so gouerned still Whereunto I answere according to the euident light of truth that the Presbyters gouerned the Churches as vnder the Apostles and that but for a time vntill the Apostles substituted BB. or left them as their successors committing the gouernment of the seuerall Churches vnto them To the second part of his assumption I answere that the Apostles contradicted that gouernment which hee speaketh of by common counsell of Elders ruling without a B. not so much by words as by deeds when ordayning BB. in seuerall Churches they committed the whole care thereof as Ierome speaketh or at least the chiefe care and authoritie as Ignatius testifieth to them And so leauing the Refuter to rowle the stone he speaketh of I proceed to my third argument The III. CHAPTER Prouing that the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Serm. Sect. 5. pag. 65. But yet I proceede to a further degree which is to proue that the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them and therefore that the Episcopall function is without question of Apostolicall institution c. to 38. yeares pag. 69. THE refuter would faine haue me seeme to proue idem per idem but that he could not but discerne that I argue from the ordination of the persons to the institution of the function against which consequence though himselfe say that without question it is good yet I confesse he might haue taken more iust exception then he hath hitherto against any which was not of his owne making so farre is it from concluding the same by the same For he might haue said though they ordayned the persons yet Christ instituted the function and that is the iudgement of many of the Fathers who holde that our Sauiour Christ in ordayning his twelue Apostles and his seauentie two Disciples both which sorts he sent to preach the Gospell he instituted the two degrees of the ministerie BB. answering to the high Priest and Presbyters answerable to the Priests Againe those Fathers who affirme the BB. to be the successors of the Apostles doe by consequence affirme that Christ when he ordayned Apostles ordayned BB. and Cyprian in plainetermes saith so much that our Lord himselfe ordayned Apostles that is to say Bishops For the Popish conceipt that the Apostles were not made Priests till Christs last supper nor BB. till after his resurrection as it is sutable with other their opinions deuised to aduance the Popes supremacy so it is repugnant to the iudgement of the ancients contrary to the truth Seeing the very Disciples who were inferiour to the Apostles were authorized before Christs last supper to preach to baptise Neither had they or needed they any new ordination whereby they might be qualified to administer the Sacrament But of this matter I will not contend for whether the function were first ordayned by Christ or instituted by the Apostles Christ is the authour thereof either immediatly according to the former opinion or mediatly according to the latter And those things are said to be of Apostolicall institution which Christ ordayned by the Apostles The antecedent of my argument viz. that the Apostles ordayned BB. and committed the Churches to them was in the Sermon explaned and proued by shewing the time when the places where the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. As concerning the time I said there was some difference betweene the Church of Ierusalem and the rest in respect of their first Bishop For there because shortly after Christs passion a great number were conuerted to the faith for we read of three thousand conuerted in one day and because that was the mother Church vnto which the Christians from all parts were afterwards to haue recourse the Apostles before their dispersion statim post passionem Domini straight wayes after the passion of our Lord ordayned Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem as Ierome testifieth Here my refuter maketh me to argue thus culling out one part of my argumentation from the rest Iames was ordayned Bishop by the Apostles therefore the Apostles ordayned Bishops And then denieth the consequence because though Iames being an Apostle had Episcopall power in respect of ordination and iurisdiction yet it would not follow that the Apostles ordayned Diocesan Bishops in other Churches But my argument is an induction standing thus The Apostles ordayned BB. at Ierusalem and in other Churches which afterwards particularly I doe enumerate therefore they ordayned BB. That they ordayned BB. at Ierusalem I proue because they ordayned Iames the Iust and Simon the sonne of Cleophas BB. of Ierusalem That they ordayned Iames B. of Ierusalem I proue in this section That they ordained Simon the sonne of Cleophas B. of Ierusalem and Bishops in other Churches I proue afterwards according to the order of time Beginning here with Ierusalem because that Church had first a Bishop Now that Iames was by the Apostles made B. of Ierusalem I proue by these testimonies first of Ierome whose words are these Iames who is called the brother of our Lord fâ—â—named the iust straight wayes after the passion of our Lord was ordayned by the Apostles the Bishop of Ierusalem This is that Ierome on whose onely authoritie almost the Disciplinarians in this cause relye alledging out of him that Bishops were not ordayned till after the Apostles times Secondly of Eusebius and of the most ancient histories of the Church whose testimonies he citeth to this purpose first therefore he saith in generall that the histories before his time did report that to Iames the brother of our Lord surnamed the iust the throne of the Bishopricke of the Church in Ierusalem was first committed Then particularly he citeth Clemens Alexandrinus testifying that Iames Peter and Iohn after the ascension of our Sauiour did choose Iames the iust Bishop of Ierusalem Afterwards Hegesippus who was nere the Apostles times as Ierome speaketh being as Eusebius saith in the very first succession of the Apostles to the like purpose Eusebius himselfe in his Chronicle translated by Ierome hath these words Iames the brother of our Lord is by the Apostles made the first Bishop of Ierusalem Againe in his history he not onely saith that Iames called the brother of our Lord was the first Bishop of Ierusâ—â—em but also testifieth vpon his knowledge that the Episcopall throne or chaire wherein Iames sate as Bishop of Ierusalem and wherein all the BB. of that See succeeded him was yet in his time to be seene being preserued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a worthy and sacred monument And finally both in his historie and Chronicle he setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Ierusalem from Iames vnto Macarius whom he noteth to haue been the thirtie ninth Bishop of Ierusalem reckoning Iames the first and Simon the second and Iustus the third Zacheus the fourth c. Epiphanius also testifieth that Iames the Lords brother was
Bishops ouer other Ministers and so much is intended in this place To the reason if it had beene obscure hee should haue answered as Aristotle teacheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I vnderstand not For better were it to plead ignorance then to wrangle with that he doth not or will not vnderstand For I doe plainely note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians who are opposite vnto vs in this controuersie the one a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst vs who haue coyned the new-found parish discipline which commeth nearer the practise of the Brownists then of any well ordered Church of whom I spake in the former point the other a sort of graue and learned diuines such as Caluin and Beza c. who stand for that discipline which is practised in Geneua and some other reformed Churches shewing that as they doe not consent with our newe disciplinarians in the former point so they dissent from vs in the latter touching the superioritie of Bishops The refuter vnderstandeth all as a grant made by them whereof some part hee acknowledgeth to be true the rest he reiecteth as false And though in neither he doe vnderstand what was intended yet hee is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech that with one breath I blowe out both truth and falshood Neither doubteth he though meerely ignorant of that which he auoucheth to charge me with foure vntruthes denying 1. that they grant Bishops which here are called Angels to haue beene set ouer Dioceses that is to say the whole citie and countrey adioyning 2 That they teach the onely gouerning Elders to be lay or annuall 3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but presidents of the Presbyteries 4 That their presidentshippe was onely for a weeke or a moneth and that by course as being common to them in their turnes For the manifestation of the truth in all these points I shall not need to seeke further then to the writings of Caluin and Beza Sect. 14. As touching the first Caluin teacheth that in the primitiue Church when in the gouernement thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from Gods word each citie had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Doctors and that to euery citie was assigned a certaine region which should receiue their Presbyters meaning the pastors of seuerall parisnes from thence and should be accoumpied as part of that Church Euery Colledge was subiect to some one Bishop But if the countrey which was vnder his Bishopricke was larger then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop in certaine places throughout the countrey were appointed certaine Presbyters who in busines of lesse importance should be in his steed These were called Chorepiscopi because in the prouince they represented the Bishop Likewise Beza teacheth that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses was framed according to the diuision of the prouinces vnder the Romane Empier into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were precincts of gouernement which Plinie calleth conuentus iurisdictiones in the chiefe cities whereof the presidents kept their courts of iudgment of which sort Pliny reckneth 9. in Asia the lesse fiue whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse viz. Laodicea Sardes Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Neither are we saith he to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a councill or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together then from the very instinct of nature and instigation of necessitie Now saith hee in the chiefe Towne of euery Diocesse the first Presbiter who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis was called a Bishoppe in the daily common iurisdiction Praeerat caeteris tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis com-Presbyteris id est totj Diocoesi was President ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and Countrey that is the whole Diocese And because sometimes the Countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as other small Cities and Townes did neede commune inspection or ouersight they also had their Chorepiscopi that is Countrey-Bishops or Vice-Bishops For the second that they acknowledge their onely gouerning Elders to be of the Laitie it is plaine For whereas Caluin diuideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks Clerum sc. plebem the Clergie and Laitie hee plainely saith that these Elders are chosen from among the Laitie And forasmuch as being chosen they doe not become to bee of the Clergie hee must needes meane that they still continue to be of the Laitie And that hee thought they should be annuall the order of the Church of Geneua by him set downe doth declare Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together In this Citie of Geneua saith hee those gouerning Elders which in the title of the chapter hee called annuall are chosen yearely not of the baser sort of the people but out of the very order of 25.60 and 200. men which be the councills of state in Geneua 2. being chosen out of the 25.4 out of the 60. and 6. out of 200. not without the knowledge and consent of the people I say euery yeare newe are chosen or the olde confirmed So euery where saith hee in other free Churches according to the condition of the place the like choice is obserued For of the Laitie some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearely in the Low-Countreyes they are chosen for 2. yeares the halfe of them being changed euery yeare Now it may not be doubted but that those which bee of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneua being all States-men as their gouerning-Elders bee are Lay-men Againe great consideration must bee had saith Beza that Princes and Noble men and such as haue authoritie and preheminence in the Church bee chosen to be of the Seignorie And surely saith he in another place prouing that there ought to bee such Elders of the Laitie ioyned to the Ministers vnlesse some chosen men out of the bodie of the whole congregation doe sit in that assemblie whereby the whole Church is gouerned Scarcely shall the vniuersall name of that Church agree to that assemblie wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it Namely because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church should represent the whole Church His reason therefore is that as the whole Church consisteth of the Clergie and Laytie So that Senate which is to represent the whole Church must consist not onely of the Clergie but of the Laitie also And in another place he prooueth by a necessary disiunction as he thinketh that if there must bee a Presbyterie at all a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laitie Whence doe they thinke they are to be chosen if not of them whom they call Lay-men c. Thirdly that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superioritie
common to attend the whole flocke conuerted For that which is added of labouring the conuersion of the residue c. is the errour forsooth which before he noted How proueth he these points to be false Thus whome can M.D. perswade that the Apostles would either appoint or allow of such confused assemblies wherein the teachers and hearers should euery day so disorderly be changed And then putteth the like case of a schoole himselfe being worthy to be put into a cloake-bagge For in which of these points doth this orderly vnconfounded man note such disorder and confusion or was not the confused conceite he speaketh of in his own braine Let him call to mind what euen now hee said in oppugning the proposition that euery one of the churches then was but one parish which by reason of the multitude of the people had many teachers Do we not see the like saith he in the French Duch churches here in England concludeth that such Parishes there were in the Apostles times and none but such Tell me then is the French or Duch Church in London distinguished either of them into seuerall parishes which is the first point If they be how are they but one Parish Are their ministers supposing them to be as he saith many as there were many Presbyters in the Apostles times in each Church before the diuision of the parishes are they assigned to seueral titles that is parishes or cures If their Church be not diuided into diuers parishes how can their Presbyters be assigned to diuers which is the 2. point Thirdly doe not their ministers communi consilio mutuo auxilio by common counsel and mutuall helpe attend their whole flocke none of them being appointed to a seuerall charge And yet all this I hope without disorder or confusion That therefore which hee bableth in the greatest part of the page concerning disorder and confusion is wholy to be ascribed to his owne distemper and confusion Yea but M.D. telleth vs that the Presbyters were to attend the whole flocke So saith S. Luke Act. 20.28 What of that if they were to attend the whole flocke in cōmon then were they not assigned to seuerall parishes which were but parts of the flocke to which purpose the place of the Acts was quoted Doth either of them say that a flocke was any more then one ordinarie assembly and might not that be a Parish as well as a Diocesse Either of whome hee had mētioned none but S. Luke onely But let that passe For to what purpose doth he aske whether Luke said that a flocke was any more then one assembly If the flocke were but one assēbly that which I proposed is the more confirmed For if they were to attend al one assembly thē were they not assigned to seueral parishes But yet I would haue him know that the word flock the word ecclesia or church which there the word people which in other places is vsed as a word of the same signification is of a larger extēt then to signifie onely one assembly The flocke is that for which Christ the good shepheard did giue his life vnto which appertained the sheep which his father gaue him not only amōg the Iewes but the Gentiles also And this flock is that Church which God meaning Christ who is God in that place of the Acts is said to haue redeemed with his bloud that people of his which he saueth frō their sins And as this is spoken of the Church in generall so the company of them that belong to Christ in any Nation Prouince Diocesse City or Parish may bee called the Flocke the Church the people of God Neither doe I doubt for the reasons before alleadged but that the flock in which those Presbyters Act. 20. were set as ouerseers was the people belonging to God in the City of Ephesus and the Country adioyning where he saith the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ordinarily vsed of beasts and fowles that heard