neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops but a right from the beginning belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie For euidence whereof call to mind what before was prooued that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged or the number of Bishoppes lessened but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop were still to retaine him and those which neuer had if they were so populous as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie and the authority of the prouinciall synod and the Metropolitane set ouer them This is sure that all Countries were vnder their seuerall Cities and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vnto them Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vpon the Country or parishes subiect to another Citie but they were to bee gouerned by them to whom they had belonged from the beginning Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus when complaint was made that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vpon them of Cyprus for the ordination of their Metropolitan who euer from the Apostles times were in that and other matters of greatest moment ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods his attempt was censured as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons of the holy Apostles And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces that no Bishop shall take vpon him any other prouince or countrey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for the time past and from the beginning hath not been vnder him or his Predecessors And againe that to euery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnuiâ—lable which had belonged to them for the time past and from the beginning according to the custome antiently receiued Likewise in the Councell of Carthage that the people in the Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue a Bishop but by the consent of the Bishop by whom and his antecestors they haue bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the begâ—nning possessed And where some had schismatically seized vpon some part of a diocesse and being guilty of their wrong would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops it was decreed that the lawfull Bishop should inioy not only his See but also such dioceses And againe it was demanded what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning the new Bishop should encroach vpon other parts of the diocesse which were not intended to him Answer was made that as that part which he had was taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed and as a member 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the body of many by the consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop who had authority or power so the new Bishop should not encroach vpon any other The great councel of Chalcedon determined that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople with this addition if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres But nothing doth more euidently proue that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops then the antient institution of country Bishops called châ—repiscopi Who where the country seemed larger then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices were for the more ease of the Bishops and commodity of the country Churches appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents and to performe vnder them and for them some episcopall duties of lesse moment but yet so as the chorepiscopâ—â— might doe nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect Fourthly this truth is also demonstrated partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches singularly succeeding from the Apostles times to the latter ages plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches not onely in former ages both catholike and hereticall for euen the Nouatians the Donatists the Arians c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops but also of all almost at this day being established in peace retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches according to dioceses and prouinces which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them not any one example being to be produced in the whole world neither in nor since the Apostles times vntill our age of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe which hath been a paterne to others though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnder their one onely Presbytery as well as it was wont vnder their one onely Bishoppe the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to haue Finally it may be alleaged that as with vs Bathe and Wels Couentry and Lichfield London and Coâ—chester so in the primitiue Church more cities then one with the countries thereto belonging haue sometimes made but one diocesse For when to the general Councell of Ephesus petiton was made by certaine Bishops that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe that diuers Bishops should haue each of them two cities vnder them as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion the Bishop of â—yze had also Arcadiopolis the Bishop of Câ—â—la Callipolis the Bishop of Sabsadia A phrodiâ—ias and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops and whereas now they feared some innouation they referred the cause to the Councell The Councell therefore determined that there should not then nor afterwards bee any innouation but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome which hath the force of a law retaine the said Cities And likewise it may be added that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop not as the primate or Patriarch for that was ordinary so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria Liberius of Italy Cyprius of Africke Diodorus
antecedent I prooue by Pauls substituting Timothe at Ephesus and Titus in Creet to that end that they might ordaine elders notwithstanding that there were diuerse Presbyters in both those Churches before Whereto he answereth that it had been lawfull for the Presbyters and people to haue ordained but at the first they were lesse fit for the purpose then an Euangelist That the people sometimes haue had some stroake in election of their Bishops I do not denie but that they euer had any right to ordaine can neuer be proued That the Presbyters had right to haue done it he should haue declared But what Presbyters doth he speake of ministers they I trust if the new conceit be true were confined ech man to his own parish neither might they intermeddle in other parishes euerie parish hauing sufficient authoritie within it selfe neither can it be thought that the Presbyters of latter times should be fit and that they which were ordained by the Apostles themselues were not fit for the execution of their power assuredly if it were not fit for them to ordaine but for Timothe and Titus by the same reason neither is it fit for Presbyters afterwards but for Bishops who succeeded Timothe and Titus Jf he say the lay Presbyters and the people had right to ordaine he must first proue which he will neuer be able to doe that euer there were such Presbyters and then he must proue that they and the people had right to ordaine ministers which when he hath performed he may hope to proue any thing The latter part of the antecedent I proue thus Who were the successors of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of Ephesus and Creet to them after their decease was their power of ordination deriued The Bishops of Ephesus and Creet were the successessours of Timothe and Titus for the gouernment of those Churches and not Presbyters Therefore to the BB. and not to the Presbyters was the power of Ordination deriued Hereto he answereth that Timothe and Titus were Euangelists and not Bishops and therefore that which followeth of deriuing their authoritie to their successors is meerely idle Thus no part of my syllogisme is answeared vnlesse it be the conclusion But to answeare his reason whereby he goeth about 〈◊〉 clâ—â—â— pelâ—ere their being Euangelists whiles they attended the Apostle in his peregrinations and were not deputed to any one place doth not hinder but that they might be and were Bishops as all antiquitie with one consent testifieth when they were assigned to certaine Churches Neither is it greatly materiall as touching the force of this argument whether they were Euangelists or Bishops seeing the power which they had of ordination and jurisdiction was not to dye with them but to be transmitted to them who should succeed them in the gouernment of the Church Now that the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet and so of all other Churches did succeed Timothe and Titus and other Apostolicall men who were the first gouernors of the Churches is a most certaine truth as the singular succession of Bishops in those Churches from the Apostles times doth ineuitably euince But hereof I shall haue better occasion hereafter to speake Now that the Presbyters were not their successors it is euident for they had the selfesame authoritie and no greater vnder the Bishops who were successors to Timothe and Titus which before they had vnder them For they which had no other authoritie after them then they had vnder them could not be their successors Serm Sect. 7. p. 37. They obiect 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the gift which is in thee which was giuen thee by imposition of hands of the Presbytery c. to ex authoritate pag. 39. MY answere to this testimony out of 1. Tim. 4. is That howsoeuer the Presbyterians doe vpon this place especially build the authoritie of their pretended Presbyteries yet this text maketh not for them That it maketh not for them I proue by this reason If there be but two expositions which are giuen of the word Presbyterie neither whereof doth fauour their presbyteries then the authoritie of their Presbyteries cannot be concluded out of this place But neither of the two expositions do fauour their Presbyteries Therefore their authoritie cannot be concluded hence The exceptions which he taketh against this answere are very friuolous As first that how many expositions soeuer any text in the conceit of men may admit the holy ghost except by way of allegorie intendeth but one Be it so but yet there may be question which of the diuerse expositions which be giuen is the sense of the holy Ghost vnlesse that must needs be alwaies the meaning of the holy Ghost which the refuter fancieth For my part I did not take vpon me to determine whether sense is the more likely Jt was sufficient for me that whereas there be but these two expositions which are or can be giuen neither of both maketh for the pretended Presbyteries His first exception therefore is to no purpose Now that the former exposition vnderstanding by Presbyterium the Priest-hood or office of a Presbyter maketh nothing for their Presbyteries it is more then euident And that this exposition which so plainly defeateth their Presbyteries is very probable I shewe first because the word is in that sense oft vsed though not in the new testament yet in greeke writers of the Church It suffiseth the Refuter that it is not vsed in that sense in any other place of Scripture and yet himselfe saying that the word is no wheres else vsed in all the Scriptures doth as much prejudge his own exposition as this How be it I do not deny but the worde is else where vsed in the Scriptures onely this I say that there is no other place wherein it can be drawne to signifie the Christian Presbyterie meaning either the company of Presbyters or the office of a Presbyter This then being the onely place where it is so vsed we must not expect parallele places in the Scripture to confirme either sense Secondly I shew that this may be the sense because not onely diuerse in former times as Ierome Primasius Anselmus Haymo Lyra but Caluin also doe so expound it To this his answere is worse then friuolous that though these writers doe so expound it yet Doctor Bilson doth not say that therefore it may be so vnderstood And why so I pray you because he confesseth that Chrysostome Theodoret and other Graecians expound it of the persons which did ordaine not of the function whereto Timothe was ordained Doth not Doctor Bilson say it may be so vnderstood when more then once he mentioneth it as one of the receiued expositions of that place approued by Caluin himselfe the chiefe patron for I must not say founder of the Presbyterian Discipline neither doth his relating of Chrysostomes exposition proue that he rejecteth the other no more then his alledging of Ieromes interpretation doth argue that he refuseth that of Chrysostomes but
haue answered his allegation before out of Tertullian for lay-elders wherein is nothing that maketh against Bishops so haue I cited pregnant places in his vvritings giuing testimony not onely to the gouernment of BB. in his time but prouing a continued succession of them from the Apostles to his time It is plaine therefore that the refuter with the help of all his collectors is not able to produce any one example of an orthodoxall and Apostolicall Church in the first three hundred yeeres after the Apostles times wherin the Episcopall gouernment was not receiued so that my argument standeth firme and sure in all the parts of it To my fourth reason concluding the perpetuity of the Episcopall gouernment in the ancient Churches from the succession of BB. deduced from the Apostles times vntill the Councill of Nice remayning as yet vpon authenticall records Eusebius euery where carefully setting downe this succession and Irenaeus and Tertullian prouing the deriuation of the orthodoxall doctrine from the Apostles to their time by the personall succession of BB. in the Churches teaching the same truth He obiecteth and saith the obiection is worth the answering that I deceiue them with the name he confesseth there was a succession of BB. but the first were not like the latter for though the latter were Diocesan Bishops yet the former were not Belike they were first Parish BB. and then titular Diocesan BB. and then ruling Diocesans then Lord Diocesans then Metropolitanes then Patriarches which being obiected vpon ridiculous grounds heretofore confuted I held scarse worth the mentioning in the Sermon It is apparant by this succession that within the compasse of euery Diocese there was onely one B. at a time there hauing bin no more in any Diocese at the end of the first or second hundred then were at the end of of foure hundred yeeres and therefore this succession doth euidently proue a perpetuitie of Diocesan BB. from the Apostles times downewards And thus the former part of my assumption is manifest Wherefore as I said in the Sermon this to a moderate Christian might seeme a sufficient commendation of the Episcopall function though no more could be said for it that in the best times of the primitiue Church it was borne of so many thousand godly and learned Bishops receiued in all true Churches approued of all the orthodoxall and learned Fathers allowed and commended of all the famous Councils The latter part that the Episcopall function was not first ordayned by generall Councils I proue by vndenyable euidence but this proofe the refuter had no mind to deale withall because it also proueâ—h the former part by such an argument as he could not tell how to answere that vvas this that the first generall Councill of Nice was so farre from first ordayning Bishops or Metropolitanes that it acknowledgeth Patriarches to haue beene long before that time in vse and confirmeth the ancient custome of subiecting diuers Prouinces to them For there were Diocesan Bishops before there were Metropolitanes actually and Metropolitanes were long before Patriarches and Patriarches had beene long in vse before the Councill of Nice and yet that Councill was held within two hundred and thirtie yeeres after the Apostle times Wherefore seeing the proposition of my syllogisme was so euidently true as that the refuter could not deny it viz. that gouernment which was generally and perpetually receiued in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution and seeing the assumption was proued by foure or fiue vnanswerable arguments that the gouernment by such Bishops as were described in the former part of the Sermon was generally and perpetually vsed in all Christian Churches in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ and his Apostles and not ordayned by generall Councils therefore the conclusion is of necessarie and vndenyable truth that the gouernment of the Churches by such Bishops was vndoubtedly of Apostolicall institution After I had thus concluded affirmatiuely to proue my assertion I propounded another syllogisme concluding negatiuely against the pretended discipline therein intending to prouoke and challenge him that should take vpon him the refutation of my Sermon to bring some proofes for their gouernment in the first three hundred yeeres after Christ. The syllogisme was this That gouernment which no where was in vse in the first three hundred yeares is not of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of Lay-elders in euery parish was no where in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is not of Apostolicall institution The proposition is as certaine as the former the assumption I haue already proued in the former syllogisme For if the gouernment by Diocesan BB. was generally and perpetually receiued in those three hundred yeares after the Apostles then is it manifest that this gouernment which they speake of was no wherein vse But because it is infinite to proue such a negatiue by induction of particulars which might be disproued by any one instance by them which hold the affirmatiue therefore I left the proofe of the affirmatiue to the refuter Let vs see then how he answeareth forsooth by opposing the like syllogisme saying That gouernment which was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres is of Apostolicall institution The gouernment of the Churches by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders in euery parish was generally in vse in the first three hundred yeeres Therefore it is of Apostolicall institution And then braggeth that his proofe for their discipline is as good as mine against it Wher the refuter doth not so much bewray his ignorance in the lawes of disputation as the badnes of his cause choosing rather to boast that their gouernment was generally and perpetually vsed then to giue any one instance to proue it what needed this generall assertion vnlesse it were to beguile the simple who are lead with shewes when one perticular instance would haue serued But that the reader may vnderstand that this my assumption was vndoubtedly true I will make the refuter this faire offer that if he can bring any one pregnant and approued example of a Christian Church gouerned by a parity of ministers and assistance of onely-gouerning Elders I will promise to suscribe to their discipline wherefore let not the reader be carried away with vaine shewes neither let him belieue that their pretended discipline was instituted by the Apostles vntill they be able to shew as they neuer will be that it was sometime and some where practised within three hundred yeeres say a thousand foure hundred if you will after the Apostles The II. CHAPTER Prouing the function of BB. to be of Apostolicall institution because it was vsed in those times without their dislike Serm. Sect. 4. pag.
