudicio conuenit But the former sence in my iudgement agreeth better He could not thinke that both sences being so different agreed to the text Yea but he hath two reasons to proue his to be the more likely sence First as the words following in the same Verse and Chapt. 4.18 doe shew how he ministred to him so the same phrase is vsed to the like purpose 2 Cor. 8.23 where the brethren sent with Titus to receiue the Corinthians beneuolence are called Apostles that is messengers of the Churches I acknowledge that Epaphroditus brought a gratuity from the Philippians to Paul to supply his necessity being a prisoner in Rome And the brethren likewise who accompanyed Titus were to receiue the beneuolence of the Corinthians but it is vnlikely that either he or they were called the Apostles of the Churches in that regard It appeareth by diuers of Ignatius his Epistles that when the churches did send one vpon a Christian Embassage the B. commonly was entreated to take that Embassage vpon him In like manner the Philippians being to send as it were vpon Embassage to Paul Epaphroditus their B. vndertooke that voyage He being therfore both their B. and their Embassadour it is more likely that he was called their Apostle because he was their Bishop then for that hee was their Embassadour For it is vnlikely that the name of that sacred function of the Apostles of Christ who also himselfe is the Apostle of our profession should be vsed in the Scriptures to signifie the messengers of men Besides in both places the Apostle intendeth by this title highly to commend Epaphroditus and the others but this had beene but a small commendation that they were messengers of the Churches Againe if they in 2 Cor. 8. were called the Apostles of the Churches because they were their messengers then those Churches should haue sent them but it is euident that Paul himselfe sent them for as it was required of him Gal. 2 so had hee vndertaken to procure a supply for the reliefe of the brethren in Iudaea who were oppressed vvith famine And to that end hauing before dealt with the Corinthians sendeth Titus and two others to receiue their contribution His second reason is that it standeth not so well with the properties of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth a messenger to entitle any man in regard of his ministeriall function their Apostle to whom as his from whom hee is sent And therefore among all the titles Paul taketh to himselfe to magnifie his office he neuer calleth himselfe their or your Apostle but an Apostle of Christ and an Apostle to them Wee may therefore say of M. D. as Iunius doth of Theodoret the clearest witnesse he alledgeth he is deceiued by the aequiuocation of the word Apostolos which sometimes in a common and generall sence is giuen to any one that is sent as a messenger and sometimes more specially ascribed to those that were imployed as the Apostles in an extraordinarie and high Embassage from Christ. Here the Refuter whiles he goeth about to discouer my ignorance as though I knew not the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he bewrayeth his owne For it is euident that in the Scriptures the vvord is vsed with reuerence as vvell to the parties to vvhom as to the party from vvhom the Apostle is sent Thus Paul calleth himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith that Peter had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostleship of Circumcision meaning that he was the Apostle of the Iewes because to himselfe was committed the Gospel of vncircumcision as to Peter of the circumcision So Angels haue relation not only to the sender who is God but to the parties to whom they are sent and are called their Angels And euen as Angels absolutely spoken is a title of all ministers who are sent of God but vsed with reference to the Churches whereto they are sent as the Angels of the seauen Churches doe signifie the Bishops or Pastors of the same churches so Apostoli absolutely vsed is a title of all Embassadours sent from God with authority Apostolicall though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giuen to Paul and Barnabas and the twelue Apostles but vsed with reference to particular Churches doth signifie their Bishops And in that sence Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians And howsoeuer the word may signifie any messenger with relation to any sender yet in the scriptures it is not vsed to signifie messengers sent from men neither is to be translated otherwise then Apostle For though our Sauiour doe seeme to speake indefinitly Iohn 13.16 of the Apostle and him that sendeth him yet it is euident that he meaneth himselfe who sent and the Apostles who were sent But admit saith the refuter that Epaphroditus were Bishop or Pastor of Philippi where abouts I will not striue how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church c. This is written as the most of the booke to bleare the eyes of the simple For I cannot thinke he which would vndertake this cause was so void of iudgement as the refuter here would shew himselfe to be if he wrote sincerely For I pray you what was the point which here I had in hand was it not to shew that the Bishops at the first in the Apostles times were called Apostles and doe I not proue it by this instance that Epaphroditus being the Bishop of the Philippians is therefore called their Apostle Admit it be so saith the refuter yet how shall it be proued that Philippi was a Diocesan Church and how weakely with that doth M. D. inferre that he was a Diocesan Bishop like to ours for the substance of his office All men see he deceiueth his reader with the like equiuocation in the word Bishop which in the Apostles times by his