and flocke together I confesse it is beyond the compasse of my reading who neuer read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to fowles but haue found the word vsed properly for a flocke of sheepe and metaphorically for the flocke of Christs sheepe but that flocke is not one onely particular congregation For Luke 12.32 Iohn 10.16 as touching the word Ecclesia which he denieth to signifie any other outward company of men then a particular congregation only I haue already said more to confute that ignorant conceit then will be answered in hast But heare his conclusion if my that is if the word Ecclesia doth not signifie any other then a particular congregation what truth is there in his assumption that denieth parishes to bee distinguished he would haue said to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue been assigned to their seuerall titles or cures This conclusion I desire may be kept in remembrance vntill as you haue seene him deny it before so you shall see him againe and againe to deny it Jn the meane time I beseech you how is it inferred If the word Church signifie onely a particular congregation and such a one was that flock in which the Presbyters were set Act. 20.28 therefore there is no truth in the assumption which denieth the parishes to haue beene distinguished and the Presbyters assigned to their seuerall titles or cures Who seeth not that the contrary is to bee inferred Jf the word Church did signifie one congregation and was in euery City but one and if such was the flocke which the Presbyters were appointed to attend wholly and in common then it followeth that the flocke was not diuided into particular parishes nor the Presbyters assigned to seuerall cure◠And so the assumption by his owne inference is proued to be true This and thus weakly saith the refuter hath M.D. proued the point of so great importance And thus and thus stongly say I hath our refuter disproued it Now let the iudicious Reader iudge whether my weakenesse hath not been of sufficient force to ouerthrow his strength CHAP. V. Answering their obiection who say that in the first two hundred yeeres all the Christians in each great Citie were but one particular congregation assembling in one place NOw wee are to examine their proofes And first that which I obiected for them and then that which the Refuter bringeth for himselfe Serm. sect 4. page 19. Against this which hath been said they doe obiect that in the first two hundred yeeres c. 16 lines Here the refuter chargeth me that I making shew of taking away what euer can bee said against my assertion doe propound but one onely bare obiection whereas diuers testimonies and reasons both from scriptures and fathers haue been alleaged by others c. Thus makes he no conscience either of belying me who onely intended to answere that which I tooke to be their chiefe obiection and had of
meÌ„bers into one body which in the name of church doth not appeare But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church and to vnderstand it for the mysticall body of Christ the latter translations vsed that terme not that the other was any corruption or the latter any correction but to declare that both is one Is it not plaine that he by congregation vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church which is a gathering together of all the members into one body but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh neuer a word In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse taken from his mouth are alleadged wherein it is said that the seuen Churches were particular congregations meaning thereby that which I doe not deny particular churches and that euery particular congregation is a Church and hath priuiledges of a Church belonging to it which is also true Fiftly the great Church Bible readeth thus Iohn to the seuen Congregations Lastly D. Bilson saith that the church is neuer taken in the old or new Testament for the Priests alone but for the congregation of the faithfull From which allegations to inferre that each church is but one particular congregation is as I said most childish But those 2. out of Tindall the one that a Bishop was the gouernour but of one congregation the other that hee was the ouerseer but of a Parish to preach the word to a parish was not a childish mistaking but a wilfull misalleadging of the Author who in the former place hath no such thing Or if hee haue any where he vseth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia wherof it is the translation In the latter speaking of such a Bishop as is described 1. Tim. 3. that is of such a one as in his conceit was but a Presbyter hee saith by the authority of the gospell they that preach the word of God in euery Parish and performe other necessary ministeries haue right to challenge an honest liuing Neither is the Refuter content once to haue falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr but againe in the end of his booke hee alleadgeth him to the same purpose After hee hath thus doughtily proued his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius Tertullian and Eusebius concerning others Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians that they would all come together into one place to praier all as with vs that belonged to the same congregation And perswading the Philadelphians to vnity exhorteth them that they would vse one faith one preaching one eucharist because the body of Christ is one and his bloud one one cup and one bread one Altar for the whole Church and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons for there is but one God the Father c. one faith one baptisme and one Church which the Apostles haue founded from one end of the world to another c. In which words none fauoureth the Refuters conceit but that of one altar seruing for the whole Church the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table which is not likely and too much sauoureth of popery But by one altar is meant Christ who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations and maketh them acceptable to God as Ignatius expoundeth himselfe in his Epistle to the Magnesians all as one runne together into the Temple of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto one Iesus Christ as it were vnto one altar But that which he alleageth out of the same Epistle that they were to gather themselues together into one place to chuse their Bishop if it were rightly alleaged would proue not their ordinary and parishionall but extraordinary and panegyricall meeting to such an end but this needed not their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his iourny towards Rome as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle as it were vpon an honourable ambassage from the Church as were the BB. of other Churches But he saith it becometh you as being a Church of God to doe as other Churches haue done that is as he sheweth in the words following to appoint a Bishop that he may 〈◊〉 Antioch performe the â—mbassage of God that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place to glorifie the name of God From whence also the Reâ—uter gathereth that a Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people that are together in one place Which is true so oft as he preacheth But Ignatius meaneth nothing lesse then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch but onely willeth them to send a Bishop as it were vpon ambassage thither His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the Sâ—yrneans where he writeth to the same purpose that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace the persecutors contenting themselues to haue taken him who was their ringleader from among them he exhorteth them to ordaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacred Ambassador who when he should come into Syria should reioice with them because they had peace Tertullâ—â—â— also is made to speake for them as though he said the Christian Churches were all one body and came all together into a company and congregation By which testimony if it were truely alledged all Christian Churches as they are one body of Christ so all should meet together to make one parish His words be these I will now set forth the practises of the Christian party That hauing refuted the euils obiected I may declare the good We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion in the truth of discipline or doctrine and the couenant of hope We come together into a company and coÌ„gregation Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times which in euery Church are diuided into seuerall congregations Out of Eusebius hee hath nothing to alledge but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered that he calleth the Church of Ierusalem the parish of Ierusalem the Church of Alexandria the parish of Alexandria c. To which J answere that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he calleth none of them a parish as we vnderstand the word parish In the place which hee quoteth concerning Ierusalem Eusebius saith that after the martyrdome of Iames who no doubt from an Apostle had been preferred to bee a parish Bishop because he was Christs kinsman the Apostles and disciples of Christ which yet remained did from all places come together with those who were of Christs kinred to consult whom they might thinke worthy to bee Iames his successor and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the sonne of Cleophas as worthy the throne of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Church because he also was our Sauiours kinsman All this was done no doubt in a parish meeting to set a parish B.
contrary which order Beza misliketh not but sometimes wisheth it were restored then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches then now they doe In the meane time as their Church is a diocesse and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse so the President for the time being is diocesan But whether that be so or not once Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points It may be saith he for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres But the conscience must ground it selfe vpon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God As though we were destitute thereof and they contrariwise for their discipline had the precept and practise of the Apostles Which well may they take for granted but neuer will bee able to prooue and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement ioined with a good conscience what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles For if any man shall say that all the Apostolicall Churches and all the godly Fathers and glorious Martyrs did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed I doubt not to say of such a man that as hee is void of modesty so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vs will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged the title whereof is this Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy The which as he saith in the beginning will represent vnto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution For although the Bishops of those times made many canons whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word that you may easily perceiue that they had almost nothing in this behalfe dissâ—nant froÌ„ the word of God This is a good testimony you will say giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church but doth hee testifie that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto that shall you now heare And first concerning the Presbyteries hee saith as before I alleaged euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers c. The Refuter repeateth the words which I cited out of Caluin thus that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers Thereof giuing this censure Crafâ—ily or carelesly is this spoken The former if wittingly hee left out onely the latter if he did not heed it Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders No man can be so ignorant or so shamelesse as to say that Caluin was of opinion that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onely either in the Apostles times or in the age following What shall become of mâ—â— now no man being so ignorant and shamelesse I hope to salue both presentlie I confesse good sir that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17 I confesse also that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church he saith coldly and in few words the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church he giueth full testimony to the truth For can any man vnderstand Caluin as saying they had any other Presbyery besides the colledge of Presbyters in euery Church Doth not Caluin plainly say euery citie had their colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers Yes that he doth but the word only was either craftily or carelesly omitted Heare then the words of Caluin Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium qui pastores erant ac Doctores Nam apud populuÌ„ munus docendi exhortandi corrigendi quod Paulus episcopis iniungit omnes obibant quo semen post se relinquerent iunioribus qui sacra militae nomen dederant crudiendis nanabant operam Euery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters who were Pastors and Teachers For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching exhorting and correcting which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes and also that they might leaue a seed behind them they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort who had giuen their names to serue in the sacred warfare that is the younger sort of the Clergy Thus therefore J reason The Colledge of Presbyters according to Caluins iudgement consisted onelie of Ministers The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters Therefore the Presbyterie of each City according to Caluins iudgement consisted onely of Ministers The assumption is euident The proposition himselfe proueth when hee saith omnes all of them exercised the officâ— of teaching c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. c. What can be more plaine For where there are none but Ministers there are Ministers only where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people which Paul inioyned Bishops and instructing the younger sort of the clergy there are none but Ministers Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching c. there are Ministers only As touching the second Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following Vnicuique ciuitaâ—i erat attributa certa regio qua Presbyteros iude sumeret velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur To euery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country which from thence should receiue their Presbyters and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church What can be more plaine that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning that both citie and country made but one Church as it were one body whereof the head was the citie the other members the parishes in the country that the Presbyteries were only in cities and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter when they wanted from thence Who therefore to vse his owne words could be either so ignorant as not to see or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses How doth he auoid this Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses But doth he not meane dioceses when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church No doth he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities of which the Bishops were Presidents As for country parishes they had not Presbyteries but seuerall Presbyters and those they had as Caluin saith from the Presbytery of the citie Besides when he maketh the citie and country to be