The proofe of their exposition of Ambrose disproued and the reasons why the counsell of the Seniors was neglected defended Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter alleageth to proue Lay-elders Chap. 10. Contayning an answere to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleaged by other Disciplinarians Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders The second Booke proueth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops CHap. 1. Intreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocese and Paraecia which is translated parish Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses Chap. 3. that the seauen Churches in Asia were Dioceses Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses Chap. 5. Answering their obiections who say that in the first 200. yeeres all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation assembling in one place Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitiue Churches were Diocesan Bishops The third Booke treateth of the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops and defendeth mine entrance thereinto Chap. 2. Declareth in generall that Bishops were superiour to other Ministers in degree Chap. 3. Sheweth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist And first their singularity of preheminence for terme of life Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power and first in the power of ordination Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of iurisdiction Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honour giuen to Bishops The fourth Booke proueth the Episcopall function to be of Apostolicall and diuine institution CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops was generally receiued in the first 300. yeeres after the Apostles Chap. 2. That the Episcopall gouernment was vsed in the Apostolicall Churches in the Apostles times without their dislike Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselues ordayned Bishops Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops but chiefly that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Ierome Chap. 6. Directly proueth the Episcopall function to be of diuine institution Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon and sheweth that the chiefe Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopall gouernment FINIS An Ansvvere to the Preface THE scope of the refuter in his preface is as of Orators in their Proemes to prepare the Reader and if he be such a one as will be led with shewes to draw his affections to himselfe and to withdrawe them from me It containeth a Prologue to the Reader an Epilogue concluding with prayer and with praise to God The former consisteth of a declaration and of a direction to the Reader He declareth three things first the weightie causes mouing him to vndertake this worthie worke secondly his valiant resolution in vndertaking it thirdly his manner of performance As touching the first that you may not thinke him after the manner of factious spirits blinded with erroneous conceits and transported with vnquiet passions vnaduisedly or headily to haue attempted this busines he telleth you that there were two motiues that moued him thereto the one his strong opinion pag. 3 the other his vnquiet desire pag. 7. His opinion was that my sermon defending the honourable function of Bishops was most needfull to be answered for so he saith I deemed it as needfull to be answered as any booke our Opposites haue at any time set forth And that no man should thinke this his opinion to be fantasticall or erroneous hee confirmeth it with diuers reasons but such as who shall compare them either with the truth or with his opinion for the proofe whereof they are brought or one with another he shall see a pleasant representation of the Matachine euery one fighting with another The first reason because he sawe the Sermon tended directly to proue that the calling of our L. BB. as they now exercise it in the Church of England is to be holden Iure diuino by diuine right not as an humane ordinance their ancient and wonted tenure c. In which speech are diuerse vntruthes For first with what eye did hee see that directly proclaimed in the Sermon which directly and expressely I did disclaime pag. 92. where I did professe that although I hold the calling of BB. in respect of their first institution to be an Apostolicall and so a diuine ordinance yet that I doe not maintaine it to be Diuini juris as intending thereby that it is generally perpetually and immutably necessarie as though there could not be a true Church without it which himselfe also acknowledgeth pag. 90. of his booke 2. where I spake of the substance of their calling with what eye did he see me defending their exercise of it As if he would make the reader belieue that I went about to iustifie all the exercise of their function which in all euen the best gouernements whatsoeuer is subiect to personall abuses 3. Neither is it true that the ancient tenure of BB. was onely Iure humano vnlesse he restraine the ancieÌ„tnesse he speakes of to these latter times which are but as yesterday For in the primitiue Church as hereafter shal be plainely proued the function of BB. was without contradiction acknowledged to be a tradition or ordinance Apostolicall and the first Bishops certainely knowne to haue bene ordained by the Apostles And as his first reason fighteth with the truth so the second both with his opinion and with it selfe For why was the sermon most needfull to be answered because saith he it is euident that the doctrine therein contained howsoeuer M. D. saith it is true profitable and necessarie is vtterly false very hurtfull and obnoxious necessarie indeed to be confused at no hand to be belieued In which words 3. reasons are propunded which now come to be examined It is euident saith he that the doctrine in the sermon is vtterly false therefore it is most needfull to be confuted But say I if it be euidently false it needs no confutation Things manifestly false or true are so iudged without disputation or discourse Neither doth any thing need to be argued or disputed but that which is not euident This reason therefore if it were true would with better reason conclude against his opinion It is euident saith he that it is vtterly false therefore it needeth not to be confuted The second brâ—anch It is very hurtfull and obnoxious therfore c. Obnoxious what is this subiect or in danger to be hurt with euill tongues subiect to sophistical cauillations and malicious calumniations But hurtfull it is not for I
offices and to the Councell of Carthage Ambrose therefore saith that the Bishop must not be offended if either a Presbyter or Deacon or any other of the Clergie doe by mercy fasting integritie learning or reading obtaine great estimation Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise But if any doe not obey the Bishop and desiring to aduance himselfe seeketh aâ— counterfeit affectation of learning humilitie or mercy he is lifted vp with pride going astray from the truth In the Councell of Carthage it was decreed that the people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their owne that is a Bishop for so is the title of that chapter that the parts of the Diocesse without the consent of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not receiue another Bishop But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers and histories of the Church were no Ministers or that by the word of God they had nothing to doe with the word and Sacraments Farre be it from vs so to thinke for nothing is more euident then that they were Ministers The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops but reckoned these three for sacred or consecrated persons calling them three degrees of the Clergie the Bishop answering to the high Priest the Presbyters to the Priests and the Deacons to the Leuites For proofe whereof there are almost as many euidences in the Canons of the councells as there be leaues But that it may most clearely appeare that the Presbyters were Ministers I will proue it first by their name SecoÌ„dly by their office thirdly by some lawes that peculiarly concerned them For their name as they are most vsually called Presbyters so oftentimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri that is Priests In the Councell of Carthage continencie is committed to Bishops Presbyters Deacons as it becommeth holy Bishops Priests and Leuits Tertullian reprouing the disorder of Hereticks saith among them hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus nam laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt he is to day a Presbyter who to morrow is a lay-man for euen to lay-men doe they inioyne priestly functions Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reserâ—ed that God might adde him to our Clergy and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Priests And more plainely in another place he saith that the Presbyters are ioyned with the Bishops in priestly honour Dionysius termed the Areopagite insteed of Bishop Presbyter and Deacon into which three he distinguisheth the Clergie vseth the names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Presbyters and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Deacons Sozomen also calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Priests Isidorus those who in the old Testament were called Sacerdotes are they who who are called Presbyteri And then hee setteth downe their office That to them is committed the dispensation of diuine mysteries they rule the Church and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops as also in teaching the people and office of preaching The Ancient Councell of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters who hauing once sacrificed did after refuse to retaine their place notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects forbidding them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer the communion to preach or to minister in any part diuine seruice The learned Author of the vnfinished worke which goeth vnder the name of Chrysostome by the seruant which receiued fiue talents and gained other fiue vnderstandeth a Presbyter sent of God whome he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest and sheweth how by his fiue talents he gaineth other fiue that is by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him a godly life by the office of a Presbyter the careful gouernement of the Church by the word the sincere preaching of the word of truth by baptisme the begetting of worthy children to the Church by the sacrifice the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people and making intercession for their sinnes More particularly for the ministerie of the Sacraments the Councell of Laodicâ—a determined that those which returned from the heresie of the Cataphrygians though of the Clergie among them though supposed great men must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church Tertullian saith the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme then Presbyters Deacons c. In the Canons called the Apostles in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the coÌ„munion In the Councell of Nice the Deacons who are there said to haue no power to celebrate the Communion are forbidden to deliuer it to the Presbyter who hath power but must receiue it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands To omit other of the Fathers doth not Ierome expressely testifie that the Presbyters prayers the body and blood of Christ are consecrated For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop doe remoue to other Churches and refuse to returne when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to minister or serue any more As for the ministery of the word though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arrius his fall restrained from preaching yet both before and after they were allowed to preach Among their functions as you heard the Councell of Ancyra reckoneth preaching The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie but the Clergie also Ignatius requireth them to feede the flocke Origen testifieth that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos do instruct vs c. Basil saith that to them and to Deacons in committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospel Caluin speaking of the primitiue Church saith it was the dutie in those times of the Bishop as wel as of the Presbyters to apply themselues to the ministerie of the word and Sacraments Chrysost. hauing affirmed that there is no great differeÌ„ce betweene a Bishop and a Presbyter rendreth this reason for they also haue receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 authoritie to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gouernement of the Church and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops doe agreâ— also to Presbyters In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈◊〉
not that we are able to ouersway them without comparison no writer till our age giuing testimonie no Church since the Apostles times vntill this present age giuing approbation to Lay-Elders but all writers and Churches before our time giuing testimonie and approbation to the gouernement of Bishops To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferiour so in the multitude of Churches at this day which doe not admit the Lay-Elders we are farre superiour as hereafter shal be shewed And thus much I hope will suffice for the first point FINIS LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed 1611. THE SECOND BOOKE PROVING That the Primitiue Churches indued with Power of Ecclesiasticall Gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses And that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not Parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The First Chapter entreating of the diuers acceptations of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Church Diocesse and that which is translated Parish IN this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident like the men of Ai though not vpon the like occasion as though my forces were not able to stand before him But forasmuch as in the former assault I haue taken the Acropolis chiefe hold of the Presbyterian Discipline I doubt not but that when he shall with the men of Ai looke backe and see the chiefe Tower of his defence I meane the Presbytery vanishing as it were a smoake his courage will bee abated For the Presbytery being downe what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishoppes For seeing the Primitiue Churches were gouerned eyther by Diocesan Bishoppes as we hold or by Pastors of Parishes assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine who seeth not that vpon the ouerthrow of the Presbyteries the gouernment by Bishops is necessarily inferred Hauing therefore proued the first point of the fiue with such euidence of truth as I am wel assured all the gainesayers thereof will neuer bee able soundly and substantially to confute I need not doubt of preuailing in the rest As for the 2. next points which I handle concerning Dioceses and Diocesans the refuter thinketh they be the weakest of all the fiue and the worst appointed and thereupon would take occasion to cauill at my order as if I were to learne Methode of him whereas indeed his imputation of weakenesse to these 2. parts if it were true would commend my disposition of them as Homericall seeing I haue marshalled them Nestorio more after the manner of Nestor in medio infirma placing the weakest in the middest The chiefest points in my estimation being the first and the two last The truth is I did more lightly passe ouer these two then the rest but not out of an opinion of weakenes in the points themselues but partly in a conceit of their euidence and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthie or so needfull to be insisted vpon as the rest For first I supposed them to be so euident that howsoeuer T. C. in whose steppes our new Disciplinarians tread vpon weaker grounds then a man of learning iudgement should haue stood vpon doth deny them yet scarsly any other man of learning iudgement besides him would gain-say them Secondly that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted and in which these 2. are presupposed were most worthy in that breuity whereto I was confined to be stood vpon And thirdly that J needed not to bee so carefull in prouing of them seeing the chiefest patrones of the pretended Discipline as Caluin and Beza c. doe herein ioin with vs against our new sect of Disciplinarians as hath already beene proued Now whereas I brought forth these forces intending only a light skirmish velitationem quandam tanquam leuis armaturae my aduersary bringeth his maine battel into the field as if the euent of this whole warfare depended vpon this encounter I will therefore not onely bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came vpon the men of Ai as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel but also cause these Arguments which now like the troupes of Israel seem in his conceit to flie before him to returne vpon him a fresh And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches Parishes and Dioceses it shall not bee amisse to beginne with the names which are diuersly taken And first with the word Ecclesia which signifying generally any assembly company or congregation of men whatsoeuer ciuill or ecclesiasticall holy or prophane is in all the places of the new Testament excepting Act. 19. appropriated to the Companies of the faithfull For whereas all mankind is to be diuided into two Companies the one is the world which is the kingdome of darkenesse containing manie particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Sathan the other the Kingdome of God this latter is called Ecclesia signifying a Company of men as redeemed so also called out of the world as the Greeke word importeth Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world vnto saluation by Christ that is to say more brieflie the Church doth signifie a companie of Christians And thus it is vsed in the Scriptures either more Generally to signifie eyther the Vniuersal company of them that are elected in Christ or called to be Saints as Ephes. 1.22 3.21 5.23 24.25.27.29 32. Act 2.47 Colos. 1.18.24 The two main parts of the vniuersall Church Triumphant in heauen as Heb. 12 23. Militant on earth as Mat. 16.18 1. Cor. 12.28 Eph. 3.10 1. Tim. 3.15 and that eyther dispersed in diuers nations and Countries throughout the world 1. Cor. 10.32 15 9. Act. 8.3 Gal 1.13 Phil. 3.6 Congregated in an vniuersall or Oâ—cumenicall Synode Particularly that either Definitely to signifie the Church of a Nation in the nuÌ„ber Singular Act. 7 38. Plural Rom. 16.4 1. Cor. 16.1.19 2. Co. 8.1 Ga. 1.2.22 And these either dispersed or coÌ„gregated into a Synode or consistory Mat. 18.17 Act. 15.22 Congregation whether set or vncertain as Act. 11.26 14.27 1. Cor. 11 18 22. 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3 Ioh. 6. City and Country adioyning Act. 5.11 8.1 11.12 12.1.5 13.1 14.23 20. 17.28 1. Cor. 1.2 2 Co. 1.1 8.23 Col 4.16 2. Thes. 1.1 1. Tim. 5.16 Iam. 5.14 Apoc. 1.4 11.20 2.1.7.8.12.18 3.1.7.14 Village or towne Rom. 16 1. Family Rom. 16.5 1. Cor. 16 9. Col. 4.5 Philem. 2. Indefinitely signifying any company of Christians not defining either the Place Society whether of a Nation City c. quantity whether an entire church or but a part as Act. 9. â—1 15 3.4.41 18.22 Rom. 16.16 23.1 Co. 4.17 6.4 11.16 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24 â—1 8.28 12.13 Phil. 4.15 1. Thes. 2.14 2. Thes. 1.4 â— Tim. 3.5.3 Iohn 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29 3.6.13.22 22.16 The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures
in the first 100. yeeres Concerning Rome I haue proued already that within the first 200. yeeres it was diuided into many parishes and therefore although there bee not so good euidence for other Cities in particular yet the like is to bee concluded of them seeing they were all of the same constitution Passing by therefore his proposition I take hold of his assumption and doe plainely denie the Churches he speaketh of or any other which had a Bishop and Presbyterie to haue beene for the first two hundred yeeres no more but parishes for J doubt not but it is easier to proue that within this terme not onely the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses but also the Bishops in the same Prouinces were subiect to the Bishops of these three Cities For as it is euident of Antioch by the testimonie of Ignatius who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria so no reason can bee alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth who in the third centurie and in the ages following were Metropolitans were not so in the second or if they were Metropolitans in the third and in the ages following as most certainely they were why they should not haue beene Diocesans at the least in the second The assumption hee saith appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars But what doth he prooue of the particulars Are his syllogismes so soone come to an end His chiefe proofes be that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one Congregation Was this your assumption You that are so strict in exacting syllogismes and direct proofes should not haue sought to carrie away the matter as it were in the cloudes Yea but that which he prooueth doth prooue the assumption That shall thus bee tried by his owne forme of argumentation If those Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place then were they for the first 200. yeeres each of them but one parish But the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Antioch in the Apostle Pauls time were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place Therefore for the first 200. yeeres they were each of them but one parish The proposition is omitted by the disputer as taken for granted but therein he hath plaied the sophister for he that meaneth truly doth not vse to omit any part of his argument but that which is certaine or confessed But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught for if hee had onely said thus If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres they were so the consequence had beene starke naught or if he had onely said If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation then were they each one parish that consequence also had beene naught but when he saith If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation therefore for 200. yeeres each of them was but a parish that consequence is as I said worse then naught That the first of the two consequences is naught it is euident for though at the first conuersion of any great City and for a while after the number vsually was so small that they might haue assembled in one place yet it is certaine that within 200. yeeres their number was growne to bee almost innumerable as hath beene shewed and therefore too great to make one ordinarie congregation This one exception if no more should bee added ouerturneth all his dispute As touching the second though it should bee granted that each of these Churches in the Apostles time did ordinarilie assemble together in one place yet would it not follow that therefore each of them was but a parish and much lesse which is the end of all this disputation that all Churches endued with ecclesiasticall power should be but parishes and consequently that euery parish should haue a Bishop and presbyterie The reasons of my deniall of these consequences I haue before set downe at large Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I haue sufficiently ouerthrowne already For a surplussage I adde these two reasons First If these Churches because they were each of them but one Congregation were parishes before the diuision of parishes then were they such Churches as after the diuision parishes were This consequence may not be denied especially by them who would haue all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches But they were not such for the parishes after their diuision had not a Bishop and presbyterie but only a Presbyter assigned to them neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent ouer others neither was any of them intended to bee a mother Church Secondly if that assumption was false which denied parishes to haue beene distinguished in the Apostles times then these Churches were not onely many congregations but many parishes also But he said before that that assumption had no truth in it These two iust exceptions I haue against his consequence If against the former it bee obiected that some of his testimonies doe seeme to prooue that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation I answer that his maine argument and proofes thereof doe speake of the Apostles time Those which are extended further shall bee further examined Now I come to his assumption for though I doe not denie but that at the first and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul the most of the Churches so soone after their conuersion did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation yet I cannot yeeld to all his proofes His proofes be either allegation of Scriptures or other testimonies His Scriptures for Corinth are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians and Rom. â—6 1 for Ephesus Act. 20.28 for Antioch Act. 14.27 Now let vs consider the date of his testimonies and then what is testified in them The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome which was in the yeere 5â— or â—6 Which I do note to shew to what time his proposition is to bee restrained as if hee had said If before the yeere 55. or â—6 they were but one congregation then they were no more vntill the yeere 200. The thing that is testified for Corinth 1. Cor 11. is such as might bee written to the Church of England as verse 18. When you come into the Church I beare there bee schismâ—s among you vers 20. When you come together in the same place this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord vers 33. When you come together to eat expect one another Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae whereof mention hath beene made now thrice to no purpose vnlesse it bee against himselfe for if Câ—nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth as most certainly it was it selfe hauing not a Bishop or presbyterie but a
subiect to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which were subiect to the city it self And therfore as they were actually vnder the Bishops charge after their conuersion so were they intentionally before This is a point clearly confessed by Caluin as you shall heare So is the third though this learned man deny it viz that Presbyters were by the Bishops of the city assigned to country parishes out of the clergy of the city For the clergy of the city was the seminary of the ministery for the whole diocesse Neither was there any other ordinary meanes to supply the Churches which wanted Schollers of their own fitte â—o be ministers country parishes had not vniuersities there were none learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected vnlesse the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them But hereof I haue spoken before As touching the last that where the diocesse was large the Bishop in certaine places appointed Chorepiscopos as his substitutes who together with their charge remained subiect to the Bishop of the city which is a thing most notorious and confessed by Caluin and Beza being also a most euident proofe that the churches were dioceses and the Bishops diocesan as J haue shewed before our refuter passeth it ouer in silence with what conscience let the refuter Iudge Passing therefore by this which in no wise he was able to answer he oppugneth the 3. point bringing an instaÌ„ce of his owne and taking exception against my proofe We haue saith hee a plaine instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth A plain instance to what purpose that Cenchrea had a Bishoppe and a presbytery and not a seuerall presbyter assigned to it that when it wanted a presbyter it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth It is euident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subiect vnto it as were al other townes and villages in those parts and as the rest so it euen by his own confession receiued the gospell from Corinth That it euer had a Bishop it is incredible for by the lawes of the church those churches which at the first had Bishops were to haue them stil. Let him shew that euer it had a Bishop or a presbytery or that it was not subiect to the Bishop of Corinth as well as other towns and villages of Achaia that ordinarily it receiued not their presbyter from Corinth from whence by his owne confession it receiued the Gospel and I wil yeeld to him If none of these things can be necessarily proued nay if none of them be probable or likely how could he say that this was a plaine instance to the contrary And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been obiected to no purpose vnlesse it be to confute himselfe Against my allegation of the councell of Sardica hee taketh great exception obiecting two contrary things vnto me whereof if either were true the one would take away the other The former is subtilty and craft as though I went about to delude my auditors at Lambith and readers euery where For saith he when was this Councell held was it not about the yeere 347. almost 150. yeeres after the time in question If I had alleaged that canon only to testifie the practise of the Church at that time not permitting Bishops in country townes and villages there had been some small colour for this obiection and yet but a colour seeing they doe not as you shall heare prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been And therefore the practise of the Church for multitude of Bishops now was as it had been before sauing that by this canon order was taken for erecting Bishoprickes where none had been but not for dissoluing of Bishopricks where any were But it was the iudgement and determination of that Councell which chiefely I alledged which was that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or towne And therefore nothing was in this respect to bee innouated but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them so they should continue The iudgement of these men I hope was not much inferiour to theirs who liued in the first two hundred yeeres This being a councel of three hundred orthodoxall Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the councell of Nice among whom was Osius the famous confessour and Athanasius then whom there hath not bene a more famous Bishop for piety wisdome learning and soundnesse in religion since the Apostles times whose iudgement also in this particular was approued as hath bene shewed by the decrees of other councils by the iudgment of other fathers by the practise of all churches and neuer gaine said or misliked by any in the former ages nor yet by the reformers of the church in our age according to the pretended discipline T. C. and perhaps some one or 2. others excepted Now I would gladly know what either reasons our refuter hath to confute their iudgement or testimonies to ouerweigh their authority There was therefore no subtill purpose in mee to delude any in this allegation but an euill conscience in him that sought with so friuolous an euasion to elude so plaine and pregnant euidence The other thing which hee obiecteth is simple follie in alledging a Canon which as he saith maketh so much against mee For saith hee what greater proofe can there bee that villages or little cities or townes vsually had BB. ouer them euen till that time viz. the yeare 347 then that the councill of Sardica was faine to make such a decree against it For the vntruth of which obiection his ignorance must bee his best excuse It is plaine that in that canon direction is giuen chiefely for erecting of new Bishopricks authorizing the Metropolitane and the other Bishoppes of the prouince if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop to erect a new Bishopricke but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or townes for which they iudged the ministery of one Presbyter to be sufficient Besides the councill of Nice had decreed that the priuiledges of all churches should bee preserued and the councils of Africke more then once determined that what Church soeuer had in former times had a Bishop should still haue a B. and the ancient custome of the church was euer held as a law among them in this behalfe So that I hold it for a certaine truth that what Church in the end of the first 400 yeares had not a Bishop the same had none in the beginning and what Church soeuer had in the first 200. yeares a B. was at the end of 400. yeares acknowledged to haue right to a B. Indeed I doe confesse that the people of countrey townes sometimes being vaineglorious haue desired a Bishop of their owne and the ministers beeing ambitious and as it is
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
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
shew they had then can it not be doubted but that diocesan Bishops much more were in the Apostles times for euery Metropolitā was originally B. of his peculiar diocesse being not actually a Metropolitan vntill diuers Churches in the same prouince being constituted there was a consociation among themselues and subordination of them to him as their primate There was therefore no such difference betweene the first two ages of the Churches and those which followed as that either H. I. or the Refuter should restraine the times of the primitiue Church either to the end of the second century or of the first with hope to escape that way Wherefore what proofes I bring from the third or fourth yea or fifth century for the superiority of Bishops they are to be esteemed such as doe directly and sufficiently proue the question vnlesse they shall be able to shew not onely that no such thing was in vse but also that it was not intended in the Apostles time and the age following for what was receiued and practised by generall consent in all Christendome so soone as God gaue peace vnto his Church was vndoubtedly desired and intended from the beginning The second corner of his first starting hole wherewith the second also meeteth is that the question is of the seuen Angels And what of no other Is it not lawfull to ascend from the hypothesis to the thesis especially when it is confessed by the Refuter that the primitiue Churches were all of the like constitution And therefore what may be said either of the seuen Angels in respect of the substance of their calling may be concluded of other Bishops and what may be said of the office of other Bishoppes in the primitiue Church may be verified of these Angels The third that I must proue these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction which also is repeated in his second euasion But where doe I say in all the sermon that the Bishops had the sole power of ordination and iurisdiction Where doe I deny either that the BB. did or might vse the assistance of their Presbyters for either of both or that in the defect of Bishops both the one and the other might be performed by Presbyters In a word where doe I deny all power either of ordination or iurisdiction to Presbyters But let the Reader vnderstand that there are two maine calumniations whereby this Resuter and his consorts doe vse to disgrace my Sermon with their followers The one that I hold the tenure of our episcopal function so to be iure diuino as though no other manner of gouernment were any way or any where lawfull The other that J ascribe so the sole power of of ordination and iurisdiction to BB. as though the Presbyters had no iurisdiction or as though those Churches had no lawful Ministers which haue not such BB. to ordaine them His other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or starting hole is that which hee hath already foure times runne into and making vse of it now the fifth time in the beginning of the next section desireth the Reader that it may not be tedious to him that now the fifth time he doth finde fault with me for not concluding what hee according to his forced analysis would haue concluded though all men see I doe directly prooue what before was propounded for the proof of my first assertion viz. that the Angels or BB. of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishops and for the substance of their calling such as ours be Hauing therefore prooued that their Churches were dioceses and themselues diocesan it remained that J should proue that they were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree c which if I did not endeuor to proue directly he might haue had some quarrell against me CHAP. II. That Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree Serm. sect 2. pag. 29. That Bishoppes were superiour to other Ministers in degree all antiquitie with one