Refuter out of 2 Tim. 4.9 11.12.21 c. and therevpon inferre they were not Bishops But neither are all his proofes good neither is his inference sound He would proue that Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him For first thither the Apostle sent Tychicus As if he had said whether Paul sent Tychicus there Timothie was not Belike there was some such Antipathy betweene them that one place could-not hold them both Secondly because from the place where he was Paul requireth him to come to him to Rome with him to bring the cloake the books parchments which he left at Troas As though Timothie might not as well come from Ephesus to Rome as from some other place and as though his bidding him to bring the things left at Troas did not argue that he was at Ephesus which is in the same peninsula rather then else where But that he was at Ephesus may be gathered hereby because the Apostle willeth him to salute Aquila and Priscilla whom he left at Ephesus Act. 18.19 the houshold of Onesiphorus which also was there 2 Tim. 4.19 with 1.16 Sedulius vnderstandeth Paul bidding Timothie 2 Tim. 4.9 to come to him quickly as requiring him to come from Ephesus to Rome Now heare his inferences Titus was sent from Candy to Rome and from thence he was dispatched into Dalmatia therfore he was not B. of Candy Timothie was not at Ephesus when the second Epistle was written to him therefore hee was not B. there c. He stayed with Paul some time in Rome therefore he was not B. of Ephesus These are goodly inferences to oppose to the euidence gathered out of the Epistles and to the generall consent of antiquity which testifieth that they were Bishops Whereas therefore he asketh who dare be so bold or vnreasonable as to imagine that Paul had made them Bishops I say it is intollerable boldnesse and arrogancie to auouch the contrarie And such is that presumptuous speech that if Timothie and Titus had beene Bishops it had beene a matter neither of good report for them nor of good example for the ages following that they should be called to other places For so long as ordinarily they were resident their absence at some times vpon vrgent and weighty occasions was neither of ill report nor bad example Besides when the Apostle sent Tychicus to Ephesus and sent for Timothie from Ephesus he sent the one to supply the absence of the other as Caluin also hath obserued Serm. Sect. 9 pag. 78. The other thing which they obiect is that they were Euangelists but that doth not hinder c. to the midst of page 81. The second obiection saith the Refuter lyeth thus Timothie and Titus were Euangelists Therfore they were not Diocesan BB. of Ephesus and Creet This consequence I denied because their being Euangelists did not hinder but that when they were assigned to certaine Churches and furnished with Episcopall power they became Bishops Against which answere the Refuter obiecteth two things First that their being Euangelists did hinder their assigning to certaine Churches without which they could not be Bishops And this hee proueth by two reasons For first if the Apostle had assigned them to certaine Churches then should he haue confounded the offices which as himselfe saith 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 God had distinguished Secondly hee should haue depriued Timothie and Titus of a higher calling and thrust them as it were out of the Hall into the Kitchin These are nice points which none of the Fathers did euer vnderstand neither did they conceiue but that Euangelists might without any disparagement to them be assigned to seuerall Churches and so become Bishops For if they held that the Apostles themselues being assigned to certaine Churches as Iames was to Ierusalem were BB. much more Euangelists But for as much as the whole force of this argument dependeth vpon the Euangelisticall function which Timothie and Titus are supposed to haue had we will briefly consider what that Euangelisticall function was and whether it could hinder them from being Bishops An Euangelist therefore was he which taught the Euangell or Gospell of Christ whether by preaching or also by writing In the latter sence there are foure onely called Euangelists Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn who though they all preached yet for the penning of the Gospell are peculiarly called Euangelists In the former sence the word is taken either generally to signifie any one that doth euangelize or preach the Gospell or specially signifying the extraordinarie function of those in the primitiue Church who went vp and downe preaching the Gospell being not affixed to any certaine place And these seeme to haue beene of two sorts For either they were immediatly called of Christ and by him sent to preach the Gospell as the 72. Disciples or they were assumed by the Apostles to be their companions in their iourneyes and assistants in the Ministery Of the former