but one body it cannot be doubted but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body and the rest of the parts subiect vnto it Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse where it was large as the Bishops deputy in the country subiect to him But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe let the Church of Geneua framed thereby testâ—fie Which is as much a diocesse now as when it was vnder a Bishop there being but one Presbytery vnto which all the parishes are subiect But let vs heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to haue acknowledged in this behalfe He neither nameth dioceses nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church but onely acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen to be not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience being conuicted with euidence of truth but desirous to make a shew of opposition when they know not what to say against it Doth not Caluin plainly say that to each cittâ— was attributed a certaine region and that both were one Church as it were one body To what purpose doth he then say that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake c. Is not his answere in effect this Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses and that the Bishops had vnder their charge both the citie and country adioyning for that also he confesseth in the next point but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of that is I confesse he 〈◊〉 with you in the second and third point as you say but yet in the fourth which also you confesse he dissenteth from you Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly when he saith not a diocesan but a titular Bishop For was not the Bishop a diocesan if his Church was a diocesse if he had vnder his charge both the city and country adioyning Yea but he was not a diocesan but a titular Bishop Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to haue been only President of the Presbytery like to the Consull in the senate of Rome which you call a titular B. wherein being the fourth point he dissenteth from vs yet doth he acknowledge that vnder his Bishopricke was contained both the citie and country and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse be not a diocesan Bishop His testimony therefore to the third is cleere especially if you adde that which followeth concerning the Châ—repiscopi or country Bishops For Caluin saith If the country which was vnder his Bishopricke were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in euery place rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place Which is a most pregnant testimony both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan For if euery parish had sufficient authority within themselues what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnder his Bishopricke Why doth he say that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey But what saith the Refuter to this he confesseth not ingenuously but as it were 〈◊〉 Minerua as if it stuck in his teeth that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose But that somewhat is as good as nothing for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops O impudency neither doth he speake of the Apostles 〈◊〉 of which all the question is for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the 〈◊〉 of gouernment All the question concerning the Apostles times doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares And if nothing will settle the coÌ„science but what is alledged from the Apostles times what haue you to settle your conscience for your opinion who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times nor afterwards But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter seeing I haue heretofore proued that the circuit of euery Bishops charge was from the beginning as great if not greater then afterwards And if nothing may be in the Church but as it was in the Apostles times then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity because none was then and as well might they alleage that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith because none was in the Apostles times as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church because it was not so in the Apostles times Thus haue I manifestly proued that Caluâ—â— giueth testimony to the first point and in the two latter that he wholly agreeth with vs. So doth â—eza as I haue shewed before testifying the Churches were dioceseâ— and that in the chiefe towne of euery diocesse the first Presbyter who afterwards began to be called a Bishop hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times was set ouer his fellow Presbyters both of the Citie and countrey that is the whole diocesse And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vpon euery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection or ouer sight they had also their Chorepiscopi that is countrey or vice-Bishops Yea but saith he being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vs it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all seeing he affiâ—meth withall that they were but humane ordinances and aberrations from the word of God That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree which is the fourth point wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vs and from the truth supposing it to be of custome and humane constitution that the â—â—futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment when as he plainely testifies that with so great 〈◊〉 they had composed the gouernment that there 〈…〉 it almost dissâ—nant from the word of God Doâ—◠〈◊〉 where say or insinuate that it is an aberration from the word of God either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region being portion of the same Church Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey It will neuer be shewed And now are we come to his conclusion containing a most vaine braâ—ge proceeding either from pitifull ignorance or extreme vnconscionablenes That hauing answeared my arguments in such sort as you haue heard and wanting indeed proofs worth the producing he shal not need the vntruth of this third point is so euident to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion And so I leaue him
I shew that Bishops not onely were in the Apostles times but also were approued by them That they were in respect of their function approued I proue by the examples of the 7. Angels approued by S. Iohn or rather by our Sauiour Christ of Epaphroditus the Apostle or B. of the Philippians who therefore is not mentioned in the inscription of that Epistle because the Epistle was sent by him commended by S Paul as his compatner both in his function and in affliction and the Philippians commanded to haue in honour such Iames the Iust B. of Ierusalem approued of all Archippus the B. of Colossa approued of Paul Antipas who had beene B. of Pergamus commended by the holy Ghost To none of these hath the Refuter any thing to say but to Epaphroditus whom he would not therefore haue thought to haue beene a Diocesan B. because Paul calleth him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow workâ—-man nor that the Apostle meant to equall him to himselfe in the Apostleship for Epaphroditus was none c. Though that word doth not proue it neither was it alledged to that end but as one of the titles of commendation giuen to Epaphroditus yet the word Apostle which I alledged doth proue it neither should the Refuter haue balked that to lay hold vpon another vnlesse it were to deceiue the simple It is therefore to be noted that as the twelue Patriarches of Christs Church which were sent into the whole world some going one way some another were called the Apostles of Christ and not the Apostles of any Church in particular excepting Iames who was the Apostle of the Iewes so those Apostolicall men who were set ouer particular Churches as the Bishops thereof were for a time called the Apostles of those Churches So Paul calleth Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians and therefore it was malepertly said by the Refuter that he was not an Apostle But of this more hereafter Before I ended this point I thought it needfull to meet with that obiection which ordinarily is made out of Ierome by them who vnderstand him as if he had said that Bishops were not ordayned in the Apostles times But I shew both by the place it selfe which they alledge and by conference of other places in Ierome that hee plainely confesseth BB. to haue been ordayned in the Apostles times Ierome therfore confesseth in the place which is vsually obiected that when factions began to arise in the Church some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. it was decreed in the whole world and therefore by the Apostles for who should in the Apostles times make such a generall decree but the Apostles yea and Ierome himselfe calleth the Episcopall function a tradition Apostolicall that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest vnto whom the care of the whole Church should appertaine Whereunto I added his confession of the same truth in other places For he confesseth that Iames the Iust shortly after the Passion of Christ was made Bishop of Ierusalem and continued B. there thirtie yeares euen vntill his death In the same Catalogue it is confessed that Simon succeeded the said Iames in the Bishopricke and that Timothie was B. of Ephâ—sus and Titus of Creet and Polycarpe of Smyrna in S. Iohns time that Linus Anacletus and Clemens were BB. of Rome Hee confesseth also that at Alexandria euer since S. Marke there had beene BB. chosen successiuely that S. Marke was the first B. of the Church at Alexandria and that Anianus succeeded him After whom there were two more Abilius and Cerdo in the Apostles times It is most plaine therefore that Ierome acknowledgeth BB. to haue beene in the Apostles time Now let vs see what tricke the Refuter hath to auoide such plaine euidence Forsooth because these testimonies were as he saith not knowing indeed nor greatly caring what he affirmeth brought in by me out of order and some of them come to be handled againe he will answere generally and briefly that the Bishops Ierome speaketh of were not Diocesan Lords but such as himselfe describeth where hee sheweth the custome of the Church of Alexandria c. Whether they were called Lords or not it is not greatly materiall seeing they were called the Angels and the Apostles of the Churches which are titles of greater honour neither doth it appertaine to the substance of their calling in regard whereof I defend the ancient Bishops to haue beene such as ours are And such doth Ierome describe them in the place which the Refuter meaneth For hee plainly noteth the Bishop to haue beene but one in a whole Church or Diocese to whom the care of the whole Church did belong superiour also to the Presbyters in degree c. The Refuter hauing answered my second argument in such sort as you haue heard taketh his turne to reply and that thus That gouernment which euen in the Apostles times was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches and was not contradicted by them was of Apostollicall institution The gouernment by common consent of Elders was vsed euen in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches and not contradicted by them Therefore the gouernment by the common consent of Elders was of Apostolicall institution The Proposition saith he is sure on our side though it was not of his See â—ee homo homini quantum praestat that which is weake in my hand is strong in this The truth it selfe belike is so partiall as that it is true onely in his mouth For the strengthening of the assumption saith hee besides that which before I answered Sect. 3. which was besides the testimonie of Cyprian and Ierome before answered an allegation of some new Writers who are parties in the cause I will adde the testimonies of B. Whitgift D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe and D. Downame himselfe all speaking to the truth thereof He should haue done well to haue cited these testimonies so would it haue appeared that we spake according to the truth but not according to his meaning which is vntrue But I answere to his assumption and first to the former part of it by distinction If by Elders he meaneth the onely gouerning Elders as well as Ministers as hee doth or else he saith little for the pretended discipline I answere that the Church was neuer gouerned by the common Counsell of such Aldermen neither did Cyprian and Ierome testifie it nor D. Bilson D. Sutcliffe or D. Downame confesse it If by Elders he meane onely Ministers as Ierome did when he said at the first the Churches before factions did arise were gouerned by the common counsell of Elders two things may be questioned first whether this gouernment of theirs were vnsubordinate according to the new discipline and secondly whether the Apostles did intend that the Churches should be
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
not onely said but proued also both in the preface conclusion of the sermon that it is both profitable and necessarie The third It is necessarie indeed to be confuted As if he had said it is necessarie indeed to be confuted therefore it is most needfull to be answered Of these reasons the two first he proueth in the words following the third being as you see nothing else but an absurd begging of the question The first he proueth by diuerse arguments such as they be First then the doctrine of the SermoÌ„ is proued to be vtterly false because it is repugnant to the truth to the word of truth to the scripture of truth But how after al these ridiculous amplifications is the doctrine of the sermon proued to be repugnant to the word of truth he had rather take it for granted then that you should put him to proue it But I shall make it cleare in this defence of my sermon that as there is not a sillable in the scripture to proue the pretended discipline so the Episcopall function hath good warrant in the word of God But when in the second place he proueth the doctrine of the sermoÌ„ to be vtterly false because it is coÌ„trary to the iudgement practise of the prime Churches next after Christ his Apostles I caÌ„not tel whether to woÌ„der at more the blindnesse or the impudencie of the man Seeing I haue made it manifest that the gouernement of the Church by BB. hath the full consent of antiquitie there being not one testimonie of the ancient writers for their Iudgement nor one example of the primitiue churches for their practise to be alleadged to the contrarie How durst he mention the iudgement and practise of the primitiue Church for the triall of the truth in this question when there is not one testimonie for the preteÌ„ded discipline nor one example of it in all antiquitie let them bring any one pregnant either testimonie or example and I will yeeld in the whole cause And where he addeth that it is contrarie to the iudgement and practise of all reformed Churches since the reestablishing of the Gospell by the worthies in these latter times is it not strange that a maÌ„ professing sinceritie should so ouerreach seeing a farre greater part of the reformed Churches is gouerned by BB. and Superintendents then by the presbyterian discipline as I haue shewed in the latter ende of this booke But he addeth foure notorious vntruthes concerning our owne land saying that it is against the doctrine of our Martyrs contrarie to the professed iudgement of all our worthie writers contrariant to the lawes of our land and contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England The first he expresseth thus Against the doctrine of our immediate forefathers some of whom were worthy Martyrs he quoteth in the Margent Latimer Cranmer c who in their submission to king Henry the 8. at the abolishing of the Popes authoritie out of England acknowledge with subscription that the disparitie of Ministers Lordly primacy of B B. was but a politicke deuise of the Fathers not any ordinance of Christ Iesus and that the gouernement of the Church by the Minister certaine Seniors or Elders in euery parish was the ancient discipline Which allegations would make a faire shew if they might passe vnexamined The witnesses which he quoteth for both were Archbishop Cranmer other BB. who allowing the Episcopall function both in iudgement and practise it is almost vncredible that any testimonies can from them be soundly alleadged against the same And I doe greatly wonder at the large conscience of our reâ—uter in this behalfe who throughout the booke taketh wonderfull libertie in citing Authors alleadging as their testimonies his owne conceits which he brought not from their writings but to them For the former he alleageth the booke of Martyrs whereunto that part of the BB. booke which he mentioneth is inserted which hauing pervsed I finde nothing at all concerning the superioritie of BB. ouer other Ministers that which is said concerneth the superioritie of BB. among themselues all whom with the ancient Fathers I do confesse in respect of the power of Order to be equall as were also the Apostles whose successours they are But we may not inferre because the Apostles were equall among themselues that therefore they were not superiour to the 72. disciples or because BB. are equall among themselues that therefore they are not superiour to other ministers For the latter he quoteth the book called Reformatio legum EcclesiasticaruÌ„ Which was a proiect of Ecclesiasticall lawes which if King Edward the 6. had liued should haue been set forth by his authoritie drawne by Archbishop Cranmer B. May other Commissioners and penned as is supposed by D. Haddon In alleadging whereof whiles the refuter goeth about to make the reader belieue that they stood for Lay-Elders and the pretended parish-discipline he plaieth the part of an egregious falsifier And forasmuch as sometimes in his booke he citeth the 10. and 11. chapters I will transcribe the same the bare recitall beeing a sufficieÌ„t coÌ„futation of his forged allegatioÌ„s For amoÌ„g other orders to be obserued in parochijs vrbanis in parishes which be in cities which begin at the 6. chapter of that title de diuin off in the tenth this order is prescribed CoÌ„fectis precibus vespertinis c. euening prayers being ended whereunto after the Sermon there shal be a concourse of all in their owne Churches the principall Minister whoÌ„ they call Parochum the Parson or Pastor the Deacon if perhaps they be present or in their abseÌ„ce the Ministers Vicar Seniors are to coÌ„sult with the people how the money prouided for godly vses may best be bestowed and to the same time let the discipline be reserued For they who haue committed publike wickedness to the common offence of the Church are to be called to the knowledge of their sinne and publikely to be punished that the Church by their holesome correction may be kept in order Moreouer the Minister going a side with some of the Seniors or Ancients of the parish shall take counsell how others whose maners are said to be naught and whose life is found out to be wicked first may be talked withall in brotherly charity according to Christs precept in the Gospell by sober and honest men by whose admonitions if they shall reforme themselues thankes is duely to be giuen to God But if they shall goe on in their wickednes they are to receiue such sharpe punishment as we see in the Gospell prouided against their contumacie Then followeth the 11. chapter how excommunication is to be exercised But when the sentence of excommunication is to be pronounced first the Bishop is to be gone vnto and his sentence to be knowne Who if he shall consent and put too his authoritie the sentence of excommunication is to be denounced before the whole congregation that therein so