consent if you except Aërius c. to the end of pag. 31. MY reason hee frameth thus If all antiquitie except Aërius who for dissenting in this point was counted an heretike by Epiphanius and Augustine with one consent doe acknowledge that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree then Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree But the former is true therefore the latter First hee cauilleth with the consequence which no man bearing the face of a Diuine I had almost said of a Christian would doe calling it sore poore feeble and insufficient vnlesse the consent of the Apostles and Euangelists be added Where let the Reader consider what is the question which is here concluded viz. That the Bishops of the primitiue Church were superiour to other Ministers in degree This question plainly is de facto of what was for de iure that is of the quality lawfulnes I intreat in the second assertion Now for a man to deny credit to all antiquitie in a matter of fact not gainsaid by scripture it is a plain euidence that he is addicted to nouelty and singularity rather then the truth Doth all antiquity testifie with one consent that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were superior to other Ministers in degree and hath any of vs the forehead to deny it Neither is the consent of the Apostles wanting as ◠proue in the sermon both in the particulars of the superiority in respect of the fact as also in respect of the right in the demonstration of the second assertion Where I doe with such euidence demonstrate that the Bishops described in the first assertion are of Apostolicall institution as I am well assured that this Refuter with all his partakers will neuer be able soundly and substantially to confute For there is nothing written with such euidence of truth but that captious persons may easily cauill with it And although it had been sufficient for the demonstration of the first assertion to haue produced such euidence as doth testifie onely de facto yet many of the allegations which I bring doe also giue testimony to the right Thus much of the authoritie of antiquitie whereon the consequence is grounded Now to the thing testified which is the assumption which I proue by fiue arguments The first If Epiphanius and Augustine doe reckon Aërius among the heretikes condemned by the antient Catholike Church for denying the superiority of Bishops then the antient Church doth giue testimony to the superiority of Bishops not onely de facto but also de iure But the first is true therefore the second Against the argument it selfe he hath nothing to say but where I said all antiquity besides Aërius did acknowledge the superiority of Bishops against this he obiecteth that either Ierome is against Bishops as well as Aërius or Aërius is brought in by me to no purpose For de facto Aërius denied the superiority of Bishops no more then Ierome did And de iure
Ierome denies it as well as he For that which he addeth of diuers others consenting in iudgement is a vaine flourish let him name but one other in the first six hundred yeeres I thinke I might say 1000. and I wil yeeld the cause And those latter Writers which consent with him vse his words build vpon his authority so that the whole weight of this cause lieth on Ieroms shoulders whoÌ„ if I can disburdeÌ„ thereof there can nothing at all be produced out of antiquitie against the superioritie of Bishops First then I say that they abuse Ierome who match him with Aërius for besides that Aërius was a damned hereticke being a most perfect Arian as Epiphanius saith who liued at the same time liuing in a Church of Arians standing in election for the Bishopricke against Eustathius who also was an Arrian out of a discontented humor the common sourse of Schisme and heresie broached this heresie as Epiphanius Augustine censure it Presbyterum ab Episcope nulla differentia debere discerni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying the Superiority of Bishops both de Iure as Augustine reporteth his opinion and de facto as Epiphanius alledging that there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter For there is one order saith he of both one honor and one dignitie The Bishop imposeth hands so doth the Presbyter the B. giueth the lauer of Baptisme so doth the Presbyter the B. doth administer Gods worship so doth the Presbyter the B. sitteth on the throne so also doth the Presbyter But Ierome was not so mad to vse the refuters words of Aërius who indeed as Epiphanius saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a franticke fellow as to deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which oftentimes he doth auouch neither doth he deny it de Iure And therfore the refuter here hath deliuered two vntruthes the one that he saith Aërius did not deny the Superioritie of BB. de facto which most manifestly he did and did it no doubt with this mind that though he missed of the Bishopricke which ambitiously he had desired yet he would be thought as good a man as a Bishop The other that he saith Ierome denied the Superiority of BB. de Iure For it is most euident by many testimonies alledged in the Sermon that Ierome held the Superiority of Bishops to be lawfull and necessary For though somewheres he saith that Bishops are greater then Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition yet he acknowledgeth that custome to be an Apostolicall tradition and therefore either he may be vnderstood as holding the superioritie of BB. to be not Diuini but Apostolici iuris or he may be interpreted as speaking of the names prouing by diuers testimonies of the Scripture that Presbyters are called Bishops But heereof wee may not conclude that therefore Presbyters and Bishops are all one for not onely Bishops but also Apostles are called Presbyters and the Apostleship is called Bishopricke For howsoeuer all Presbyters are in the Scriptures called Angels and Bishops yet that one among many who had singular preheminence aboue the rest is by the warrant of the holy Ghost called the Angell of the Church and by the same warrant may be called the Bishop Now whereas Aërius for denying the superiority of Bishops was by Epiphanius and Augustine iudged and heretike hereby it appeareth that this alleagation not onely proueth the superiority de facto but de iure for seeing there is no heresie which is not repugnant to Gods word it is euident that they who iudged this opinion of Aerius to be an heresie did also iudge it contrarie to Gods word Neither did Epiphanius and Augustine alone condemne Aërius for an heretike but as Epiphanius reporteth all Churches both in City and Countrey did so detest him and his followers that being abandoned of all they were forced to liue in the open fields and in wods And whereas some obiect against Epiphanius and Augustine in defence of Aerius that his opinion is not heresie because Epiphanius did not sufficiently answer one of Aërius his allegations out of Scripture where Presbyters seeme to be called Bishops and that Augustine followed Epiphanius himselfe not vnderstanding how farre the name of an heretike is to be extended these are very slender exceptions to be taken by so learned a man For be it that Epiphanius did not sufficiently answere some one of Aërius his allegations is that sufficient to excuse Aërius from being an heretike seeing that testimony may be sufficiently answered as J haue shewed and seeing euery testimony alleaged by each heretike hath not alwaies beene sufficiently answered by euery one that hath written against them The Allegation which Aërius bringeth out of Phil. 1.1 doth onely proue that the Presbyters were called Bishops at what time he which was the Bishop of Philippi namely Epaphroditus was called their Apostle And it is confessed by many of the Fathers that howsoeuer there were many in Philippi which in a generall signification were called Bishops yet there was but one nay that there could be but one which properly was called the Bishop of Philippi And as touching Augustine I maruell that learned men could derogate so much from him as that he at that time especially would write vpon the authoritie of others what himselfe vnderstood not For Augustine was no youngling or nouice at that time but hee wrote that booke in his elder age euen after hee had written his bookes of Retractations at what time hee had written 230. bookes besides his Epistles and Homilies Neither doth Augustine write any thing in his preface of that booke whereby it might bee gathered that hee was in doubt whether any of those particulars which he noteth were to be judged heresies onely he saith that what maketh an Heretike can in his judgement hardly if at all be set downe in an accurate definition Notwithstanding he distributeth his intended Treaâ—ise into two parts The first of the heresies which after Christs ascension had been contrarie to his doctrine and which he could come to the knowledge of among which the heresies of Aërius haue the 53. place in the latter hee promiseth to dispute what maketh an Heretike But though he came not to that or if he did what he wrote of that point is not come to our hands yet in the conclusion of his Treatise which is extant he saith thus What the Catholike Church holdeth against these meaning all the 88. heresies which before he had recited it is but a superfluous question seeing it is sufficient in this behalfe to know Eam contra istâ— sentire nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam dâ—bere recipere that the iudgement of the Church is contrary to these and that no man ought to receiue any of these into his beleefe And again Omnis itaque Christianus Catholicus istâ— non debet credere
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
vvarrant I vvould say the Monarchy as hauing diuine both institution and approbation But yet so as vvhere this cannot so vvell be had the other formes of gouernment be lawfull Euen so in the Church of euery country that there should be a power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment to be exercised an order or eutaxy it is the perpetual immutable ordinance of God the Church being by his appointment a well ordered society as the wise man saith tanquam acies ordinata But whether the sway of spiritual authority shold be in one alone of euery Church or in more it seemeth not to be so essentiall though I must confesse that both in the Church of the Iewes by the appointment of God it vvas in one namely the high Priest and likewise in the primitiue Churches as hath beene shewed And as touching the title that seemeth also to be variable For the gouernours in the Church of the Iewes came to their places by succession and lineall descent but in the Churches of Christ by free election after Gods first immediate calling Now if we shall enquire what forme of Church-gouernment hath the best warrant hereby we may be resolued For it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ committed the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment cheifly to his Apostles and that they being seuered into diuers parts of the world did gouerne the particular Churches which they had collected seuerally And howsoeuer there were diuers things extraordinary in the Apostles and peculiar to their persons as their immediat calling from Christ their vnlimited function hauing authority to exercise their Apostolicall power wheresoeuer they came their admirable extraordinary gifts of wisedome of languages of miracles their infallible inspiration direction of the holy Ghost preseruing them from errour notwithstanding there were other things in them which being perpetually necessary for the being and well being of the Church were from them to be communicated or deriued to others as the power to preach the Gospell and to administer the Sacraments and publicke prayer or liturgy the power to ordayne ministers and Pastors the power of the keyes for gouernment and exercise of Ecclesiasticall censures Now the power of preaching the word and administring the Sacraments was not from the Apostles communicated to euery Christian but to such as they ordayned ministers and by the imposition of their hands communicated that power to them The power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction was not committed by the Apostles neither to other Christians nor yet to all ministers whom they ordayned but after the ordination of Presbyters in each Church they reserued the power of ordination and publicke iurisdiction in their owne hands which after a time they communicated to those whom they set ouer the seuerall Churches to that very purpose viz. to ordayne Presbyters and to exercise publicke iurisdiction which manifestly appeareth by the Epistles to Timothie and Titus Thus was Timothie set ouer the Church of Ephesus Titus of Creet Linus of Rome Evodius of Antioch Simon of Ierusalem Marke of Alexandria c. and what authority was from the Apostles communicated to them was from them deriued to their successors not onely since but euen in the Apostles times For what authority Evodius had at Antioch the same after him had Ignatius and what Linus had at Rome the same had Anacletus Clemens Euaristus what Marke had at Alexandria the same after him had Anianus Abilius and Cerdo and all these in the Apostles times and what Timothie had at Ephesus the same had Gaius who if Dorotheus is to be creditted was his next successor Onesimus after him and Polycrates and euery one of those twenty seauen mentioned in the Councill of Chalcedon which from Timothie to that time had beene successiuely the Bishops of Ephesus These to my vnderstanding are plaine euidences to warrant the Episcopall function and to shew the deriuation of their authority from the Apostles and to perswade Christians to preferre that forme of gouernment before others For as I added and will now repeate a reason vvhich the refuter might more easily elude vvith a male pert speech calling it wauing and crauing then to answere vvith soundnesse of reason and euidence of truth If the Apostles vvhiles themselues liued thought it necessary that is needfull and behoofefull for the well ordering of the Churches already planted to substitute therein such as Timothie and Titus furnished with Episcopall power then much more after their decease haue the Churches need of such gouernours But the former is euident by the Apostles practise in Ephesus and Creet and all other Apostolicall Churches Therefore the latter may not be denyed All which notwithstanding I doe not deny but that where the gouernment by Bishops cannot be had another forme may be vsed because the modus or forme of being in the B. alone doth not seeme so to be of diuine ordinance but that it may vpon necessity be altered But if any shall reply that howsoeuer in ciuill gouernment the forme is variable yet for Church gouernment we are to keepe vs close to the word of God and what hath warrant there we are to hold perpetuall and vnchangeable by men as some of our Disciplinarians vse to argue I wish them to looke to this inference For if they doe not leaue that hold they must needes grant that the Episcopall function hauing that vvarrant in the Scriptures which I haue shewed is to be holden iure diuine And whereas to confute me or rather to fight with his owne shadow hee saith that other reformed Churches haue continued many yeares and may doe more without Bishops I confesse they haue and I wish they may continue to the end in the sincere profession of the truth But where hee saith that they haue continued in more quietnesse then ours hath done or is like to doe for that wee may thanke him and other vnquiet spirits who haue troubled the peace of Israell with vrging and obtruding their owne fancies for the ordinances of God To these reasons I added the testimonies of antiquity which with a generall consent beareth witnesse to this truth that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Of all which the Refuter maketh very light All that remaineth to proue that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet is no more but this the subscriptions to the Epistles to Titus and 2 to Timothie call them Bishops as also the generall consent of the ancient Fathers and histories of the Church doe No more quoth he but the generall consent of antiquity in a matter of fact agreeable with the Scriptures Why the testimony of some one of the Fathers affirming it ought to be of more weight with vs then the deniall of the same by all the Disciplinarians in the world But let vs come to the particulars First I alledged the subscriptions annexed to the end of the Epistle to Titus and second to Timothie wherein the one is said to haue