sort was Philippe who after he had performed that temporarie office at Ierusalem whereunto he and the other sixe were chosen Act. 6. he returned to his Euangelisticall function Act. 8. and is expresly called an Euangelist Act. 21.8 Of the latter sort were Timothie and Titus while they accompanied the Apostle Paul in his trauailes and were not assigned to any certaine place That which the Fathers say of the 7◠Disciples that they had but the degree of the Presbytery may of this latter sort much more be verified who were ordayned Ministers of the Gospell by imposition of hands Neither did they differ from other Presbyters but in this that they accompanied the Apostles as their helpers being not tyed to any one place For neither had they the power of ordination neither as Zanchy saith did they gouerne the Churches now one then another as the other Euangelists and Prophets did Wee see what the office of Euangelists was Now let vs see whether it hindered men from being Bishops For had Timothie and Titus beene such Euangelists as the foure were which preached and wrote the Gospell or as the 72. who were called and sent by Christ yet might they when they ended their trauailes and betooke them to certaine Churches haue beene Bishops thereof For Marke the Euangelist after he had preached in Aegypt and had set vp his rest at Alexandria became B. thereof in which Episcopall function Antanus succeeded him and after him Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times much lesse doth their being of the latter sort For though the Apostle di◠distinctly reckon the functions of the Church 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4 yet in the former place he doth not so much as mention the office of Euangelists and in the latter he speaketh of those who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were called Euangelists as the foure Euangelists and perhaps also the 72 whose functions notwithstanding were not so disioyned but that as Apostles might be also Euangelists
as we see in Matthew and Iohn so Euangelists might be Bishops as we see in Marke But as for Timothie Titus the Greeke Writers expounding that place plainely say they were not Euangelists but Pastors or Bishops For they after they were placed the one in Ephesus the other in Creet did not trauaile vp and downe as in former times when they accompanied the Apostle but ordinarily remained with their flockes The Greeke Scholiast saith thus Euangelists◠that is those which did write the Gospell Pastors◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee meaneth such as had the Churches committed to them such as Timothie was such as Titus And to the same purpose both Chrysostome and Theophylact doe mention them by name Neither was it a debasing of Timothie and Titus when they were made Bishops but an aduancement Forwhereas before they were but Presbyters though called Euangelists in a large sence they were now made the Apostles of those Churches and by imposition of hands ordayned Bishops In the second place hee taketh exception against those words where I say they were furnished with Episcopall power and denieth that when Timothie Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet they receiued any new authority which before they had not or needed any such furnishing But were to exercise their Euangelesticall function in those places For so Paul biddeth Timothie after hee had beene at and gone from Ephesus to doe the worke of an Euangelist If they receiued no new authority why did Timothie receiue a new ordination by imposition of hands whereof the Apostle speaketh in two places and which the Fathers vnderstand of his ordination to be Bishop were men admitted to the extraordinarie function of Euangelists by the ordinarie meanes of imposing hands or may we thinke that any but the Apostles being not assigned as Bishops to seuerall Churches had that authority wheresoeuer they came which Timothie had at Ephesus and Titus in Creet verily Philippe the Euangelist though hee conuerted diuers in Samaria and baptized them yet had not authority to impose hands whereby men might be furnished with graces for the Ministerie but the Apostles Peter and Iohn were sent thither to that purpose And whereas Paul willeth Timothie to doe the worke of an Euangelist what is that but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospell diligently and to fulfill his Ministerie or to make it fully knowne the word Euangelist being there taken in the generall sence Now what his Ministerie was Ierome Sedulius declare Ministerium tuum imple Episcopatus scilicet Fulfill thy Ministerie that is to say as thou art a Bishop Now that their being Euangelists did not hinder them from being Bishops when ceasing from their trauailing about they were assigned to these particular Churches I proued by the testimony of Zuinglius who saith that Philip the Euangelist who had beene one of the Deacons was afterwards Bishop of Caesarea Iames the Apostle was Bishop of Ierusalem and diuers of the Apostles which may much more be verified of the Euangelists when they ceased from their peregrinations became Bishops of certaine Churches as by the ancient histories is manifest Whereto the refuter answereth two things first that Zuinglius speaketh according to the phrase of the histories