Episcopall to be of Apostolicall and diuine Institution yet not as generally perpetually and immutably necessarie But the pretended discipline is held by the fauourers of it so to be enioyned by diuine right that it ought generally in all places and perpetually in all ages and also immutably to be obserued as being not chaÌ„geable by man And so farre doe they differ from the Kings iudgement that whereas the King thinketh the Church may be framed to the CoÌ„mon-wealth they say the gouernement of the Common-wealth must be fashioned to the Church But to fashion the Church to the Common-wealth is as much to say as if a man should fashion his house according to his hangings And thus much hath he gained by his third vntruth The fourth remaineth Lastly it is a doctrine contrarying the doctrine of the Church of England professed euen by the BB. themselues till of late daâ—es c. therefore vtterly false To this Antecedent I giue no credit though for proofe therof hee citeth B. Iewell and Archbishop Whitgift at randon For the doctrine of our Church appeareth best by the Articles and confession of our Church First therefore the booke of consecrating BB. Priests and Deacons which is approued Article 36. saith It is euident vnto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there haue beene these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Of which orders it is afterwards said that God by his holy spirit hath appointed them in his Church And againe the Bishop is required to correct and punish according to such authoritie as he hath by Gods word such as be vnquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocesse Likewise the confession of the English Church collected out of the Apology thereof written by Bishop Iewel We belieue that there be diuerse degrees of Ministers in the Church whereof some be Deacons some Priests some Bishops c. And it is to be noted that our Church acknowledgeth nothing as a matter of faith which is not coÌ„tained in Gods word or grounded thereon Againe if it were true that the Bishops hauing better informed themselues concerning their functions had reformed their iugdemeÌ„ts according to the holy Scriptures and other writings of Antiquitie would it follow that their latter thoughts which commonly are the wiser according to the old saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were false and worthie to be confuted And lastly if this be a true proposition which in the refuters Enthymeme is vnderstood that what is repugnant to the doctrines formerly taught in the Church of England is euidently false though it agree with the present doctrine thereof how worthy then is the pretended discipline to be reiected which is contrarie to the perpetuall doctrine of this Church both former and latter especially the discipline of the newest stampe I meane the new-found parish discipline published by the challengers of disputation Anno 1606 maintained by this refuter which neither agreeth with our Church nor as I suppose with any other reformed Church in the world His second reason whereby hee would proue that the doctrine contained in my Sermon was needfull to be confuted is because he saw it to be daÌ„gerous And that he proueth by 2. reasons The former because howsoeuer he had said in the former reason that it is euidently false and so not dangerous now he saith the doctrine is by mee so handsomely and likely handled that it is so farre from being euidently false that euery word I speake hath such an appearance and promise of truth that in imitation of Bishop Iewel against Harding hee thinkes he may fitly vse Socrates his words against his accusers or as I thinke more fitly the words of Agrippa to Paul who had vttered no vntruth that I had almost perswaded him to be of my minde But more fitly may I alledge the very next words of Socrates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Among many things which my aduersarie hath obiected against me falsely I maruell much at this one that hee willeth the Readers take heed they be not deceiued by me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as my aduersaries words may expound it one that can tell his tale so handsomely and carrie the matter so smoothly likely and confidently that although he vtter neuer a word of truth yet euery word hee speaketh hath an appearance and promise of truth For both my Sermons and writings shewe that I affect not the perswasorie words of humane wisedome and eloquence but the plaine stile of simple truth And therefore am no more then Socrates himselfe in that regard to be suspected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnlesse my aduersaries call him an eloquent man and powerfull in speech who speaketh the truth Secondly he proueth my doctrine to be dangerous by an induction or particular enumeration of the hurts which as he imagineth were like to come to the Church of God thereby if it were not confuted The Papists saith hee would be much aduantaged seeing that Antichristian doctrine euen after the renewing and reuiuing of their ceremonies among vs so freely preached and published tending to the vpholding of their Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as ours his reasons being indeed the very same with theirs as in the answere to them it shall appeare The aduantage which ariseth to the Papists by this doctrine preached and the ceremonies still retained among vs may through Gods blessing be this That when they see vs not so new-fangled as our Opposites nor so carried with hatred to their persons as to depart further from them then they haue departed from the primitiue Church but are content to obserue the ancient gouernement and lawfull Ceremonies vsed in the primitiue Church though retained by them they may be induced to ioyne with vs in reforming the Church according to the doctrine and example of the ancient and primitiue Church And whereas he calleth our doctrine defending the calling of BB Antichristian and the ceremonies vsed among vs Popish it is meerely spoken out of faction after the vsuall fashion of our Opposites who call their owne doctrine and pretended discipline though lately deuised Gods owne cause the Discipline of Christ their pleading for it a giuing testimonie to this part of the word of his grace but ours though truely Catholicke and Apostolicall they tearme Antichristian and in their late writings they call the Hierarchy of our church Dagon the tower of Babell the triple headed Cerberus the restoring of BB the building vp again the walles of Iericho my self other Ministers of the Gospel pleading for the gouernement established they compare to Achabs 400. prophets and such as plead for Baal Yea but our doctrine tendeth to the vpholding of the Popish Hierarchy from the Pope to the Apparitor as well as of ours God forbid In the Popish Clergy aboue BB. and Archbishops
he wil acquaint you with his maner of performance which in general he confesseth to haue bene done in much weakenesse and many wants neither do I denie it But he might to his ouersight proceeding from ignorance weakenesse haue added his wilfull falsificatioÌ„s deprauatioÌ„s his forged calumniations his Sophisticall shifts and euasions to elude the light of truth conuicting his conscience But though he would seeme to acknowledge much weakenesse and many wants it was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of an affected modestie for his conceit is which hee shameth not to vtter that hee hath brought euidence sufficient I warrant you to make it manifest hee doubteth not of it that the doctrine in my Sermon is nothing lesse then true profitable and necessarie that my Preface is full of wittie calumniations to make them and their cause odious and that my Sermon notwithstanding my great boasting hath in it no one sound syllable of argument to proue my cause and disproue theirs What euidence he bringeth I shall not need here to relate this defence of my Sermon will make it manifest That I vsed either calumniations to make them and their cause odious or any great boasting which he talketh of I vtterly denie Who it is that vseth either calumniations the examination of his booke will bewray or boasting the very forefront of his booke this present place and many others besides doe testifie But I much disdaine that he should say that there was not a syllable of any sound proofe in my SermoÌ„ as before he had said that in my sermoÌ„ I vttered scarse any one word of truth The proofes which I haue vsed are such I take God to witnesse as satisfie mine owne conscience And I trust I may without any great boasting assume vnto my selfe as good skill to iudge of an argument as this refuter or some others of his side Of his blasphemie against the truth which I deliuered I pray God giue him grace to repent And what was it that he hath thus censured A Sermon vttered in the presence of God in the roome of Christ before a most honourable auditorie by a Minister of the Gospell shall I say as sound and faithfull as himselfe no I disdaine the comparison for by his fruites in his booke whereby alone I can iudge of him he hath to my seeming plainely bewrayed an vnsound iudgement an euill conscience and an vnsanctified heart I trust I may say by a Minister of the Gospell as sound and orthodoxall as his betters as conscionable in all Sermons writings and as carefull to deliuer nothing but the truth of God Me thinkes he should rather haue trembled to thinke of confuting a Sermon of such a one as he iudging according to the iudgement of charitie cannot denie to be a faithfull Minister and Orthodoxall diuine then haue dared thus to censure it as hauing scarce one word of truth and not one syllable of a sound proofe Is this the reuerent estimation that you would worke in the peoples minds of the word preached or must they thinke that none make conscience of preaching the truth but your selues But if it shall appeare to any indifferent and iudicious Reader comparing this my defence with his refutation of my Sermon that hee hath not beene able to disproue any one of my proofes nor to coÌ„uince me of any one vntruth throughout the whole body of my Sermon as in my conscience I am perswaded he hath not then doe those two censures of his the one that thereis scarce a true word the other that there is not one syllable of a sound proofe in all the Sermon containe so many vntruthes as there are sentences or proofes in the whole Sermon More particularly he telleth you both what he did not and what he hath done He hath made no large discourses to teach ouer anew the discipline of Christ so hee doubteth not to call their owne deuises onely he hath said what the Author of the abortiue booke and himselfe with their Coadiutors were able to say either for it or against the gouernement by Bishops The thing which he hath done is that he hath fulfilled my desire in applying distinctly his answeres to my arguments But my desire was not that he should balke those which he could not answere or depraue and weak on those which he did by fitting them to his owne strength Neither desired I alone that their answeres might be applied to euery argument in order but also that their proofes might be produced But forasmuch as hee had none such as I told them theirs had need to be that is to say very pregnant and demonstratiue whereby they might hope to perswade both the abolishing of that forme of gouernement which euen from the Apostles times hath beene perpetually obserued in the Church and setting vp of another which was neuer heard of till now of late therfore in the chiefe points of controuersie he hath beene for prooe need very sparing to vse any other proofe besides the testimonies of newe Diuines who are incompetent witnesses in a question of story concerning things done or not done 14. or 1500. yeares before their time themselues also for the most part being parties in the cause Now follow his directions to the Reader And first that he should wâ—igh my arguments with his answeres and compare the one with the other belieuing neither further then euidence truely produced leadeth him the which direction I earnestly desire the Reader in the feare of God to follow not to regard his calumniation whereby he seeketh to worke in him a preiudicate opinion against me most falselie charging me that as another Pythagoras I seeke to be belieued vpon mine owne word without authoritie and good reason For whether of vs seeketh more to be belieued without proofes I dare appeale to his iudgement when he hath perused what is alledged on both sides Howbeit I must needs say he giueth the Reader a good proofe in this place of his dexteritie in alleadging testimonies when to proue that in disputation credit is not to be giuen to him that speaketh without good proofe hee citeth Ierome and Tertullian disswading men from giuing credit to fame an vncertaine rumors His second direction is vnreasonable and the reasons thereof such as both contradict what he said euen now and are contradicted by that which he affirmeth afterwards If thou findest saith he no sufficiencie in his reasons to inforce thee to acknowledge his doctrine for true iustly thinke with thy selfe it is not else where to be had This is an vnreasonable motion that the weight of the whole cause should lye vpon one short Sermon vttered by so meane a man as my selfe What reasons can he bring to perswade the Reader to accept this motion forsooth all men knowe me to be a Scholler Not vnlike for so haue I beene euer since I was fiue yeares old But what manner of Scholler our Refuter will tell
you in the very beginning of the confutation of my Sermon such a one as in this Sermon doe shewe my selfe to be little worth yea miserable poore indeed His other reason is that I hauing professed that I had read the chiefe treatises on both sides the Reader may be sure that in my Sermon is the pith and substance of all that all of vs can say either for our selues or against them But how can this be seeing he chargeth me to speake without proofe and that there is not one sound syllable of proofe in all the Sermon and that I seeke to be credited vpon my bare word like an other Pythagoras without authoritie or good reason Neither is it possible that all which all of vs can say can be comprised in so short a Sermon Wherefore if the Reader be not satisfied with that which I haue written let him haue recourse to the writings of men more learned and iudicious who are able to giue him better satisfaction Howbeit this offer I will make him that if in my Sermon and this defence thereof there be not better euidence for the Episcopall gouernement then is to be found for the pretended discipline I say not in the refuters booke but in all the writings of the Disciplinarians I will be well content that he shall credit me in nothing There remaineth his Epilogue consisting partly of prayer vnto God that he would open our eyes to see his truth and sanctifie our hearts vnto the loue of it and that hee would grant vs his peace and partly of praise and thankesgiuing in the last words Whereunto as I most willingly subscribe and say Amen so am I to giue this warning that we pray not with fained lippes asking that with our mouthes which neither we desire in our hearts nor seeke in our liues For it will not suffice vs in that day of the Lord that we haue desired him either to open our eyes to see the truth if we doe shut our eyes against it or to sanctifie our hearts vnto the loue of it if when our consciences be conuicted with the euidence of truth we cease not to oppugne it or to sue for peace when we be so farre from ensuing it that when our brethren either speake vnto vs of peace we make our selues readie to battle or secke to heale the rupture and Schisme which is in our Church wee Schâ—matically and factiously endeuour to make it worse And thus haue I answered his preface As for his answere to mine being a meere libell consisting of notorius cauillations malicious calumniations and personall inuectiues forasmuch as there is not any materiall thing in it which is not fully answered in the defence of my Sermon I will not vouchsafe a reply vnto it the rather because my defence of the Sermon it selfe being growne to a greater volume then at the first I intended I should greatly wrong both the Reader and my selfe if I should hold him or trouble my selfe with personall discourses which if I should followe the refuters veine would require a newe volume In making whereof I would be loth to be imployed seeing personall quarrells breed endles fruitles contentions being the chiefe blemish of all books of controuersie ought in handling of controuersies wholy to be forborne Besides I doe consider that he being in the darke and my selfe in the light it would be a very vnequall combat for me to contend with him in this kind Whereinto also though I did knowe his person as indeed I doe not I should be loth to descend seeing thereby we should but present a pleasant spectacle to the common aduersarie who would take no small delight in beholding vs casting mire and dirt to besmere one another to the disgrace