beene ordayned the first B. of the Church of the Ephesians and the other the first B. of the Church of the Cretians This is something plaine But he asketh me why I seuered them from the consent of the ancient Fathers was it because I thought them to be of the Canon I answere that I did not seuer them but ioyne them in a copulatiue speech and if I had beene of opinion that they were of the Canon I would not haue said as I did it appeareth not onely by the subscriptions but also by the generall consent of the Fathers but contrariwise not onely by the generall consent of the Fathers but also by the subscriptions annexed by the Apostle himselfe But though it were not likely as he hath alledged out of T. C. that they were subscribed by the Apostle himselfe yet is it certaine that they are of great antiquity and of better credit then the Refuter and some other Disciplinarians would make them Indeed if any other learned man that were not a party in this cause had censured these subscriptions I would haue respected their censures but the cauillations of Disciplinarians against them who being parties in this cause are so plainely confuted by them are to be reiected Let vs therefore heare what the Refuter obiecteth against them How little credit those subscriptions deserue it may appeare by that vnder the Epistle to Titus which is quite contrary to the Epistle it selfe And why so I pray you the subscription saith the Epistle was written from Nicopolis and Paul himselfe willeth Titus to come vnto him to Nicopolis for I haue determined to winter there But if Paul had beene now at Nicopolis when he wrote he would haue said not there but here Therefore hee was but a simple fellow that was the Author of that subscription So saith this great Criticke But if you will consider with me that Paul being as vsually he was in peregrination Titus could not well tell where he was neither had Paul signified in the Epistle where he then was therefore wrote being at Nicopolis as any discreet man would in the like case come to mee to Nicopolis for I meane to winter there whereas if hee had written as the Refuter would haue had him if hee were at Nicopolis come hither for I meane to winter here or come to Nicopolis for I meane to winter here might not Titus haue said where Paul as being vncertaine where Paul was and whether himselfe was to goe This therefore is too seely a censure though receiued from T. B. himselfe to ouerthrow the authority of so ancient a subscription in which besides the ancient Greeke copies it is also testified in the Syriack that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis Athanasius speaking of that Epistle to Titus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis for there he wintered Oecumenius testifieth the same in his argument on that Epistle to Titus Sedulius likewise this Epistle hee wrote from Nicopolis and Theophylact. argument in Epist. ad Tit the Authors of the Centuryes cent 1. l. 2. c. 10. in Tito To the subscriptions I added the testimonies of these Fathers First Eusebius reporteth out of the Ecclesiasticall Histories vvhich vvere before his time that Timothie had first the Bishopricke of the Church at Ephesus and Titus of the Churches in Creet Secondly the auncient Author of the booke de diuinis nominibus dedicating the same to Timothie Bishop of Ephesus if it be Dionysius Areopagita himselfe who liued at the same time with Timothie doth beare an vndeniable witnesse to this truth or if it be another vsing his name yet he plainely signifieth that in his time it was a thing generally receiued that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus Thirdly Dorotheus saith that Timothie was by Paul ordayned the B. of the Ephesians he calleth Titus the B. of the Cretians Fourthly Ambrose testifieth the same Paul instructeth Timothie being already created a B. how he ought to order the Church And againe he entreateth Timothie his fellow Bishop c. Againe Timothie was a B. Hence it is that Paul directeth him how he should ordaine a B. Likewise of Titus he testifieth that the Apostle consecrated him B. Fiftly Ierome noteth that Timothie receiued the grace which Paul exhorteth him not to neglect when he was ordayned B. And wher Paul willeth him to fulfill his Ministery Ierom vnderstandeth it of his Bishopricke And in the Catalogue of Ecclesiasticall Writers which is in his first Tome it is testified that Timothie was ordayned of blessed Paul the B. of the Ephesians and that Titus was B. of Creet Sixtly Chrisostome writing on those words Phil. 1. Bishops and Deacon◠saith what meaneth this were there many Bishops of one City in no wise but so he called the Presbyters For then were the names common and a Bishop was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Deacon or minister For which cause writing to Timothie being a Bishop fulfill 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy ministery For that he was a Bishop he saith doe not hastily impose thy hands vpon any man againe with the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery but Presbyters did not ordaine a Bishop in another place hee giueth this reason why Paul wrote to Timothie and Titus and not to Syluanus or Silas or Clemens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he had already committed the Churches to them but the others he still carryed about with him And on the fourth to the Ephesians hee giueth instance in Timothie and Titus as being Pastors assigned to certaine places Seauenthly Epiphanius saith that Paul 1 Tim. 4. writeth to a Bishop and that a Presbyter cannot be the same with a Bishop the diuine speech of the Apostle teacheth who is a Bishop and who a Presbyter when he saith to Timothie being a Bishop receiue not hastily an accusation against a Presbyter c. Eightly Primasius saith Timothie was a Bishop and Pauls Disciple That grace was the blessing which Timothie when he was made Bishop receiued by imposition of hands Ninthly Theodoret saith that Titus was the Apostle that is Bishop of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians And out of him Oecumenius citeth these words Titus was an admirable Disciple of Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he was by Paul ordayned Bishop of Creet And in another place why did Paul hauing other Disciples as Silas and Luke and others write onely to Timothie and Titus We answere Because to these he had committed Churches but the others he had still with him Tenthly Sedulius this Timothie was B. in Ephesus as it is said in the booke of histories And on these words stirre vp the grace which was giuen thee by the imposition of hands that is iuxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum by thy ordination into the Bishopricke 11. Gregory the great hence it is
answere For it appeareth that neither the Apostles or Apostolicall men being Bishops were simply bound to vse the councell of the Presbyters but that the vse of them was voluntarie after the example of Moses as Ierome saith and the auncient Bishops of the Primitiue Church who vvere of the best disposition as Cyprian by name did follow their example resoluing to doe nothing of moment without their counsell and aduise seeking therein the good and peace of the Church And this custome was vsed by all godly Bishops vntill as I said the Presbyters aduise and assistance to themselues seeming troublesome and to the B. by reason of the frequent Synodes and Synodall constitutions needlesse grew out of vse whereupon Canons vvere made that their counsell and assistance should be required an had in greater matters which is not misliked but wished to be more vsed And so much may suffice to haue answered an obiection which the refuter doth not acknowledge I proceede therefore to the third which is as it vvere the shoote-anchor of the Disciplinarians which fayling their Discipline vvill suffer shipwracke Presbyters and Bishops were all one therefore Bishops are to know that they be greater then the Presbyters rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of Diuine disposition To this obiection I returned two answeres the first that where Ierome saith Episcopus and Presbyter is all one it may be vndertooke of the names vvhich hee proueth by many testimonies to be confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles And in this sense it is true that whereas now Episcopus is more then Presbyter it is to be ascribed to the custome of the Church as before I haue noted out of Theodoret And in the same sense Augustine is to be vnderstood vvhen hee saith according to the names of honour in which the vse of the Church hath preuailed Episcopatus Bishopship is a name of greater honour then Presbyterium The refuter comming to examine this answere saith I denyed the Antecedent vvhen as indeed I granting the Antecedent in that sense vvhich I giue in the answere denyed the consequence That although the distinction of the names vvas not by diuine disposition but by the custome of the Church yet that hindreth not but the function may be of Apostolicall institution Seeing they vvhich at the first vvere ordayned by the Apostles to the Episcopal function though they vvere not called Bishops till they were chosen out of the Presbyters yet vvere called sometimes the Apostles sometimes the Angels of the churches So that when the names were confounded the offices were not But the refuter censureth this distinction as an idle conceipt and shift hauing no colour of excuse for it As though it needed excuse vvhen I brought iust defence of it vvhich hee is not able to answere For how shall Ieromes minde be knowne in that assertion that Episcopus and Presbyter was all one but by the proofes vvhich he bringeth for it but all his proofes are that the names vvere confounded in the vvritings of the Apostles and that the same men were called Presbiteri Episcopi and that was all that Ierome could truely inferre out of those places For if hee would haue concluded out of them that the offices vvere confounded his consequences would be very weake The second defence of my answere vvas this that Ierome is to be vnderstood eyther of the names or of the offices But not of the offices therefore of the names If you shall vnderstand Ierome as affirming that the offices were confounded and denying that the office and superioritie of Bishops was of Diuine disposition in that sense that Apostolicall ordinances may be said to be of Diuine Institution you shall make Ierome not onely to striue against the streame of all Antiquitie but also to be contrarie to himselfe but this latter is absurd so is the former To the former reason the refuter answereth not but bringeth a reason or two such as they be to ouerthrow my distinctions seeking as we say clauum clauo pellere Can any man be so sotttish saith he as to imagine that the question betwixt Ierome and those Deacons was about names not offices or would Ierome reason so simply as to proue the dignitie of the Presbyters aboue Deacons because the name of Presbyter and Episcopus was all one it were absurd to spend more time in answering so vnreasonable a distinction You see how bragge our refuter is when hee seemeth to haue gotten neuer so little aduantage To his former question I answere that although the question vvas concerning the office of Presbyters and Deacons vvhether were superiour yet Ierome might and indeede did proue the Presbyters to be superiour because as the Apostles did call themselues Presbyters so Presbyters vvere called Bishops Yea but saith he in the second question Ierome would not reason so simply Whereto I answere that not onely learned men but the holy Ghost also in the Scriptures doth reason to that purpose prouing their dignitie to be greater vvho haue obtained a greater name For as the Philosophers say names are the resemblances and imitations of the things Secondly hee obiecteth the authoritie of diuerse new and I confesse worthy Diuines who thinke that Ierome maketh a Bishop and a Presbyter all one not in name onely but in office also Which is a kinde of arguing frequent with this refuter but seldome or neuer vsed by any writer of worth Against his authorities therefore that Ierome was of that iudgement I feare not to oppose the reasons which I produced and namely the second But saith hee we neede not stand in feare of that glittering flourish whereby wee are charged to make Ierome striue against the streame of all Antiquitie and to be contrarie to himselfe if eyther hee confound the functions or deny it to be an Apostolicall ordinance that Bishops should be set ouer the Presbyters What one testimonie of Antiquitie within the first two hundred yeares eyther hath beene or can be alledged to that purpose of as little force are the allegations which M. D. saith hee hath cited out of Ieromes writings In both which answeres the refuter sheweth himselfe to be very impudent For first that the office or degree of Bishop and Presbyter are distinct haue I not brought forth most plaine and plentiful proofes out of Ignatius Tertullian Origen Cyprian and other auncient writers that Bishops were ordayned by the Apostles haue I not alledged most pregnant testimonies out of Ignatius Irenaeus Tertullian Hegesippus and Clemens cited by Eusebius and can it seeme doubtfull to any that shall reade vvhat is alledged by mee and the refuter in this controuersie which way the streame of Antiquitie runneth And as for Ierome vvhat more plaine testimonies can be desired then those vvhich I brought to proue that in his iudgement Bishops vvere ordayned by the Apostles And that Ierome neuer thought that the office of Bishop and Presbyter was confounded it
A DEFENCE OF THE SERMON Preached at the Consecration of the L. Bishop of Bath and VVelles against a confutation thereof by a namelesse Author Diuided into 4 Bookes The first prouing chiefly that the lay or onely-gouerning Elders haue no warrant either in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquity The second shewing that the primitiue Churches indued with power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment were not Parishes properly but Dioceses and consequently that the Angels of the Churches or ancient Bishops were not parishionall but Diocesan Bishops The third defending the superioritie of Bishops aboue other Ministers and prouing that Bishops alwayes had a prioritie not onely in order but also in degree and a maioritie of power both for ordination and iurisdiction The fourth maintayning that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and diuine institution By GEORGE DOWNAME Doctor of Diuinitie LONDON Printed by Thomas Creed William Hall and Thomas Snodham 1611. TO THE MOST High and mighty Monarch Iames by the grace of God King of great Britayne France and Ireland defender of the faith c. All true happinesse and prosperitie in this life and eternall felicitie in the life to come THE prudent speech of the politicke Historiographer most gracious and dread Soueraigne is in some sort verified of vs in this Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which be in the middest are slaine or at the least wise assayled on both sides The Romanists on the one side blaming vs for departing too farre from the Church of Rome our innouatours accusing vs on the other side for comming too neare the same Which contrarie accusations of men being in contrarie extreames are a good euidence for vs that wee hold the meane For neither are wee departed further from the now-Roman church then it hath swarued by Apostasie from the auncient Church of Christ to which in departing from them wee are returned neither haue wee retayned eyther for the substance of Doctrine or for the forme of Discipline any thing almost agreeing with them which with them wee haue not receiued eyther from the doctrine or institution of the Apostles or from the approued practise of the Primitiue Church The which as it is to be acknowledged to the high praise of God and to the singular commendation of your Maiestie so also to the contentation and ioy of all your louing subiects God hauing vouchsafed vnto vs this especiall fauour for which his name is euer to be praised and magnified among vs that there is not a Church vnder the Sunne which both for the substance of Doctrine and forme of Discipline doth come so neare the patterne of the Prime and Apostolicall Churches as these vnder your gracious gouernment Your Maiestie also hauing beene a blessed instrument of God not onely for the retayning of the truely Catholike and Apostolicke doctrine and religion in all your Dominions but also for the establishing of the auncient and Apostolicall gouernment where it was in vse before and likewise for renewing and restoring the same though to your great cost and charges where it was formerly abolished These vnestimable benefits if wee in this land doe not acknowledge and professe our selues to haue receiued from God by your Maiestie wee must confesse our selues to be not onely vnthankefull both to God who is the gracious Authour and to your Highnesse who are the happie meanes of these benefits but also vnworthy to enioy them If we doe according to our bounden duetie acknowledge so much it remayneth that wee should testifie our thankefulnes to GOD Almightie as in respect of his true Doctrine and sound religion continued among vs by walking worthy our calling and by adorning the doctrine of God our Sauiour in all things so also in regard of the Apostolicall forme of gouernment established among vs by a due and respectiue countenancing of it on all hands For howsoeuer a great number in these dayes haue thought so much the better of themselues by how much they haue thought the worse of Bishops yet is it most certaine that the contempt of Bishops is the cause if not of all euill which notwithstanding Chrysostome seemeth to affirme yet of very much euill among vs. This contempt therefore is diligently to be preuented and auoided as by the godly and religious care both of your Highnes in preferring worthy men to this high and sacred function and of the reuerend Bishops in shewing themselues worthy of that honour whereof they would and indeed should be accounted worthy so also by instructing the people to conceiue a right of this holy and honourable calling And for as much as the pernicious schisme and diuision which is among vs proceedeth from an erroneous conceipt eyther that the Presbyterian Discipline is the holy ordinance of Christ or that the gouernment by Bishops is vnlawfull and Antichristian I was perswaded for my part that I could not performe a seruice eyther more acceptable vnto God or more profitable to his Church then to publish those arguments for the satisfaction of others which had perswaded mine owne soule not onely that the Presbyterian Discipline is a meere humane inuention and new deuise hauing no ground eyther in the Scriptures or other monuments of Antiquitie but also that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall and Diuine institution And whereas my Sermon published in defence of the holy and honourable calling of Bishops hath been eagerly oppugned by a namelesse refuter I thought my selfe bound in conscience to deliuer the truth which I had defended from his sophisticall cauillations The which through Gods good blessing vpon my labours I haue so performed that there is scarce any one sentence of the Sermon if any at all oppugned by the aduersarie which I haue not defended by plaine euidence of truth These my labours I haue presumed to dedicate to your Maiestie as the principall Patrone vnder Christ of that truth which I defend not onely intreating your Highnes to accept in good part my poore endeauours but also commending my selfe and them to your most gracious Patronage and Royall protection The King of Kings blesse prosper and preserue your excellent Maiestie to his glorie the good of his Church and your owne euerlasting comfort Amen Your Maiesties most dutifull and loyall subiect GEORGE DOVVNAME The Contents of this Booke The first booke treateth chiefly of Lay-elders CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble concerning the Authour and matter of the Sermon and the Text. Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders and prouing that there were no Presbyters in the primitiue Church but Ministers Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proued out of the 1 Tim. 5.17 Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1 doth not giue testimonie to Lay-elders and that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue Chap. 8.