and writers before him therefore say I according to the truth Or else we must thinke that none of the Fathers or ancient historiographers knew whom to call Bishops and whom not But the refuter and his fellows onely haue this knowledge Yea but a certaine learned man saith that when the Fathers call Peter or Iames or any of the Apostles Bishops they doe not take the name Bishop properly For Peter I graunt but of Iames there is another reason as I haue shewed before And although it were true that Apostles could not properly be called Bishops yet what is that to Timothie and Titus whom I haue proued notwithstanding their supposed Euangelisticall function to haue beene particularly assigned by Paul to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet where also they liued and dyed His other answere is that howsoeuer Zuinglius speake of their being Bishops it is manifest by his writings he neither thought they were and so belike spake otherwise then he thought nor any other might be a Diocesan B. as by a testimony hereafter alledged appeareth where he saith no such thing I will therefore adde another testimony of Zuinglius in the same booke when Paul said to Timothie doe the vvorke of an Euangelist Timothie was a Bishop vvherefore it is certaine according to Pauls opinion the office of an Euangelist and of a Bishop is all one After I had thus answered these two obiections I brought a new supply of arguments to proue Timothie and Titus to haue beene Bishops of Ephesus and Creet And first by occasion of his second obiection I argue thus The function and authoritie which Timothie and Titus did exercise in Ephesus and Creet was either extraordinarie and Euangelisticall as the Disciplinarians teach or else ordinarie and Episcopall as we hold But it was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Therefore ordinary and Episcopall The assumption I proued thus The supposed Euangelisticall function of Timothie and Titus was to end with their persons and admitted no succession being as themselues teach both extraordinary and temporary But the function and authority which they had as being assigned to certaine Churches viz. of Ephesus and Creet consisting especially in the power of ordination and iurisdiction was not to end with their persons but to be continued in their successors Therefore the function and authority which Timothie and Titus had as being assigned to Ephesus and Creet was not extraordinary and Euangelisticall Here the refuter would make his reder belieue that I hauing before denyed the consequence of the second obiection doe also deny the antecedent and in this place reason against it But I doe not deny they were Euangelists howsoeuer I doe not conceiue their Euangelisticall function to haue beene such and so great as the refuter and other Disciplinarians suppose and therefore I call it their supposed Euangelicall function Now that I did not intend to deny or disproue that antecedent but to bring a new supply of arguments taking occasion by the last obiection appeareth by those words which I premised as it were an introduction to this argument hereof we may conclude thus But let vs heare what he answereth Forsooth he flatly denyeth the assumption wherein though he vntruely say that I begge the question that Timothie and Titus were assigned to Ephesus and Creet as ordinarie Bishop or Pastors of those Churches for that I doe assume but conclude yet hath he nothing to disproue it but a meere begging of the question and denyall of the conclusion rather then the assumption viz. that they had no assignment to those Churches but onely as euangelists which doth not touch the assumption no more then that which followeth Neither by that Euangelisticall office
you to that which before hath been by mee alleaged Jt is euident therefore by the testimonies of Tertullian and Ierome that such was the superioritie of Bishoppes in respect of iurisdiction that the Presbyters and Deacons though the right to baptize belonged to their power of order yet they might not exercise that power without iurisdiction and authority granted them from the Bishop The like I alleaged concerning the Lords Supper Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let that Eucharist be allowed as firme and warrantable which is celebrated vnder the Bishop that is in his presence or by such namely in his absence or in those Congregations where he is not present as he should permit or appoint The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preuent the Refuters cauill who saith that the Church was but one Congregation whâ—rein no man had authoritie to minister the word or Sacraments but with the liking of the Pastor For that Eucharist which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the congregation where the Bishop was present it being administred in other congregations by such as the Bishop did authorize But the idle conceit of one onely Congregation in the greatest Churches hath beene before sufficiently refuted Where I alleged Cyprian reproouing the Presbyters of Carthage for giuing the Communion to some which had fallen in time of persecution without warrant from him though he were absent therin not regarding as they ought praepositum sibi Episcopum the Bishop who was set ouer them nec Episcopo honorem Sacerdotij