of our common faith But if any shall obiect that it is a great disgrace and disparagement vnto me to passe ouer in silence such reproaches as in the answere to my preface and confutation of my Sermon hee hath cast vpon me he shall say nothing but what mine owne corruption hath alreadie obiected Whereunto I answer that it behoueth me to commit to the presse and by it to commend not onely to the generation present but also to the posteritie not what my aduersarie deserueth to heare but what becommeth me to write that our Sauiour Christ by his owne example and precept hath taught vs when we are reuiled not to reuile againe that in this kind of contention it is better to be vanquished then to ouercome that the testimonie of mine owne coÌ„science of all that best knowe me wil be a sufficieÌ„t defence against flanders that it is a happie thing to be euill spoken of for well doing For my conscience is clearely and vndoubtedly resolued that I defend the truth and it beareth me witnes that the end which I propounded to my selfe in publishing that Sermon was the peace of the Church which I hoped to procure by giuing satisfaction to those that were of a contrarie iudgement Neither doe I doubt but my endeuour in this kind though vngratefull to some whose good I intended is acceptable to God and to his Church Wherefore in steed of answering that which is past I will aduise them for the time to come that if they would be esteemed men of sinceritie who seeke to keepe their consciences cleare both towards God men they would when they publish any booke especially such as they dare not set their names vnto haue especiall regard that they seeke not to defame or disgrace any mans person least they make themselues guiltie of that most base and odious crime of libelling which is so much worse in print then in writing as the presse is more fit to diuulge then the pen least they subiect themselues to the fearefull curse of God for smiting their neighbour secretly least by their bitternes and railing which are fruits of the flesh they bewray theÌ„selues not to be led by the spirit of Christ nor to be in the number of them which shal be saued For howsoeuer they may perswade theÌ„selues as some of them haue professed in print that in these secret practices both the Author and Printer are like Ieremie and Baruch hidden of God yet they discouer themselues to be such hiders of themselues as the Psalmist complaineth of that hauing bent thier tongue or that which is worse their pen or presse as a bowe of slander they shoote in steed of arrowes bitter words shooting at the vpright in secret and feare not Besides they doe expose themselues to this inconuenience that whereas those who shall vouchsafe them answere would if they knewe them respect them according to the measure of Gods graces which they should acknowledge in them by these libelling courses they drawe vpon themselues such answeres as are fit to be returned vpon libellers Truely for my part if I had knowne the person of the refuter and could in the iudgement of charity haue
acknowledged him to be a man of a good spirit I would haue answered him sometimes with better respect But seeing I knowe him no otherwise but by his fruites as he is the Author of this worke wherein he hath shewed himselfe to be in points materiall a very cauilling Sophister and in matters personall a malicious libeller let him take such answeres as doe not like him not as directed to his person which I knowe not but to the person or vizard vnder which he masketh of a wrangling Sophister and a spitefull libeller to whom the sharpest answeres which I haue made are but too milde THE FIRST BOOKE TREATING CHIEFELY of Lay-Elders CHAP. I. Answering the Refuters Preamble THE refuter before he would encounter the Sermon it selfe thought good to spend some of his splene vpon the Author of the Sermon the matter and the text proudly insulting ouer the Author scornefully gibing at the matter and captiously carping at the choyse of the text His insultation is ioyned with scorne and with slander therein behauing himselfe like another insulting Goliah gibing Tobiah slandering Sanballat He insulteth I say Goliah-like despising the Author of the Sermon comming against him in simple maner like Dauid with fiue smooth stones taken out of the fountaine of Gods word streames of antiquitie as not able to stand in his hands being as he saith litle worth yea miserable poore indeed He scoffeth Tobiah-like at my building as ruinous and tottering so readie to tipe and fall as if belike but one of the foxes that trouble the vine doe come vpon it the goodly mansion built for our reuerend Bishops as a tower of defence for their Lordships to rest in which proud and disdainefull scoâ—fe hee repeateth againe pag. 8. will fall to the ground For answere whereof I desire the Reader to compare the latter end of his preface with this begining of his confutation For there bearing the Reader in hand that he hath sufficiently confuted my Sermon hee vseth my praise as a steppe to raise himselfe and to aduantage his cause giuing me greater commendation then either I doe desire or deserue but here beginning his confutation he would perswade the Reader he shall easily performe it his aduersarie being little worth yea miserable poorâ— indeed his building ruinous and tottering ready to tipe and fall Which imputations if they be not true proue him to be a lyer if true a worthlesse and witlesse fellowe worthlesse who passing by all the worthies of our side and their most accurate and learned treatises as himselfe tearmeth them maketh choyce either of such an aduersarie to contend with as is little worth yea miserable poore indeed or of such a building to assaile as is ruinous and tottering ready of it selfe to tipe and fall Witlesse in making choyse of such an aduersarie in vanquishing of whom being so weake and miserable poore as he can gaine no credit to himselfe or his cause so can hee bring no great disaduantage to the aduerse partie The fault being in all reason to be ascribed to the weakenes of the Champion not to the badnesse of the cause But if so weake and worthlesse a defendant did in a Sermon prouided in 9. or 10. daies at the most so foretâ—fie the cause of the Bishops that the greatest worthies of the aduersarie partie assailing it withall their force haue not beene able in twice so many monethes to make the least breach therein then must it be confessed that howsoeuer his aduersarie may be inferiour to him in other things yet he is superiour in the cause But softâ— let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that puts it off When I consider the weakenesse of your strength and badnesse of your cause I wonder at your confidence You might doe well to followe the counsell of â—rchâ—damus to his foole-hardy sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either adde to your strength or abate from your confidence And whereas Sanballat-like he saith I make great boast in my Sermon of much riches c. I answere with Nehemiah it is not done according to these words there is no such matter in my Sermon but it is a fiction of your owne heart Such vanting suiteth better with my aduersarie who as in the forefront of his booke most arrogantly applyeth the words of wisedome and truth to these his owne writings which for the most part are either false or friuolous Giue care saith he for I will speake of excellent things and the opening of my lippes shall teach things that be right for my mouth shall speake the truth and my lippes abhorre wickednes so now in the very entrance hee playeth Pyrgopolinices himselfe taking on as if with a little paper-shotte he could ouerthrowe all my building and blowe poore me away as it were with a breath Sect. 2. The matter also he scoffeth at applying vnto it the speech of one of the sons of the Prophets whoÌ„ he calleth a poore laborer to make him as it seemeth the liker to me saying of his axe when the head fell into the water Alas Maister it is but borrowed Neither doubteth he with what forhead I knowe not for he goeth vnder a vizard to affirme that my whole building from the foundation to the roofe is but old stuffe taken out of D. Bilsons booke of the perpetuall gouernement of the Church Which base calumniation framed as it may seeme according to his owne practise he doth odiously repeate ad nauseam vsque euen so often harping on this string as I haue occasion to handle though neuer so differently the same points with that most learned and reuerend diuine To which obiection I answere that if it were true it would proue the refuter to be but a childish and yet an odious wrangler Childish for it is the fashion of wrangling boyes in their Sophemes and disputations when they cannot tell how to answere an argument to tell the opponent he had it in such a booke And it is the part of an odious wrangler to seeke the disgrace of my person by that which doth no whit aduantage his cause For what aduantage is this to his cause to obiect that my proofes are the same with D. Bilsons seeing his proofes be such as neuer were and neuer wil be answered But if the obiection be false as euery man that compareth the treatises may easily discerne then besides the testimonie of odious wrangling he shall gaine to himselfe the commendation of a slanderous libeller For besides my consent in iudgement with that most reuerend learned man which I most willingly and gladly professse there is not any thing almost besides concurrence in diuerse allegations which should breed any iust occasion of this surmile And as for them I doe professe that the most of them are of mine owne reading and those which before I had either not read or not obserued I did not content my selfe to alleadge them as it were
chiefe and which be as it were all in all Thirdly he wondreth at the weake proppe whereby this consequence is vnderset which is my vnfained profession that to my knowledge there were onely these two allegations which I esteemed in that shortnesse of time worth the answering which was reason sufficient for my insisting on those two alone If this proppe be so weake let his knowledge and the skill of all his adherents shew but one other testimonie comparable to these two But that he may leaue both wondring and wandring I doe againe plainely and confidently affirme that the whole cause of the Lay-Elders relieth on these two places and therefore as in the former negatiue assertion I did imply so now I expresse a challenge to him and all his partakers to produce any one such testimonie if they can This challenge I say was implyed when I professed that they cannot alledge out of the scriptures Councels or Fathers any one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning any lay or onely gouerning Elders To this challenge what doth our insulting refuter reply Sundry others besides these two I both could and would alledge and approue also I doubt not to all iudicious and indifferent men but that others before now haue said enough to that purpose And at this time professing my selfe an answerer onely not an opponent it is not my part to dispute the questions but dâ—fend the truth so farre onely as M. D. opposeth to it in his Sermon In which words though he dares not as you see accept the challenge yet he setteth a good face vpon it For whereas I said and say againe that besides these two testimonies they can produce no more of any moment in comparison he saith that hee both could and would produce many more He would I doe not doubt if he could but because he doth not you may be assured he cannot What he and all of them can doe he performeth afterwards when he will let you see that they can strike also and yet that all is as nothing to these two The reasons of his refusall are two the one because others before now haue said enough to that purpose but that I denied vpon certaine knowledge And what they haue said to any purpose hath beene confuted also before now and that though often repeated and oft refuted as threed-bare as it is himselfe doth afterwards produce hauing nothing to say that hath so much as a good shew of a necessarie proofe as hereafter shall appeare The other because he being the answerer onely and not the opponent it is not his part neither can it reasonably be expected at his hands that he should dispute the questions but onely defend the truth The which is a sophisticall and if I may freely speake what I truely thinke a lewde shift to elude my answeres and the reasons thereof and to delude the vnlearned Reader For who I pray you be the opponents and plaintiffes in this controuersie wee or they Those which be in possession doe not vse to be plaintiffes Neither would there haue beene any controuersie betwixt vs if they did not oppose forasmuch therefore as they are the opponents vrging the pretended discipline we the defendants maintaining the established discipline among vs it is a sufficient defence of our cause especially where wee hold the negatiue if wee shewe that their proofes are not sufficient and their proofes are not sufficient which doe not necessarily and ineuitably proue that which they vrge Neither let them euer hope to bring in their Lay-Elders till they haue necessarily proued that they ought to be admitted But the lewdnes of this shift is then most manifest when as I ex professo vndertaking to answere their obiections he will needs make me the opponent and where it is required of them necessarily to proue what they say and is sufficient for me to shew that their proofe is not necessarie absurdly against all order of disputation he maketh himselfe the respondent and me the opponent So that my answeres must be put into Syllogismes and his proofes be thought sufficient if he can but say that they make not against his cause though they doe not proue it Examples of this shamefull dealing wee shall not want long For in the discussing of their allegation out of 1. Tim. 5.17 which is their chiefe obiection it is most manifest that they are the opponents and I the answerer But my aduersarie maketh me the opponent and my answeres must be oppositions and so put into Syllogismes and in the end as you shall see whereas that is the onely place in scripture which they can with any shew of necessarie proofe alledge for their Elders hee would make the Reader belieue that he hath acquited himselfe well if their Elders be not necessarily disproued out of that place When indeed if they be not necessarily and ineuitably proued out of it they haue no ground nor warrant for them in the scriptures Againe in my preface where the refuter vnderstandeth me to haue made a challenge as it were to haue cast down the gantlet as I desired they would distinctly answere my arguments so also that they would produce their proofes for it is an easier thing to pull downe at least to seeme so then to set vp in his answere to my preface he accepteth of the offer acknowledging that I desire nothing but reason and doth not onely promise to satisfie my desire but also beareth the Reader in hand that hee hath brought sound demonstrations pregnant proofes arguments strongly grounded vpon the scriptures c but now when he should come to the performance when I againe renew the challenge auerring that they haue no such proofes and exspecting that he should produce them if he haue any his answere is that alas he is the respondent and it cannot with any reason be exspected that he should bring proofes or dispute the questions And that you may yet more fully note the absurditie of this disputer of whose great acts in this booke I heare no small vants though he say it is not his part to produce proofes neither can it with reason be exspected of him which afore he confessed to be reason yet this is to be vnderstood of needfull proofes whereby hee might proue something which is by vs denied But if there be any thing which seemeth to make for his cause and which we freely confesse as for example the consent of diuerse protestant writers with them in some things there he will be sure to be plentifull in prouing of that which no man doth denie And this is the chiefe thing which he and his consorts in compiling this booke haue laboured As if they should haue said doe you indeed grant that diuerse protestant writers expound such and such places as we doe and doe you not denie but that diuerse of them agree with vs in some things Mary that will we proue at large and although reason grounded on scripture