is to their Parish Bishop a Consistorie of Lay or onely gouerning Elders Out of which words they frame this proposition They which haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall are absolute Popelings hereto they adde an assumption of their owne All Diocesan Bishops haue not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and from thence inferre their victorious triumphing conclusion therefore all Diocesan Bishops are absolute Popelings And this they say is mine owne reason whereby I make Diocesan Bishops absolute Popelings Mine owne reason in which there is nothing mine but the proposition which also is stretched beyond not onely my meaning but euen my words this proposition I denie not may bee framed out of my words they who giue to a Bishop not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall doe seeme to set vp an absolute Popeling From which words if they had bene retained this might haue bene concluded if I did giue to our Bishops both supreme and sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall as I doe not that then I might seeme to set vp absolute Popelings But it were well with my aduersaries if to seeme and to bee were all one And yet I doe not so much as seeme to anie that is wise and indifferent to make our Bishops as they say absolute Popelings The application of this to the BB. is made in the assumption which is both false and foolish and is not mine but theirs They say it is not onely impleyed and intended but is one of the chiefe and principall points I vndertake to proue throughout my Sermon But their saying is false and friuolous How doe they prooue it For the question beeing saith our refuter whether the Churches should bee gouerned by Pastors and Elders or by Diocesan Bishops whereas they say by Pastors and Elders adioyning the Elders to the Pastors and making them both subiect to the whole congregation c. M.D. taketh all from them all and putteth the reynes into his Diocesan alone so making him by his owne rule the absolute Popeling Here I intreate the Reader to keepe in store for future vse the state of the question as it is here propounded by the refuter In the meane time let vs after his owne manner examine his argument The question being whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders for I will for your credites sake leaue out that Brownisticall and Anabaptisticall dotage concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people or by Diocesan BB. whosoeuer taketh all from Pastors and Elders and shall I adde the people too and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan alone he giueth him not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so maketh him an absolute Popeling But the question being as I said M. D. taketh all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people and putteth the reynes into the hands of the Diocesan Bishop alone Therefore M. D. giueth to the Diocesan not onely supreme but also sole authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall and so by his owne rule maketh him an absolute Popeling Sect. 10. To let you see how the refuter climbeth a ladder of vntruthes to seat our Bishops in the Papacy I will begin with his assumption wherein are two vntruthes First that I take all authoritie from the Pastors Elders and people The Elders indeed I reiect as a new deuise in the parishioners I acknowledge some authoritie in choosing or consenting to the choyse of some Church-officers but authoritie to gouerne much lesse to ordaine depose and depriue their Pastor I know not any They are the sheepe which must heare their pastors voyce and be obedient to their spirituall guides They are the flocke which must be ruled and taught not followed and obeyed As touching the pastors of parishes I leaue to them that pastorall power which euer was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes and allotting of seuerall Presbyters to them that is to say both poâ—â—statem ordinis the power of order as they are Ministers potestatem iurisdictionis spiritualis seu internae a power of spirituall and inward iurisdiction to rule their flocke after a priuate manner as it were in foro conscientiae in the court of conscience as they are pastors of that flocke By which power they rule and guide their flocke not onely in their publike Ministery but also in their priuate attendance or if yee will so call it superintendence as occasion shal be offered For as touching their publicke ministery they are the leaders and guides of the people in Gods seruice they preach the word therein teaching confuting instructing reprouing correcting their hearers they administer the sacraments as the stewards of Gods house by the one admitting into Gods family those which belong to his couenant by the other nourishing the houshold of Christ in due season and both by the word and sacraments exercising so much of the power of the keyes as of right belongeth to them as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent by denouncing the threatnings of God against them in the word and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament as also loosing the penitent belieuers by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospell and adding thereto the sacraments as seales So that all power is not taken from the pastors neither is all giuen to the Bishop alone For in the gouernement of the Church others are ioyned with him some vnder him some aboue him Vnder him in the mother Church or Cathedrall the Deane and Chapter which in the ancient Church as hereafter wee shall shewe were called Archpresbyters and presbyteri ciuitatis in the other Churches of the Diocesse diuided into seuerall precincts the Archdeacons and rurall Deanes gouerning them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitiue Church Not to speake of the Chancellers and Officials the former being adioyned to the Bishops the latter to the Archdeacons by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiasticall lawes Aboue him not onely the Archbishop and his courts but also the prouinciall Synodes assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiasticall Canons and constitutions by which the Bishops are to rule and to be ruled In making whereof though the Ecclesiasticall authoritie especially appeareth yet neither all the Bishops alone and much lesse any one Bishop concludeth any thing but with the consent of the Presbytery And therefore this may to the former authoritie of Ministers be added that in making Ecclesiasticall lawes they haue a voyce either by themselues if they be sent to the Synode or by such as themselues shall choose Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two vntruthes For first it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition for otherwise the Syllogisme is a meere Paralogisme that whosoeuer doth giue to the Bishop alone the power which is taken from the seuerall pastors with their Elders and parishes doth straightwaies
the bare recitall of his fiue exceptions wil be a sufficient euidence of his folly First diuerse of the Fathers may so haue expounded it though their writings be not come to our hands there is one instance therfore some haue so expounded it 2. Some of them as Augustine Ierom Chrysostome c haue so written that thâ—y may well be so vnderstood which is vtterly false for they vnderstand by Presbyters no other but Ministers ergo c. 3. Others write so briefly that they expound not the former wordes of this text because Presbyter to them was as plaine as Minister to vs ergo c. 4 The ancientest of them as Ignatius Polycarpus Tertullian Origen Cyprian c whose workes are now extant though they left nothing written vpon this place yet no doubt they vnderstood it of Lay-Elders for they alwaies in their writings wherein Presbyter is oft mentioned doe vnderstand thereby a Minister of the word yea but they were most like to beare witnesse to this truth No doubt for three of them Ignatius Polycarpus Cyprian were Metropolitan Bishops by the other two Tertullian and Origen who were Presbyters you may easily conceiue what manner of men the Presbyters who were distinguished from Bishops were Yea but in many mens iudgements who would faine haue it so they did giue witnesse to this truth though they left nothing written vpon this place But the fift passeth all for therein hee giueth plaine instances I warrant you of some before our age c. For Luther Bucer Bullinger and diuerse others in their time vnderstood this place of Lay-Elders therefore diuerse before our age The antecedent he taketh for granted as well as he might because as we heard before how Luther who doth not speake of this text by Presbyteri vnderstaÌ„deth verse 19. ancient Ministers and Bullinger expounds it not of Lay-Elders so what Bucer saith we haue not yet heard But the consequence he proueth by such an argument as sheweth he was very neare driuen because D. King in a Sermon preached in the yeare 1606. saith that the Geneua discipline had not at that time seene the age of a man though you should reckon the age of a man not at an 100. but 70. yeares and well might he say so For in Geneua it was first conceiued in the yeare 1537. when Caluin hauing with Farell Viret in the yeare before attempted as Beza saith Ecclesiam compoâ—eâ—â— and had drawne the first draught of it got the assent of the Senate and people of Geneua on the 20. of July 1537. howbeit before the yeare 1541. it was not established hauing in the meane time beene banished together with Caluin But why should time which is so precious be spent in coÌ„futing such seelly shifts whereof euen the refuter himselfe is by this time I hope ashamed CHAP. V. Containing my second reason why Lay-Elders are not proued out of 1. Tim. 5.17 Serm. Sect. 4. pag 9. Neither doth the Apostle indeed note two sorts of Elders as they imagine but two duties of the Ministers c to pag. 11. med IN these words is set downe the second reason of my exception against their allegation of 1. Tim. 5.17 prouing that there is no necessitie this place should be vnderstood as they imagine of Lay-Elders The reason standeth thus If the words may very well be vnderstood of two duties of Ministers the one generall to be good presidents the other special to labour in the word doctrine in respect whereof the Apostle requireth double honour to be yeelded vnto them then is there no necessitie that this place should be vnderstood as they imagine of Lay-Elders But the Antecedent is true Therefore the consequent I might haue reasoned thus If diuerse and sundry expositions all of them vnderstanding this place of Ministers alone may be giuen and each of them more probable or likely then that which is for the Lay-Elders then is there no necessitie nor yet likelihood that the place is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders But diuerse and sundry such expositions may be giuen as after you shall heare Therefore there is no necessitie nor yet likelihood that this text is to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders But I thought it sufficient to insist in this one exposition which seemeth to me to haue beene the very meaning of the Apostle For seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presbyter as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person doth alwaies in all other places in the writings both of the Apostles Fathers signifie a Minister or Priest and no one testimonie can be alledged to the contrarie what sense is there that it should otherwise be expounded here vnlesse the other words of the sentence did inforce so much But that they doe not seeing they note onely two duties of Ministers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the generall dutie of the Ministers that is to be good presidents and to labour in the word and doctrine is the speciall duetie for which especially honour is due to them I had once thought that the especiall dueties of a Minister had here beene mentioned the one respecting his behauiour onely the other the ministerie of the word vnto which all the duties of a Minister may be referred But I did consider it would be obiected that the meaning of the Apostle was not that double honour should be giuen to Ministers that onely liued well vnlesse they did also preach for in another place where he would haue Ministers to be honored and loued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more then aboundantly for their worke sake he ioyneth these together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which labour among you and which gouerne you in the Lord and therefore I insisted in this exposition against which well may my aduersarie cauill after his fashion but hee can take no iust exception especially if the emphasis or force of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not neglected As for his triuiall gibes which are frequent with him of going lame vpon both feete of going vpright on one legge and halting of another of halting on the former legge and limping of the hinder legge they are fitter for him to vse then for me to answere But though hee boasteth that my Syllogismes hitherto haue beene lame on both feete yet I trust the iudicious Reader will testifie with me that he hath not beene able as yet to disproue any one proposition or assumption which hitherto hath beene produced And I am verily perswaded for all his gibes he will haue no better successe in those which remaine As touching the Syllogisme which now he is about to oppugne he seemeth to be glad of mine amendment that whereas hitherto I haue gone lame on both feete now I goe vpright on one legge the consequence of the proposition being good But yet he saith I am neuer the nearer for on my assumption as it were on the other legge I halt downe right still But shall the proposition
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
deeds consider his repelling of Theodosius the Emperour from entring into the Church vntill he had testified his repentance his not permitting him to remaine within the Chācell alledging that it was a place peculiar to the Clergie which fauour when Nectarius the Bishop of Cōstantinople would haue grāted to him Theodosius professed that he had with much a doe learned the differēce between an Emperour and a Bishop adding that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth Ambrose is the onely man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith in the Emperours Consistorie when Valentinian the younger had sent for him contrarie to a law made by his Father Valentinian protesting that he would rather loose his life then by his yeelding the honour of Bishops should be diminished Non tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deijciat sacerdotium non tanti est vnius vita quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum his refusall to deliuer vp the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperour Valētinians commandement professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperour but the Churches to the Bishop His other doubt is whether I compare Ambrose with them of his owne time or with them that liued before or after c here was a knot sought in a bullrush seeing my meaning is euident that Ambrose laboured as much as any of the ancient approued Fathers And that he did so it is alreadie sufficiently manifested If that be so saith he then either all men thought it needfull for the Bishop to be aduised and directed as D. Bilson saith by the counsell and consent of Elders or else that Ambrose who thoght it needful as appeareth by this testimonie labored not to magnifie such a calling of Bishops as M.D. maintaineth Ambrose others thought it needful that a presbyterie of graue ancient ministers should with their coūsell aduise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt as D. Bilson saith of daunger and importance when as yet nether Synodes could assemble nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church But this as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders so doth it no more detract from the dignitie of Bishops to vse the counsell of wise and learned men then it doth derogate from the Maiestie of Kings to vse the aduise of their wise faithfull Counsellors There remaineth the third branch Wherevnto besides his rayling against our Bishops for subiecting Ministers to their Chancellours Commissaries and Officialls which are but lay-men hee answereth onely That if adioyning Presbyters to the Byshop bee a subiecting him to them I doubt not but this testimony will prooue that Ambrose was not willing that Ministers should bee subiected to the Consistories of Lay-men There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers they of Lay-Elders Ambrose of an assistance to aduise and direct such as is the aduise of Counsellers to a Prince they of an assistance to ouerrule as in the Romane Senate by plurality of voices giuing their Bishop not so much as one negatiue voice Ambrose therfore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop they an assistance of Lay-Elders