sui Cathedrae seruantes nor reseruing vnto the Bishop the honour of his Priesthood and Chaire the Refuter saith the same answer which he gaue to Tertullian will serue as a poore shift for Cyprians testimonie who had iust cause to complaine that the Presbyters who in his absence were to feede the Flocke had taken vpon them to admit to the Communion c. Doth not the Refuter see his former shift will not serue the turne Is it not plaine that the Presbyters which Cyprian speaketh of who as hee saith elsewhere were cum Episcopo sacerdotali honore coniuncti ioined to the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood who were to feed the people and whose office it was to deliuer the holy Communion to the people were Ministers of the word and Sacraments Againe will it serue the turne to say either that the Presbyters had authority only in this particular of the Sacrament or that Cyprian was either but a titular or a parish B. whom I haue proued before to haue beene a Metropolitan In the end he resteth in his first answer that Cyprian is vnder age Alas good Cyprian how hard was thy happe that thou wert not Bishop one fortie yeeres sooner that the Refuter and his consorts which now haue excluded thee without the compasse of their imagined Primitiue Church might haue esteemed thy testimonie as good as Tertullians or others who wrote in the first 200. yeeres The like I might haue added concerning other ministeriall functions The second Councell of Carthage decreed that if any Presbyter without the consent of the B. should in any place agenda celebrare celebrare diuine seruice and performe such actions as belong to the ministerie hee should be deposed The Councell of Gangra pronounceth him accursed who shal performe the actions of the church meaning those things which appertaine to Gods publike seruice and the ministerie of the word and sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there being not present a Presbyter by the appointment of the Bishop The ancient Canon called the Apostles appointeth that such a Presbyter as will of his owne authoritie without the appointment of the B. hold assemblies for the seruice of God vse of the sacraments that he should be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ambitious The same hath the Councell of Antioch in the fifth Canon which Canon being recited in the Councell of Chalcedon all the BB. gaue it this acclamation This is a iust rule this is the rule of the Fathers This case being propounded in the Councell of Carthage if a Presbyter being condemned by his owne B. shall swell with pride against him and thinke he may apart celebrate the diuine seruice and offer the Communion c. the Councell determined if any Presbyter swelling with pride against his B. shall make a schisme withdrawing himselfe from the Communion of his B. c. let him be anathema For a conclusion I alleged the words of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the B. that is without his leaue and authority doe any thing that belongeth to the Church To which the Refuter maketh this one only answer of one congregation which I haue confuted more then once To proue the Bishops power and authority in correcting Presbyters in the first place I alleged Cyprian who telleth Regatianuâ— a B. who had beene abused of his Deacon that pro Episcopatus vâ—gore Cathedrae authoritate for the vigour of his Bishopricke and authority of his chaire hee might himselfe haue censured him as he thought good counselleth him if the Deacon did persist hee should exercise the power of his honor towards him and either depose him or excommunicate him Secondly Ierome maruelling that the B. where Vigilantius was Presbyter did not virga apostolica with the apostolike and with an iron rodde breake that vnprofitable vessell and deliuer him vnto the destruction of the flesh Both these the refuter casteth off as vncompetent witnesses who speake but of the practise of their owne times as who should say it had beene otherwise before their times But it is plaine almost by innumerable testimonies some whereof I will cite anon that the ancientest Canons Councels and Fathers acknowledge and allow this correctiue power in the Bishops ouer the Presbyters and Deacons in the Primitiue Church As for the Apostles times I prooue the same out of the Apocalypse but more plainely out of the Epistles to Timothe and Titus The former reason if the Refuter will giue me leaue to frame it is this Those who either are commended for examining and not suffering such in their Church as called themselues Apostles and were not or were reprooued for suffering false Teachers had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers The Angell of the Church of Ephesus is commended for the former the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reproued for the latter Therefore these Angels which before I haue proued to be BB. had a correctiue power ouer other Ministers His answer is friuolous that neither these Angels were diocesan Bishops which before hath been prooued nor these false Teachers diocesan Presbyters which word himselfe deuised for a shift Is it not against sense saith hee that the Presbyters which were subiect to the B. should call themselues Apostles If they were not subiect to him why is hee either commended for exercising