Ministers and Lay-Elders then it doth necessarily follow that as the Ministers haue the care and ouersight of doctrine and religion so the Lay-Elders haue the ouersight of manners and care of auoiding offences But the Antecedent is true 1. Tim. 5.17 Therefore the consequent To the assumption of the former Syllogisme I answere that Lay-Elders are no where 's said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to gouerne or ouersee but all those places which be alleadged to this purpose are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely Besides the same Author hath confessed that Lay Elders are not Byshops neither will he say that they be Pastors But the places which he quoteth are to be vnderstood of Bishops Pastors Of Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken as also of 1. Thess. 5.12 Why Heb. 13.17 should be applpyed to Lay-Elders there is no reason vnlesse whatsoeuer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors is to be vnderstood of them The Writers both olde and new expound it of Bishops and Pastors The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue neither hath it any thing to support it but their owne exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17 which I haue proued to be false Neither is that true which is presupposed in both syllogismes that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight For both the parts of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ouersight belong to those which be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ouerseers that is Bishops and Pastors whose dutie is both to teach and to gouerne Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous there being not anie testimonie of any writer or example of any Church to bee alledged that euer there was such an office in the Church But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the Elders seuerally might be borne with so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ yet the ioynt office of their Lay presbyteryes is intollerable For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of heauen which our Sauiour Christ committed to none but to the Apostles and their successors That Lay-men should haue authoritie and that by the ordinance of Christ to ordaine Ministers by imposition of hands to remit or retaine sinnes to excommunicate the obstinate or to reconcile the penitent is an opinion too absurde to be confuted Thus therefore I reason according to their owne principles No office in the Church is lawfull as themselues say which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures which is all one as if they had said All lawfull offices in the church haue expresse warrant in Gods word The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally and of their Elderships yearely hath not expresse warrant in Gods word Therfore it is vnlawfull To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities for surely if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures an office of such importance it is to bee thought that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature And although he omitted their qualities in other places yet mee thinks if it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister but aboue the Deacon the Apostle could not haue forgotten them in 1. Tim. 3 where he describeth the qualities not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them but of the Deacons also which are beneath them directing Timo 〈◊〉 and in him all Bishops what manner of persons to orâ—aâ—â— Ministers or Deacons Forgotten say they why are they not plainly expressed in that place Yes no doubt for that is agreed vpon among vs For some will needs comprise them vnder the Bishop or Minister and feare not to â—ay that they also must be suâ— modo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion Others acknowledge that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to preach especially in that sense that the Apostle meaneth as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit 1.9 yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place and not to suffer them to be excluded are faine to sâ—rowâ—e them vnder the name of Deacons though the name of Deacon neither in scriptures nor Fathers was euer attributed to them How they will compound these contrarieties I know not For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons then are they not comprised vnder Bishops It shall 〈◊〉 me to alledge that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office both from the Minister and Deacon that it is comprehended in neither For who cannot conceiue this reason None but Bishops Ministers and Deacons are described in that place Bishops and Ministers in the former description and Deacons in the latter But Lay-elders are neither Bishops or Ministers nor Deacons but an imagined office distinct from both Therefore they are not described in that place The refuâ—â—â— hath solemnely proclaimed before and required all men to take notice of it that their Elders ought to be men religious of great grauitie and pietie and of good yeares also if it may be as the name importeth called with due examination chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised so it may be acknowledged an humane deuise and not a diuine ordinance But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things The truth is there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged prescribing the office or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God Nor that neither as shall appeare when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge if they can produce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures whereby it may necessarily be concluded that either there were at any time or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them which will neuer be they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doctrine of Lay-Elders to be as it is a meere fiction how vehemently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded
scholler of diuinitie or euer he had beene made Doctor And of this authoritie is Ambrose when he is alleaged against the pretended discipline But if hee let fall a speech which seemeth and but seemeth to fauour their cause though so impertinent as if it had beene foisted in by others though in a booke wherein besides some suspected there is apparant corruption though the testimonie it selfe is mistaken by them and though their exposition thereof hath neither scripture to warrant nor consent of other writers to second nor good reason to proue it notwithstanding because they want better euidence they make so much of it that eight whole leaues are not sufficient to bestow vpon it Which I mention not that I would haue any thing detracted from the authoritie of this testimonie as though it made against vs but to shew partly the partiall dealing of the disciplinarians and partly the pouertie of their cause In my handling this testimonie the refuter obserueth three things First my deniall of their exposition with the reasons of my denyall Secondly a refutation of their proofes Thirdly an allegation of reasons omitted by Ambrose why the counsell and assistance of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was growne out of vse In the denyall it selfe he layeth vpon me such an imputation of immodestie as he did before of vnkindnesse For although he cannot be against it but that I may salua modestia confute the new writers for their false or wrong expounding Ambrose of Lay-Elders whom he neuer so much as dreamed of yet he cannot abide I should say they wrong Ambrose though I proue that they wrong him by misconstruing his words and giuing them a wrong sense And in this nice and idle cauill for want of better matter he spendeth almost a leafe aggrauating the accusation by numbring 12. Diuines of our time who vnderstand Ambrose as speaking of Lay-Elders and alleaging that it is more likely that I should mistake him then they Indeed if I were alone in this cause and did oppose my credit alone to their authoritie or expected as my aduersarie falsely accuseth me like another Pythagoras to be belieued vpon my bare word such arrogancie I confesse would not become me But he seeth and I hope feeleth that I say not any thing in this controuersie which I doe not proue by such reasons as he doth not know without sophisticall shifts and meere cauills how to answere If these new writers proue their exposition of Ambrose by any sound reason why be not their arguments produced if they speake without reason why is their bare authoritie obiected against both so many reasons as haue beene vsed to shew there neuer were such Elders and also against the generall consent of antiquitie which neuer acknowledged any Presbyters or Ecclesiasticall Elders but Ministers only Of my denyall he acknowledgeth two reasons which though they were lighter then they be are of more weight then bare testimonies especially of parties who are not to depose in their owne cause Howbeit I acknowledge but one reason though my speech may be resolued into two Syllogismes whereof the one is a prosyllogisme to the other and because he saith in steed of prouing I doe nothing but begge the question I will resolue the reason of my answere into this Syllogisme They which make Ambrose against his meaning to testify that which hath no warrant either in the scriptures or elder writings of antiquitie doe wrongfully expound him But those which expound Ambrose as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders doe make him against his meaning to testifie that which hath no warrant either in Scriptures or elder writings of antiquitie Therefore those who expound Ambrose as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders doe wrongfully expound him The proposition is manifest The assumption hath 2. parts the one that Lay-Elders haue no warrāt either in scriptures or in the elder writings of antiquitie The other that the sense which they giue to his words is against his meaning The former was prooued in my former challenge that not any one testimony can be produced out of the writings of the Apostles and Fathers mentioning or meaning any Lay-Elders The which is a sufficient allegation in a respondent holding the negatiue vntill the opponent by sufficient instance can proue the affirmatiue And therefore his cauill in saying either that I do but begge the question which himselfe should proue is false and foolish or that if it were granted it would not proue their exposition to be against his meaning for he might testifie that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or elder monumēts of antiquitie is both an ignorāt mistaking for those words as you see were not inserted to that end and a needlesse extenuating of Ambrose his testimonie as being such a one of whom it may be said that he testifieth that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or other monuments of antiquitie The rest of his words are meere babbling The latter I prooue by this Reason To whom Ambrose giueth testimonie hee complaineth that their councel and assistance in causes Ecclesiasticall was grown out of vse seemeth to charge the bishops with slothfulnes or pride therefore But it was not Ambrose his meaning to complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders was growne out of vse nor to charge the BB with slothfulnes or pride for it Therefore it was not his meaning to giue testimonie to Lay-Elders The truth of the proposition is euident by the words of of Ambrose himelfe The assumption is thus proued A Diocesan Bishop who not onely approoued but laboured to magnifie his owne calling and was as farre as any from subiecting either Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men as the Presbyterians doe would not complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders such as the Disciplinarians meane was not vsed or charge the Bishops with slothfulnes or pride for it But such a one was Ambrose Therefore hee would not complaine for want of Lay-Elders c. The proposition if it bee explaned will need no further proofe The Elderships of Lay-men such as the Disciplinarians stand for 1. were neuer in vse together with Bishops but either were deuised to supplie the gouernement of Bishops when they were depressed as in Geneua Scotland and the Low-Countreys or where orthodoxall Bishops were wanting as in France or are vrged to extrude Bishops as among vs 2. in their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of Lay-Elders all hauing equall right of Suffrage and all things beeing carried by pluralitie of voyces it is euident that the Ministers which in parish presbyteries are but one or two at the most and in others the farre lesse number are subiected to the Lay-Elders as being the greater number It is manifest therefore that a Diocesan Bishop who not onely approued but sought to magnifie his calling and was as farre as anie from subiecting Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men would not
doth not wilfully peruert my meaning vnderstand me to speake of any but the Seniors of the priests saying of such Ambrose speaketh when he saith in the Church or Church-causes nothing was don without their consent But it may be that your former consequence may be confirmed if the testimonie of Ambrose be better pressed vpon vs to which purpose I say in the Sermon If it be saide that Ambrose speaketh c. If it be said saith the refuter he knoweth it well enough that it is said and shal be maintained that Ambrose speaketh of such Seniors whose aduise was neglected through the default of the teachers not learned or teachers as M. D. setteth it downe and therefore of such Seniors as were not teachers Cunningly therefore and to weaken the force of our argument doth hee here so produce and alledge it as if it were rather conceiued for our helpe by himselfe then propounded and expressed by vs. Let him therefore for his honestie and credits sake shew the Reader where this testimonie of Ambrose is thus vrged In the mean time the Reader shal vnderstand these 2. things First that the disciplinarians knowing that their proofes out of Scriptures and Fathers will not necessarily conclude for them if they should seeme to inforce them by discourse Therefore they vse this poore pollicie to holde them out as it were Mineruaes shield as if they were so pregnant that they need not to be vrged but the very naming of them were sufficient to put vs to silence They thinke it therfore their best course in all their writings almost to take it for graunted that their discipline is the very discipline and kingdome of Christ their presbyterie the very ordinance of Christ and when they should proue it as they would seeme most sufficiently to doe they holde out a few places of the Scriptures and Fathers barely quoted being so farre from vrging them as that for the most part they doe not so much as cite the words thus in the booke of H. I. dedicated to the King 1604. vrging a reformation after the newe-cut Thus in the protestation that came out of the North made in the yeare 1606. and printed Anno 1608. Thus in this worthy worke of the refuter as after you shall heare when he commeth to deale his blowes thinking belike that the very naming of such witnesses will sufficiently if not daunt vs yet satisfie their simple followers who are too easily ledde with shewes The other thing is that I haue vrged this testimony for them and to speake the trueth haue inforced it better and made it stronger for them then euer they made it or haue yet the witte to conceiue But to answere their argument for now it is theirs neither must my wordes be retained learned or teachers c The Reader therfore is to remember what before was saide that the word Doctorum being ambiguous signifying either learned or teachers this place of Ambrose doth accordingly admit two interpretations The one as it signifieth Learned and is a common title to the Bishops and Presbyters the other as it signifieth Doctors or Teachers and was a title in those times peculiar to the BB. as shal be proued The former of these which seemeth more to fauor the Lay-Elders my aduersary doth reiect insisteth in the latter But he doth not shew as me thinkes he should how this testimony then will conclude for Lay-Elders It was sufficient for him to contradict mee though hee left his cause in wâ—rse case then he found it For my part I am so farre from this spirit of contradiction that I doe agree with him in preferring the latter exposition which by Doctorum vnderstandeth Doctors before the other Let vs see then how that sense being retained this place doth conclude for Lay-Elders All Seniors that were not called Doctors in those times were Lay-Elders The Seniors whose counsell was neglected by the Doctors were such Seniors as in those times were not called Doctors Therefore the Seniors whose counsell was neglected by the Doctors were Lay-Elders I denie the proposition because in those times the title of Doctor or Teacher was peculiar to BB we therefore may with more truth affirme that all Seniors or Presbyters that were not called Doctors in that time were Ministers and thereupon conclude that therefore the Seniors whose Counsell was neglected by the Doctors were Ministers For the clearing of this matter I will briefly shew these foure things 1. That not Presbyters but Bishops were in those times called Doctors 2. That the Presbyters though they were not called Teachers were notwithstanding Ministers 3. That certaine ancient or principall Ministers called Seniores in the primitiue Church did so assist the Bishop that nothing almost of importance was done without their counsell and aduise 4. That their counsell and assistance was much neglected and themselues much debased in Ambrose his time For the first After that Arrius being a Presbyter had poysoned the Church with his heresie the Presbyters or Ministers were in many Churches restrained from preaching So that the Bishops who before were the principall in Ambrose his time they were almost the onely Teachers and for this cause the name of Doctors was appropriated vnto them And this is so cleare a case that the Bishops in those times were in a manner the onely Doctors that therefore thought the Presbyters which are mentioned in the Fathers to haue beene no Ministers because he perceiued they were no Teachers and for this cause commendeth the decree of the Church of Alexandria that the Presbyters should no more teach and preferreth the Affrican Churches before others for that the same order was obserued therein As touching Alexandria Socrates reporteth that Presbyters doe not preach there Sozomen that the Bishop alone of the citie doth preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both of them assigning the heresie of Arrius to haue beene the originall occasion of that custome Concerning the vse of the Affrican Churches saith T. C. vntill Augustines time that one testimonie is more then sufficient whereby is affirmed that Valerius B. of Hippo did contrarie to the custome of the Affrican Church in that he committed the office of teaching vnto Augustine who was an Elder of that Church and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops checked I say notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared to haue done it for support of his infirmitie because himselfe was not so apt to preach To conclude his conceit is that not the Presbyters mentioned in the Fathers and by him translated Elders but the Bishop onely had right to preach the other but by indulgence or by commandement In those times therefore the Bishops alone were called Doctores 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the least for further proofe whereof if you expect some other testimonie either of Ambrose or of others in that time you may haue recourse to his booke of