subjecting the Bishops to them Neither should they of all men raile against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors c. seeing it is not so vntollerable that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the lawes and that so farre onely as the B. shall thinke fit as that they should not onely be ouerruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most countrey-parishes but also stand to the curtesie of them and their neighbours to be deposed and depriued at their pleasure Now how farre Ambrose was from subiecting BB or Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Consistories of Lay-men may appeare first by his sentence giuen against Palladius the Arfian Bishop in the Councell of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answere but before some honourable persons of the Laytie who were at hand Ambrose answered Priests or BB. ought to iudge of Lay-men and not Lay-men of Priests And againe though hee bee found guiltie of manie impieties notwithstanding we are abashed that hee which challengeth Priesthood to himselfe should seeme to be condemned of Lay-men And therefore forasmuch as heerein hee is to be condemned who expecteth the sentence of Lay-men seeing rather priests ought to iudge of Laymen according to those things which to day wee haue heard Palladius professing and according to those things which he refused to condemne I pronounce him saith Ambrose vnworthie of Priest-hood But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperour wherein hee refuseth to be tryed as his aduersary Auxentius desired in the Emperors Consistorie alleadging that his Father Valentinian had by Law prouided that in the cause of faith or of any Ecclesiasticall order hee ought to iudge qui nec munere impar sit nec iure dissimilis who is neiher in function vnequall nor in right vnlike that is Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare Hee would haue BB for them ordinarily hee meaneth by Sacerdotes to iudge of BB or Priests Yea moreouer saith hee if a Bishop were otherwise called into question and the cause of manners were to be examined euen this also would hee that is Valentinian the Father haue to belong to Episcopall iudgement When did you euer heare most gracious Emperor that Lay-men in a cause of faith iudged of BB Are wee therefore so bowed with flatterie that wee forget the right of BB And that I should thinke what God hath giuen mee is to bee committed to others If a Bishop must be taught of a Lay-man what to follow let the Lay-man dispute and let the Bishop heare let the B learne of the Lay-man But surely if wee call to minde either the tenor of holie Scriptures or ancient times who can denie but that in a cause of Faith In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare You shall one day if it please God come to ripe yeares and then you will be able to iudge Qualis ille Episcopus sit qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut What a Bishop he is that subiecteth the right of Bishops to Lay-men Your Father beeing through Gods goodnes of ripe yeares said Meum non est I am not able For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse Iudicij to iudge among BB. doth your Grace now say I ought to iudge would Ambrose condemne such a Bishop as should subiect the right of BB. to Lay-men and would hee allow of such prerbyteries of Lay-men as intrude vpon the right of BB yea which are vrged to extrude BB could hee not indure that a B. or
that there were no other but parish Bishops In the meane time let the Reader hold this for a certaine and vndeniable truth that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers but onely in cities and Cathedrall Churches but hereof I shall haue occasion to speake in the second booke As touching the second conclusion it followeth thus the parish pastor had either a Presbyterie to assist him or he was subiect to superiors as namely the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops to ouerrule him or else he ruled like a Pope for a fourth thing cannot be named before there were Christian Magistrates But it is absurd to imagine that in the primitiue Church they had an absolute popeling who neither had assistants nor superiors for that were to ascribe not onely supreme but also sole power to them and it is as false that in seuerall parishes there was a Presbyterie to assist him therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subiect to the authoritie of the Diocesan and prouinciall Bishops To the proposition he answereth two wâ—ies first by retortion that what I say of the parish Bishop his ruling as a Pope may with more probabilitie be spoken of a Diocesan Bishop which I haue answered before For this is the second place where he laboureth out of my wordâ— to proue our Diocesan Bishops to be popes vsing this insultation in the margent Sic tu beas amiâ—os But though their parish Bishops whom they make the supreme Ecclesiasticall officers would be absolute popelings if presbyteries were not adioyned to them because they should haue not onely Supreame but also sole authoritie yet it followeth not that our Bishops to whom neither supreme nor sole authoritie belongeth should he esteemed such Secondly he denieth the disfunction alleaging that a fourth thing might be added concerning the chiefe authoritie of the people Which if it be added in the proposition is with the rest to be denied in the assumption For this brownisticall or rather Anabaptisticall conceit for some of the Brownists disclaime it that the Bishops in the primitiue Church were subiected to the people as if the state of the Church had beene Democraticall or popular is a dotage that was neuer dreamed of till of late and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition CHAP. IX Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleaged to proue Lay-Elders BVt now had I need to call for armour of defence For hitherto saith the refuter we haue warded the blowes that M. D. gaue to beat downe the Lay-presbyterie now let vs shew that we also can strike if need be The Reader that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogismes of me euen when I performe the part of an answerer cannot but expect most formall and accurate Syllogismes at his hands But he shall finde that to be true which I foretold him not long since that this great Champion not daring to vrge his testimonies or to reduce his proofes into Syllogismes according to the poore pollicie of them all holdeth out certaine testimonies as it were Pallas shield thinking with the bare quotation of them though he cite them not to put vs to silence And to this purpose like a notorious Mountebanke setting himselfe to delude the simple he commendeth his witnesses euen Christ himselfe his Apostles and Euangelists with swelling titles when their testimonies themselues are not so much as cited as though he thought it more needfull to winne credit to his witnesses then to proue â—hat they testifie that for which he would seeme to alleage them But you shall heare Pyrgopolinices himselfe For the scriptures we haue among others these mightie ones to wage battell for vs. First the great Emperour of the Christian armie our Sauiour Christ himselfe Mat. 18.17 Next a great worthy Luke the Euangelist Act. 14.23 Adde to these Iames the Apostle one of the Pillars of the Church Iam. 5.14 and that famous Generall of the gentiles the Apostle Paul Rom. 12 8.1 Cor. 12.28 These are most worthy witnesses indeed and without exception If any one of these giue testimonie to your Lay-Elders we will most willingly yeeld But I pray you let vs heare their words It shall not need if you will not belieue vs that they giue testi-monie to Lay-Elders yet belieue other diuines who say they doe Are they witnesses what they said only or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing If the latter why be not their owne testimonies produced but other witnesses must be deposed that they said so when it appeareth vpon most authenticall record whether they said so or not Let vs therefore heare the words themselues The first is Matt. 18.17 Where our Sauiour Christ saith dic Ecclesiae tell the Church or assembly What then therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in euery congregation See you not by this time what a striker this is first there may be question whether Ecclesia signifie the whole congregation of the people or an assembly of iudges or gouernours if the former sense be followed there is no shew for Lay-Elders If the latter which is the more likely question againe may be made whether Christ speake of the Synedrion of the Iewes as Caluin and some others suppose or of Christian gouernours if of the Synedrion which was a ciuill senate and indeed the high counsell of estate in the policie of the Iewes what doth that make for Ecclesiasticall Elders in the Church of Christ and that in euery parish If of christian gouernours as the Fathers expound it what sense is there to vnderstand the words of Lay-Elders vnlesse it can otherwise be proued either that Christ had alreadie ordained them or that afterwards they were in vse in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd and for the latter they haue not so much as a faire shew being disarmed of the two places which I haue vindicated out of their hands viz 1. Tim. 5.17 and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1 Nay further I adde that if it could be proued as it neuer will that euer there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely tell the gouernours ergo Lay-Elders wherefore this is a very seely argument Yea but other diuines say that Christ spake of Lay-Elders What others say it is not greatly materiall in this kind so long as we plainely see there is no necessitie nor probabilitie so to vnderstand him But who are they that say so Chrysostome Theophylact Erasmus Caluin Beza Piscator vpon the place it selfe c. For the three first because they are no parties I can be content to examine their testimonies All that Chrysostome saith of those words is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church that is Prelates and gouernours and on those words whatsoeuer you shall bind on earth c nec dicit saith he Ecclesiae presuli neither did he
the better gifts chiefly to follow after loue and to couet after spiritual gifts but amōg them to desire rather to prophecie that is to preach then to speak with tongues And whereas the holie Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God according to their worthines saying First second third if by helpes he should meane Deacons and by gouernments Elders then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders which will not be granted If anie man doubt whether helps and gouernments are to be accounted gifts Chrysostome may resolue him who as of the former he saith that is in especial maner the gift of God so also of the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be fitte to gouerne and to administer spirituall things and he addeth that our duties are called Gods gifts to teach vs that our abilitie in performance of our dutie is the gift of God So Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which also he calleth a gift though it require our labour also and industrie Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit For the spirit saith he is one but the graces are not equall nor yet the receptacles of the spirit For to one by the spirite is giuen the word of Wisedome and contemplation to another the word of knowledge or reuelation to another firme vndoubted faith to another the inoperations of powers high wonders to another the gifts of healing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 helpes that is Presidencies or Patronages Gouernements that is Poedagogies of the flesh kindes of tongues interpretations of tongues I am not ignorant that some before our time haue vnderstood diuerse of these members to haue bene Ecclesiasticall functions But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the gouernment of our Church not with the pretended discipline For by Apostles they vnderstand not only the 12. Apostles but their successors also in the gouernment of the Church that is to say the Byshops and by helps they vnderstand them who help the Bishops in the gouernment of the church as the Deanes and Archdeacons and by gouernements the gouernors or rectors of seuerall parishes These with 1. Tim 5.17 are the testimonies of Scripture which vsually be aleaged by the patrons of the presbyterie not one of them almost either omitting any of them or adding any other So that this Disputer might trulie cōclude that this is the strength and indeed all the strength they haue out of the Scriptures Which how strongly or strangely rather they haue concluded for the Lay-Elders it doth sufficiently appeare to them that haue not either a strong preiudice or a weake iudgement Assuredly if the Fathers be no stronger for them then the Scriptures then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weake and languishing CHAP. XI Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-Elders OF the Fathers he also braggeth as he did before of the Scriptures But in the vpshot all the force of his argumēts either out of Scriptures or Fathers relyeth vpon the authority of certaine new writers who are the most almost all of them parties in the cause Which is a kinde of arguing deuised to retaine the vnlearned in their former opinion that because so many late Diuines vnderstand the Scriptures and Fathers according to their receiued opinions they may be confirmed therein But is not this a strange kind of reasoning Ignatius Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose which are all the Fathers hee nameth but nameth as though with their names hee hoped to ouercome vs giue testimonie to Lay-Elders therefore Lay-Elders were in vse in the primitiue church when we quietly grant this consequence only desire them to proue the antecedent Is it not strange I say that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselues endeuour by necessary euidence to demonstrate that they are to be vnderstood as speaking of Lay-Elders but to bring in a sort of new writers the most wherof are parties to depose that these ancient Fathers say as they would haue them Did they heare them say so or did they read their writings If they read their testimonies are they the same which we haue in print or some speciall manuscripts which yet are not come to light if such why are they not produced If their testimonies be vpon publike record in print why should not we examine the records thēselues trust to our owne eyes and iudgmēts rather thē to the opinions of them who are partiall in the cause Or if these new writers had reasons to perswade vs that these Fathers doe speake for Lay-Elders why are not their reasons produced By your leaue I will produce their testimonies for you And because it pittyeth me the to see well-meaning people abused I had almost said guld with glorious shewes I will let them see that not any one testimonie which you doe vse to produce out of the Fathers doth conclude for Lay-Elders And first as touching Ignatius whom hee first nameth because his testimonies were belike too hot to be handled yet hee putteth him off fairely saying that hereafter he will shew how he is to be vnderstood when he commeth to answere my quotations out of him But I quote him not in the question of Elders but among my proofs for Bishops And if hee haue no stronger proofes out of Ignatius for elders then the selfe-same that I alledge for Bishops may you not think that he is very strōg for them The truth is he perceiued they were too weake to bee vrged by him as an opponent and therefore chose to speake to them as an answerer hoping to perswade the simple reader that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proued by Ignatius his testimonie if they be not disproued thereby as hereafter you shall heare T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison the demonstrator of discipline almost who not cite this sentence of Ignatius There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsell Vnto which H.I. addeth 2. more out of his epistles to them of Tarsus Smyrna In the 1. of these Epistles Ignatius saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be subiect to the Bishop as to the Lord a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Iesus Christ our hope Of the Deacons in the next words he sath that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ Iesus and not of meate and drinke A reason of the former speech he rendreth in these words the Byshop is the type of the Father of all the Presbyters are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Consistory of God and a band or Colledge of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without these that is BB. Presbyters Deacons no elect Church is no holy congregation no assemblie of Saints This testimony proueth that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons so also Presbyters and a presbyterie But what manner of presbyters they were it appeareth 1. by