Such as are the French and Duch Churches here in England such were the Churches in the Apostles times But the French and Duch Churches here in England are not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies Therefore the Churches in the Apostles times were not diocesan but distinct parishionall assemblies First I denie the proposition not onely because the circuit of the Churches in the Apostles intention was not included within a Citie as of the French and Duch Churches with vs but chiefly because the French Church for example in London is but one Church among many professing the same religion being a certaine and set number hauing a Presbytery consisting for the most part of lay men placed among vs not with purpose to conuert either the City or Country to them but to attend them of their owne Church whereas contrariwise the Churches in the Apostles times before the diuision of parishes were not each of them one among many but were planted among heathen people hauing a Bishop and a Presbyterie of learned men placed among them as leauen is put into the lumpe with purpose to conuert the rest both in Citie and Country The Church which had the Bishop and Presbytery first placed in it was Matrix Ecclesia as after it was called begetting other Churches and spirituall Fathers for them which being begotten in Citie and Countrey were all euen when the whole Citie and Country were filled with her off-spring to bee subordinate and subiect to her as their mother But no such thing can be imagined of the Duch and French Churches among vs. As touching the assumption I say that the French and Duch Churches with vs are not properly parishes nor such as the ancient parishes were after the first diuision of them seeing the members thereof dwell in many distinct parishes either of them being endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernement and not subordinate to another Church as members thereof but being entire bodies by themselues are models as it were of diocesan Churches hauing a Presbytery as the Church of Geneua hath to supply the want of a Bishop which once they had and still might haue in imitation of the ancient Christians who when the Citie where they dwelt was replenished and the Mother Church occupied with men of another faith as with Arians sometimes in Antioch and Alexandria as ours be with men of another Language had a Bishop of their owne in all respects like other Bishops sauing that they held not the Mother Church and therefore had neither the like Clergie nor the like reuenewes to maintaine them The second thing which hee opposeth is as I said a shew of regestion which he propoundeth with great confidence as if hee had mee at no small aduantage saying that I pull downe with one hand that I set vp with another If there were at that time no parishes how could there bee dioceses seeing euery diocesse consisteth of diuers distinct parishes Thus saith he the light will breake out though men shut their eies against it You see how bragge hee would seeme to bee But good sir what is this to my consequence If there were no parishes in the Apostles times then the Presbyteries were not appointed to parishes You answer If there were no parishes then there were no dioceses To what end is this spoken To denie my consequence or the maine conclusion Assume But you say there were no parishes therefore there were no dioceses which is the contradictorie to the maine conclusion But where doe I say there were no parishes Not in the proposition where it is only supposed but in the assumption for that which is supposed in the antecedent of the proposition is positiuely set downe in the assumption Therefore when he would seeme to deny the consequence of the proposition he doth not so much as touch it But by taking a supposed aduantage against the Assumption hee denieth the principall conclusion But let vs examine his argument If there were no parishes in the Apostles times there were no Dioceses This consequence I deny For the Diocesse was the same before the Parishes were diuided and after And the circuit of the spirituall iurisdiction intended the same before parishes were diuided with that it was after they were diuided that is answerable to the ciuill The same circuit belonging to the Church both in the intention before all were conuerted and in execution after all were conuerted which belonged to the ciuill state Yea but saith he euery Diocesse consisteth of distinct Parishes It is true after the distinction of Parishes but not before as a bach of bread consisteth of many distinct loaues after the distinction which before it contained vndistinguished in the lumpe A man consisteth of many distinct members after they are distinguished which at his first conception were not distinct The Proposition being thus recouered out of his hands J am now to rescue the Assumption Which saith that the Churches in the Apostles times were not diuided into parishes c. Which is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as true of the most Churches Here I expect a direct answere were they diuided into parishes or were they not If they were as at Alexandria it seemeth to haue beene euen in the Apostles times then was not euery Church but one parish if they were not then the Presbyters were not assigned to seuerall parishes and so the assumption is true Nay rather then the assumption shall goe for currant we will deny each Church to haue beene but a parish Is it credible that any man should bee so transported with the spirit of contradiction as that hee should not care so hee may gainesay his aduersaries present assertion how shamefully hee contradicteth himselfe yet thus it fareth with our refuter In oppugning the proposition hee said and laboured to proue it that each church was but one parish the same he saith and saith againe in defending their obiections propounding his own only argumēt And yet here this assumptiō must be censured as hauing no truth in it for that it denieth Parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times and the Presbyters to haue beene assigned to their seuerall titles or cures They be his wordes in the conclusion of his answere to the assumptiō And the same he repeateth pag. 71. But let vs see what he obiecteth against the assumption First he findeth an errour in it before noted concerning the end of the Presbyters ordination which he saith is here repeated and therefore not of ignorance by him omitted in the proposition the which though hee call an errour yet I proued to be an euident truth and discouered the shallownes of their iudgement which do denie it Besides that errour he chargeth the maine points in the assumption as altogether void of truth The points are these 1. that parishes were not distinguished in the apostles times 2. that Presbyters were not then assigned to their seuerall titles or cures 3. that they were in
yeeld there be prouinciall Churches then I must confesse there be no diocesan or if I will needes hold there be diocesan Churches then I ouerthrow the prouinciall So that what may soeuer we looke saith he I see nothing against vs but all for vs. Thus hath he brought himselfe into a fooles paradise where I leaue him to feed vpon his owne fancies and to solace himselfe with the conceit of his imagined conquest CHAP. VII Prouing the third point of the Sermon that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops Serm. sect 1. Now these Presbyteries in the Apostles times as the Presbyterians confesse had c. ad lin a fine 4. THe Refuter hath acquitted himselfe in his owne conceit so valiantly and victoriously in subuerting my former assertion concerning dioceses which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building that as he lookes for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces the foundation it selfe being so weake and tottering so he promiseth to himself assured successe in ouerthrowing the rest But if my building be founded as it were on a rocke against which his maine forces could not preuaile at al but like the waues and billowes of the sea though they beate against it with great noise returne backe with froth and fome as I hope it appeareth to euery indifferent and iudicious Reader then may I promise to my selfe the like successe in withstanding his future assaults And the better hope J doe conceiue hereof because he seemeth to confesse that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches were dioceses that then the other points will follow of their owne accord But that I haue so demonstrated that I neuer expect any sound answere thereto As for this point which now I haue in hand it is not onely demonstrated already in the proof of the former but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom My purpose therefore is to bee as briefe in propugning this truth as hee is in oppugning the same J will therefore omit his friuolous cauill which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding what he according to his forced Analysis would haue concluded because the Reader cannot but discerne that I directly conclude what before was propounded viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishoppes which I proue in the Sermon by degrees first seuerally before the diuision of parishes and after the distribution of them both in the city and in the country then iointly both before and after For hauing concluded the former point with these words that the Churches contained many particular congregations vnto all which there was but one Presbytery or Colledge of Presbyters assigned and hauing here signified that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians each Presbytery had a President which S. Iohn calleth the Angell of the Church and the Fathers a Bishop I proue from that which hath already been proued that the President of the Presbytery the Angell of the B. of the Church was not a parishionall but a diocesan Bishop But before I come to the proofe contained in this section I am to note how those last words of the former part which are very materiall are by this refuter passed ouer in silence For it would be knowne whether there were in Cities where were many congregations yea in whole dioceses any more Presbyteries or Colledges of Presbyters then that one belonging to the mother Church in the Citie If to shew either his ignorance or want of good conscience he shall say there were as indeed that is their assersion that in euery parish both in citie and country there ought to bee a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders let him giue but one approued instance to proue his assertion in the first foure hundred yeeres and I will yeeld that where was a parish Presbytery there was a parish Bishop If Calum and the reformers of other Churches according to the pretended discipline had been of that iudgement they would not haue appointed one onely Presbytery for many parishes If he shall confesse that in a whole circuit which wee call a diocesse there was but one colledge or senate of Presbyters consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the citie which is a most certaine and vndeniable truth then must he confesse his platforme of parish discipline to be a meere nouelty and an vndisgested fancy hauing no warrant of scriptures nor testimony of antiquity and contrary wise that there was but one Presbytery and one Bishop set ouer a whole diocesse Hee that catcheth at euery word yea at the least letter whereat hee hopeth to haue the least aduantage as at the terme pagani in this passage and at the little letters in the word Cretians would not swallow vp in silence such pregnant arguments if silence were not his best answere But though he would not see that argument yet in my propounding of the question here to bee concluded hee hath spied a syllogisme which I did not intend out of that which I propounded in axiomaticall disposition as taking it for granted But the Refuter maketh me reason thus The presidents of the Presbyteries were diocesan BB. The Angels of the seauen Churches were presidents of the Presbyteries Therefore the Angels of the seauen Churches were diocesan BB. Which is the hansomest syllogisme he hath bestowed on me as yet neither wil I refuse to maintaine any one part of it if he will be pleased to take notice of that which euen now was proued that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocesse So the proposition will be manifest that the presidents of Presbyteries which were prouided for whole dioceses whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might haue been added to the proposition out of my words The assumption I haue made good before by the confessions of Caluin and Beza But he beginneth with the assumption saying that he hath good cause to doubt of it and that I doe but threapen kindnesse on them when I talke of their Confessions For plentifull proofe whereof I referre you to that which before hath been alledged out of Caluin and Beza But what will not this Refuter quarrell with for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth that is to say parishes hauing euery one a Bishop and a Presbytery of gouerning Elders would any man doubt either that the Bishop was called the Angell of the Church or that he was president of the Presbytery Now to the proposition saith the Refuter for answere whereto in one word I say it is false let vs examine the proofe of it and then frameth a syllogisme the conclusion whereof is this therefore the Bishop who was set ouer a whole diocesse and who was President of the Presbytery allotted to a whole diocesse was vndoubtedly a diocesan Bishop Was this the proposition which he denied or was he so vnreasonable to deny it What
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
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
Presbyters as this Bishop also did vnder his presence to do those things which are not done but by Bishops but that he should call for a Bishop to whom he may commit that which is to be done in the Church But if we must talke of toyes what a toy was this that all these things which I haue alleaged being duely considered diuers of our disciplinarian Ministers haue renounced their ordination which they had receiued from a Bishop that they might be ordained by such as themselues And thus you haue heard how easilie he hath answered the Councils by vouchsafing them no answere Now let vs weigh his answeres to the testimonies of Ephiphanius and Ierome His common answere to both is such as vnlearned yet obstinate Papists vse to giue that though they cannot tell how to answere our arguments yet there be learned men which can There be Lectures of the parâ—â—ie of Ministers one day to be published which will shew the weaknesse of Epiphanius his reasons and there is another learned man that hath answered the allegation out of Ierome Why but hath the Refuter no answeres of his owne that he referreth vs thus to other men yes no doubt such answeres as his are neuer to seeke First he wrangleth with Ephiphanius and then with me for alledging him He telleth Epiphanius that he beggeth the question Alas good man he wanted the Refuters acumen in disputing And what was the question I pray you was it not the same which is now betweene you and vs whether Bishops and other Ministers be equall as Aërius held This assertion of Aërius Ephiphanius disproueth by two maine arguments as I do yours prouing that BB. are superiour to other Presbyters both in the power of ordination and iurisdiction His former argument may thus be concluded That order which hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church is superiour to that which hath not that power The order of Bishops hath power by ordination to beget Fathers to the Church which the order of Presbyters is not able to doe Therefore the order of Bishops is superiour to the order of Presbyters Call you this begging of the question Yea but Aërius denied that Bishops had power more then Presbyters to beget Fathers How is this proued he said they were equall It followeth not Aerius being a giddie-headed fellow because he perceiued the Presbyters to doe the same things that the Bishops did in some particulars by an insufficient enumeration or induction concludeth that therfore there was no difference betweene them The parts of Aërius his induction concerne the superioritie and preeminence of the Ministerie in generall aboue the people noting those things whch be common to Bishops with other ministers as their imposing hands on the penitent their giuing of Baptisme their executing of Diuine seruice their sitting in the chaire or pulpit to instruct the people but considered not the respect which was between the Bishop and the Presbyters themselues Epiphanius therefore sheweth that although it were true that Bishops and Presbyters did the same things which argue their Preeminence in common aboue the Laity yet this hindreth not but that Bishops were superiour to the Presbyters and this Epiphanius proueth by two instances which Aërius himselfe could not denie because the Bishops were ordainers of the Presbyters hauing the power of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons which Presbyters had not the second because the Bishops were also gouernours and judges ouer Presbyters The Refuter therefore should rather haue suspected the shallownesse of his own judgement then haue laid such an imputation vpon Epiphanius What then doth he answere to Epiphanius his syllogisme He denieth in effect though perhaps he intend not so much both the proposition and the assumption and first the assumption For where Epiphanius saith that Presbyters were not able to beget Fathers he asketh What hindreth them but the vsurpation of Bishops In which words two things are implied The first that the power of ordination which the BB. haue is vsurped by them The second that Presbyters haue as good right to ordaine as they But you will say how are those things proued you must be intreated to take them vpon his word for prooâ—e he hath none and yet can he by no meanes abide begging of the question But such is the boldnesse of our new Disciplinarians that they doubt not to prefer their new-fangled opinions self-set assertions which haue no ground nor warrant in the word of God or true reason before the judgement and practize of all the ancient Fathers of all the approued Councils of all true Christian Churches of former times We proue that the Apostles had the right of ordaining that this right was from them deriued to their substitutes and to their successors to their substitutes as to Timothe in Ephesus and Titus in Creet to Mark at Alexandria to Polycarpus at Smyrna to Euodius at Antioch to Linus at Rome c. to their successors as to Simon the sonne of Cleophas the successor of Saint Iames at Ierusalem c. that from these substitutes and first successors of the Apostles the same was deriued to their successors which without all doubt were the BB. of the seuerall Churches And hereunto we adde the generall consent of the Fathers and Councils many of them affirming and confirming not one I say not one denying the superioritie of BB. in ordaining the perpetuall practize of all true Christian Churches not one approued instance to be giuen to the contrarie and yet he shameth not to auouch the Bishops right in ordaining to be but vsurpation As touching Presbyters that they haue right to ordaine we see no warrant in the word but rather the contrarie no testimonie of Fathers no decree of Councils for it but many testimonies and decrees against it no approued example to warrant it how then could he say the Presbyters haue as good right to ordain as BB But because he shal not cary the matter without proofes this I will offer him that if he can bring any one pregnant testimonie or example out of the Scriptures any approued authoritie or example out of the ancient Fathers Councils or Histories of the Church prouing that the Presbyters had by and of themselues an ordinarie power or right to ordaine ministers J meane Presbyters and Deacons I will promise to subscribe to his assertion But if he cannot do this as I know he cannot then let him for shame giue place vnto the truth Againe whereas Epiphanius in the assumption saith that BB. beget Fathers meaning that they haue power to ordaine ministers of the word and sacraments or as he expoundeth himselfe teachers he fondly cauilleth at Epiphanius words saying that ministers are no spirituall Fathers vntill they beget children vnto God Why but their calling is to be spirituall Fathers ordained of God to this end that they may by the lauer of regeneration ministery of the Gospell beget children vnto God when Stephen
whether of vs spake without vnderstanding let the iudicious Reader heereby iudge For he conceiueth me as no man would that is not of a very shallow conceipt as if I confounded the power of order with the power of ordination and as though the power of order contained nothing else but the power of ordaining whenas I plainely made it according to those Fathers iudgement but one part of the power of Order they supposing other parts of the power of order to bee common vnto Presbyters but that of ordaining to bee peculiar to the Bishop and in that sense say the Bishop in respect of the power of order is superiour onely in ordination Yea but Bellarmine for euen his authority when he saith any thing that may seeme to make for the Refuter must serue the turne saith that Potestas ordinis refertur ad sacramenta conficienda the power of order is referred to the ministery of the Sacraments Me thinks the Refuter should adde that it is also referred to the ministery of the Worde But what doth Bellarmine and all other Papists vnderstand by Sacraments Doe they not meane fiue others besides Baptisme and the Lords Supper the ministery of two whereof viz. of confirmation and of orders they make peculiar to BB. and of the other fiue common to them with all Priests and doth not Bellarmine therefore prooue that the order of Bishops is superiour to that of Presbyters and that Bishops are superiour in the power of order because the Bishop may conferre two Sacraments which the Presbyters may not viz. the Sacrament of confirmation and of orders Howbeit of the former Ierome saith that it was reserued as peculiar to BB. potiùs ad honorem sacer dotij quà m ad legis necessitatem It is true that some Popish writers make BB. and Presbyters to be but one order but you must withall take the reason of that Popish conceipt They hold that the Sacrament of the altar as they call it is the Sacrament of Sacraments whereunto the Sacrament of orders is subordinate all their orders of Clerks being ordained to the ministerie of the altar and that euery one of their 7. orders all which they call Sacraments is onely to be counted a Sacrament as it hath reference to the Eucharist to which purpose Thomas Aquinas doth somewhat ridiculously distinguish their 7. orders according to their diuers offices referred to that Sacrament And forasmuch as in the whole power of order this is the supreme act by pronouncing the words of consecration to make the very body of Christ which is as well performed by a Priest as a Bishop therefore they teach that Bishops and Priests are both of one order and that the order of Bishops as it is a Sacrament is not superior to that of Presbyters but only as it is an office in respect of certaine sacred actions in this sense saith Thomas that the Bishop hath power in sacred and Hierarchicall actions in respect of Christs mysticall body aboue the priest the office of a Bishop is an order For you must vnderstand that they make al Ecclesiasticall power to haue referrence to the body of Christ either verum his true bodie in the Sacrament of the altar which they call the power of order or mysticum mysticall that is the the Church and members thereof which they cal the power of iurisdiction This new Popish conceipt therefore of confounding Bishops and Presbyters into one order ariseth from their idol of the Masse their doctrine of transubstantiation wherby euery Priest is as able to make his maker as the Pope himselfe I call it newe because all the ancient writers doe confesse as before hath been shewed Bishops Presbyters and Deacons to be three distinct degrees and consequētly orders of the Ministery for what is an order but that degree which among things or persons which are subordinate one to another some being higher some lower any one hath obtained Wherefore laying aside these popish conceipts let vs consider what is to bee determined concerning this matter according to the truth 1. And first that ecclesiasticall power is to bee distinguished into the power of order and iurisdiction 2. That the power of order is a spirituall power whereby ecclesiasticall persons are qualified and enabled to doe sacred actions appertayning to the seruice of God and saluation of men which they who are not of the same order at the least may either not at all or not ordinarily performe 3. That this power is that which is granted to ecclesiastical persons in their ordination and appertaineth to them as they simply are of that order though they haue no iurisdiction or charge and therfore cannot be taken from them whiles they continue in that order 4. That of Ecclesiasticall order there are three degrees in Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and because neither of the two superiour orders may be granted to any per saltum therfore each superiour order includeth the inferiour so that a presbyter may doe that which belongeth to a Deacon and a Bishop that which belongeth to to a presbyter but not contrariwise 5. That the power of the order of Presbyters is besides the performance of the diuine liturgy and power to administer the sacrament of Baptisme and to preach common to them with Deacons who shall be thereunto authorized by the B. a power also to minister the holy communion and authority to remit and retaine the sinnes of men which last I doe not doubt to referre to the power of order First because it is giuen to the minister in his ordination and belongeth to him as he is simply a Presbyter without iurisdiction or relation to a charge And secondly because it continueth with him whiles he is of the order though his charge and iurisdiction should be taken from him Besides this power of remitting and retaining sinnes is called the key of order and according to the Popish doctrine belongeth to the conferring of the sacrament of penance 6. The power of order in B. B besides all this power which is in the Presbyters is power by imposition of hands to conuey grace as the ordinary instrument of the holy ghost either to parties baptized for their confirmation or to penitents for their reconciliation or to parties designed to the ministery for their ordination As touching the former the ancient writers gather it to bee peculiar to BB. because howsoeuer many in the primitiue Church were conuerted and baptized by men of inferiour order yet the Apostles alone and after them the BB. had authority to put their hands vpon them that they might receiue the holy Ghost Acts. 8. 19. And for the latter we read that both the Apostles themselues and such as they ordained Bishops did ordaine ministers by imposition of hands insomuch that whereas at Ephesus and in Creet where were diuers Presbyters before Timothy and Titus were appointed to ordaine ministers I hold this authority
May not a man say as much of the Duke of Venice or of the King of Polonia yet are neither of these soueraignes no more had the B. for all these words any supreme and sole authority Do I any where say that the BB. haue or ought to haue supreme and sole authority which here againe he obiecteth to make the BB. according to my iudgement forsooth absolute Popelings will these odious slanders wilfully deuised to disgrace the truth which I taught neuer bee left and yet that is vntrue which he saith of the Duke of Venice and that is more then we desire that the B. in his diocese should be like the King of Polonia in his kingdome For though the Duke of Venice bee aboue any other in Venice yet hee hath not the whole power and authority aboue al neither doe we make the B. to haue supreme power in his diocese as the King of Poland hath in his realme though in respect of the election of him to his kingdome and of BB. to their sees there be somelikenes In the third place I alleage another testimony of Ignatius where hee exhorteth the Presbyters of Antioch where himselfe was Bishop to feed the flocke which was among them vsing the words which Peter doth 1. Epist. 5. Vntill God should declare who should bee their Gouernour meaning the Bishop Where the B. in plaine termes is called the gouernor of the Presbyters There can be no question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a maiority of rule And yet he saith this testimony doth not proue any such maiority of rule and that for foure worthy reasons First because this is one of those places which the disciplinarians absurdly alledge for the proofe of onely-gouerning elders which neuer were the duty inioined them being pastorall Secondly because the Church whereof he was B. was but one congregation at that time And yet he expressely calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria which plainely proueth that he was not onely a diocesan but a Metropolitan B. Yea but in his epistle to Ierome he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil not vrge the error in the name Ierome for Heron perhaps it was not our Ieremies but his Barucks fault The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee absurdly translateth Synagogue and parish signifieth congregation and is the same with ecclesia or Church For Ignatius hauing signified to him that he should be his successour in the Bishopricke he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheepe without a pastor But hereof I haue spoken heretofore Howbeit both this and the former answere here are meere euasions For suppose that which I haue proued to be most false that there were onely-gouerning elders in Antioch and that the Church had been but one parish can he be so absurde asto say that none of the Presbyters in Antioch were ministers If any were as indeed they were all as I haue abundantly proued before is not the B. here plainely noted to be their gouernour and if he were their gouernour was he not aboue them in the power of iurisdiction or gouernment Or what is this to the present question whether the Church of Antioch contained one congregation or more if it cannot be denied that the B. was superiour in the power of iurisdiction to the Presbyters of that Church how great or how little soeuer it was His third reason of all others is most impertinent For what is this to the purpose if it were true that the duty which Ignatius inioineth them of feeding that is of instructing and guiding the people was not perpetually belonging to their office but onely in the time of the vacancie till they had another gouernour seeing he noteth that himselfe had been and his successour should bee their gouernour But it is vntrue which he saith concerning the perpetuity of the duty For Ignatius his meaning was that as they were at all times to feed the people so especially in the absence or want of the Bishop the care and attendance of the flocke in the defect of a B. being deuolued to them Fourthly If M. D. doe vrge saith he that Ignatius was and so also his successor their gouernour which was indeed the onely thing for which the place was alleaged and to which point alone hee ought to haue directed his speech the answere is easie that he might be so and yet the Church but a parish and those Presbyters gouerning Elders An easie answere indeed as who should say though the allegation doe proue that for which you bring it yet it doth not disprooue some other of our absurdities for the disproofe whereof you do not bring it as that the Church was a parish and the Presbyters onely gouerning elders Was the disproofe of those points to be expected from this place and at this time do you not say it is one of the places which is ordinarily brought out of Ignatius for proofe of onely-gouerning Elders And must this be your shift to auoid my argument proouing out of this place the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction that for any thing can hence be alleaged the Presbyters might be onely gouerning Elders Js not the Refuter neere driuen thinke you when he would beare his Reader in hand that his lay Presbyters be sufficiently proued if the place which themselues bring for them doth not disproue them but especially when he is driuen to alleage this as a poore shift to auoid another thing in question Yea but if the Church were a parish and they onely gouerning Elders then was Ignatius but as a Parson of a parish and Parsons though they be called rectores ecclesiarum gouernours of the parish Churches are farre enough from the maiority of rule in question Whereto J answere that if he would need◠make Ignatius but the Parson of a parish assisted with a Presbytery of lay Elders hee should haue conceiued him to be such a one as themselues fancie and not as ours are For he should not haue been subordinate and subiect as ours are and as all Presbyters of parishes euer were to the Bishops but as they fancy indued with a power vnsubordinate and independent and therefore had a supremacy rather then superiority as being the supreme ecclesiasticall officer in all that Church But how I beseech you is it proued that Ignatius was but a parish Bishop Because forsooth the Church of Antioch might be a parish and the Presbyters thereof onely-gouerning Elders for any thing that I haue here said to the contrary which indeed I intended not in this place But now I discerne a worthy stratageme of this Refuter in chusing rather to answere the places out of Ignatius being brought for superiority of Bishops then himselfe to vrge them for the lay-elders hoping to perswade some kind of Readers both that their Elders are sufficiently proued if they be not disprooued out of the places