The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage and president of that Councell had consented vnto was decreed by the whole Councell And that wee may know the Parishes in the Country together with the seuerall Presbyters set ouer them belong to the Diocesan Bishop euen they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocesse In the councell of Toledo Bishops are required per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas to goe yearely through all their Dioceses and Parishes And againe so to rule their Dioceses that is Parishes that they doe not presume to take any thing from their right but according to the authority of former Councels they take onely a third part of the offerings and tithes But in an other Councell it was determined that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses through his Dioceses shall take any thing besides the honour of his chaire that is 2◠shillings or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches Sometimes it is vsed for a parish Church In which sense a parish Presbyter is said in the Councell of Agatha Dioecesin tenere In the Councell of Orleans dioecesis Basilica are vsed promiscuously as Synonyma To which purpose it is said that if any man hath or desireth to haue Dioecesin that is a Church in his ground he must assign sufficient land vnto it prouide a Clerke for it CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses ANd thus much may suffice to haue spoken of the names about which the testimonies which I haue brought haue beene almost so many euidences for the Diocesan and against the parishionall Bishops Now I proceede to other arguments desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment and iurisdiction to wit whether in the Apostles times and the ages following they were Parishes as we cal them or Dioceses And first I will shew they were not Parishes and after that they were Dioceses For if Parishes then the Parishes either in the Countries or Cities were such but neyther the parishes in the Country nor in the Citie had a Bishop of their owne and a Presbytery Which is so euident a truth to them that haue read the Councels Histories and Fathers of the antient Church that it is to be wondred how men of learning and reading being also men of conscience can deny it But seeing it is denied I must be content to proue it viz. that regularly lawfully ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the seuerall parishes For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leaue seeing neither it can be preiudicious to mee what was at any time vnlawfully done nor aduantagious to him vnlesse hee will vrge a reformation according to the paterne of the Churches if there were any such which were irregularly extraordinarily and vnlawfully gouerned First therefore for Country parishes because I maintaine the negatiue and the proofe of the affirmatiue lieth vpon my aduersary I challenge him to produce some proofe if he bee able within 400. yeeres after Christ of Country parishes lawfully regularly ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment and gouerned by their owne Bishoppes such as they speake of assisted with their Presbyteries Which if hee bee not able to performe as I am well assured hee is not hee must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to bee of the same stampe with his lay-presbyters that is to say a meere counterfet But not expecting his proofe J will prooue that neither they had Bishoppe of their owne nor yet Presbyteries As touching the former it cannot be denied but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious haue desired to bee Bishoppes of their parish and their people vaine glorious haue seconded their desire But in all well ordered Churches their presumption hath been resisted and their vaine desires frustrated I doe confesse that in Africke which alwaies bringeth forth some noueltie and from whence all T. C. his newes in this cause doe come some parts of the diocesse being very populous haue obtained a Bishoppe of their owne But when when the charge was so great as that by it selfe it seemed to deserue a Bishop And how First with the leaue of the Bishop of the city in whose diocesse it was Secondly with the approbation of the Metropolitane and the prouinciall Synode Thirdly hee which obtained the honour of beeing a bishoppe was aduanced to a higher degree then himselfe had before or other country pastors haue and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least But it shall not bee amisse both to recite the decrees of the Africane councels in this behalfe though touched before and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishoppes and canons of holy Councels elsewhere In the second councell of Carthage it was decreed that the Dioceses meaning as I haue said parts of any diocesse in the Country which neuer receiued Bishoppes of their owne may haue none and that diocesse which sometimes had may still haue a Bishoppe of their owne And if in processe of time the faith increasing the people of God being multiplied shall desire to haue a gouernour of their owne that then they may haue a Bishoppe with his leaue in whose power the diocesse is In the third Councell of Carthage it is said that it had beeen determined in many Councels that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishoppes which neuer had a Bishop of their owne should not receiue gouernours of their owne that is to say Bishoppes but with the consent of the Bishoppe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by whom from the beginning they haue been inioied But forasmuch as some hauing obtained this honor abused it tyrannically and withdrew themselues schismatically from the communion of other Bishops and forasmuch as also certaine Presbyters lifting vp their neckes against their BB. vsed indirect meanes to allure their people that themselues might be made Bishoppes therefore it was ordained that such a people in the paroecia or diocesse which is subiect to the antient Bishoppe and neuer had a Bishoppe of their owne should not obtaine a proper Doctor meaning Bishoppe And as touching those which had attained to this honour vnlawfully and withdrew themselues from the synods of Bishoppes it was determined that they should not onely lose their diocesse but also their owne Church For it is fit the Bishops which are vnited to all their brethren and to the whole synod should iustly retaine not onely their owne Cathedra or See but also that they should possesse such dioceses And whereas some being made Bishops in part of other mens dioceses with their leaue and consent did incroach vpon parts of the diocesse not granted vnto them it was concluded that he which in the diocesse is preferred to be
possible but that if these churches did containe ample Cities with the countries such as we cal shires belonging to them they were not dioceses but parishes although your assumptiō should bee granted namely that these churches contained not only the cities but countries notwithstanding your conclusion is to be excepted against For though these were dioceses yet others might be parishes Such a froward aduersary I haue met withall who in other places accusing mee for not concluding what these churches or the angels of thē were here findeth fault that J cōclude what they were But both his accusations are alike vniust seeing the constitution of them and all others indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment was the same and what is said of the one is to be vnderstood of the other His second reason why the consequence is naught because it doth not appeare neither is it true that euery one of these Churches was diuided into diuers seuerall ordinary asblies all of thē depending vpon some one as the chiefe without power of ecclesiastical gouernment apart in themselus Is this the denial of any thing but the conclusion is not the deniall of the conclusion an euidence that the answerer is confounded and is not confusion a manifest signe of one that writeth against his conscience resolued not to bee perswaded though his conscience be conuicted As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion that they were not Dioceses because they were not diuided c. it containeth three branches First that they were not diuided into diuers ordinary assemblies Secondly If they were yet they did not all depend vpon some one as the chiefe Thirdly That they had the power of ecclesiastical gouernement in themselues These assertions would haue beene proued by them that are opponents and will needes perswade vs to admitte of their parish Discipline But I am well assured that they are notable to proue any one of them And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions and to put them to proue them yet because I desire from my soule to satisfie our opposites in this cause as Brethren and because they containe the very grounds of the parish-discipline I will briefly disproue them For as touching the first I haue often wondred what our brethren meane to argue from the example of the churches which were not diuided into parishes to those that bee Would they haue the Church of a City and country belonging to it to bee all but one congregation assēbling ordinarily in one place If they would thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted But though they would the ancient christians would not who when their multitude was increased in all places of the world were diuided into diuers particular assemblies If they would haue them diuided as of necessity they must then let them tell mee whether wee that doe and of necessity must consist of diuers congregations are to follow the example of any ancient church as it was before it was diuided or as it was after it was diuided If the former then are they absurd againe If the latter then haue I that which I desire They will say perhaps that each congregation after the diuision was as that one before Nothing lesse Let them proue that and I will yeeld in the whole cause The one before had a Bishop and a Presbytery as they will confesse which were to attend the whole flocke but after the diuision not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery but one of the Presbyters assigned to it the rest remaining with the Bishop who as before assisted with his Presbytery had a generall superintendencie ouer them as well diuided as vndiuided and was but one in euery diocesse as well after the diuision as before Which is so manifest a truth so confirmed by testimonies before cited so testified by the generall consent and practise of the Christian world not one instance to be giuen to the contrary as that it cannot but conuince the conscience I hope also it will perswade For tell mee I pray you were not parishes distinguished in Constantines time and before as well as now Yes questionlesse Were any other assigned to them seuerally then seuerall Presbyters euen as they be now That also is out of doubt Was it euer or at any time otherwise after the diuision of parishes No without question There remained but one Bishop and one Presbytery for the whole citie and country as well after the diuision as before And that is so euident a truth by that which hath bin said that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer denie it But it will be said that the Churches before they were diuided were not dioceses Whereto I answere that the circuit of the Church in the intention of the Apostle or first founder of it was the same as well before the diuision of parishes as after Euen as the subiect of the leauen is the whole bach in the intention of him that putteth it into the lumpe though the loaues bee not yet diuided yea though but a little of the dough bee yet after it is newly put in seasoned If you aske mee how J know this I answere First because the whole Church of God euer since the Apostles daies vnto our age hath so vnderstood the intention of the Apostles and of their first founders the circuit of euery Church hauing from the beginning included not onely the citie but the country thereto belonging Secondly because that diuision of Churches which was three or foure hundred yeeres after Christ with their limits and circuits were ordinarily the same which had been from the beginning as before hath been testified by diuers antient Councels Thirdly because it is confessed by Beza and testified by Doctor Rainolds and others that the distribution of the Church did vsually follow the diuision of the common-wealth insomuch that those countries which were subiected to the ciuill iurisdiction exercised in any citie were also subiect ordinarily to the ecclesiasticall and as they were accounted of the same county or prouince in respect of ciuill gouernment so of the same Church or diocesse in regard of spirituall And as the Church followed the ciuill distribution at the beginning so also if there were any new citie erected by the authority of the Emperour it was decreed by the Councell of Constantinople following therein the canon of their forefathers that the order of ecclesiasticall things should follow the ciuill and publike forme Therefore though these Churches had not been diuided into seuerall congregations yet had they each of them been dioceses But now I adde that at the time of writing the Reuelation which was almost an hundeed yeeres after the birth of Christ it is more then probable that they contained diuers congregations For when Paul had continued but two yeeres at Ephesus the holy Ghost restifieth that all which inhabited Asia so properly called did heare
can be more euident But hee seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made To returne therefore to mine owne analysis In this section I proue that the antient Bishops were diocesan Bishops euen before the diuision of parishes by three arguments which for breuity sake I ioined together The first If the Churches whereof they were BB. were dioceses and not parishes then were they diocesan BB. But the Antecedent is true as hath already been proued in the second point Therefore the consequent The second If the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles time nor ministers appointed to peculiar titles or seuerall cures then there could be no Parishionall Bishops in that time But the former hath already been proued Therefore the latter is true The assumption is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I said before that is as true for the most part For it admitmitteth some exceptions as namely the Church of Alexandria and perhaps some others wherein I acknowledgeâ— the parishes to haue been distinguished in the Apostles times but so as seuerall Presbyters being assigned to them there remained one Bishop ouer all The third If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses and not to seuerall parishes then the Bishops who were Presidents of those Presbyteries were not parishionall but diocesan But the first is true as hath been already prooued Therefore the second To all three he answereth by denying the assumption the truth whereof dependeth vpon the proofes of the second point which haue been so many and so manifest as I hope to heare no more of the new-found parish discipline Serm. sect 2. pag. 22. Howbeit in the end of the Apostles times parishes began to be distinguished in Cities and afterwards in the Country c. to page 24. line 3. Here I prooue that after the diuision of parishes the Bishops were diocesan albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument which standeth thus Those Bishops who were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country viz. after they were distinguished Therefore the antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were diocesan and not parishionall Bishops The proposition is most euident The assumption standeth on two parts first that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the citie after they were diuided The second that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the country after their diuision The former I proue in this section by induction of particulars the latter in the next The Analysis being here mistaken by him I wil not meddle with that which hee hath thereby taken occasion to speake besides the purpose because heere I finde him more modest then hitherto he hath shewed himselfe neither will I shame him with his owne friends when for an euasion he supposeth that in the primitiue Church some Ministers might haue more Churches vnder them like our double beneficed men and pluralists euen those that haue tot quot and yet be no Bishops Onely I will touch those things which contradict that which I haue deliuered And first he obserueth a contradiction in my speech I said that parishes in cities were not for the most part distinguished in the Apostles times Here I â—ay that in the end of the Apostles times viz. about the yeere one hundred they began to be distinguished at Rome by Euaristus the Bishop there A shrewd contradiction J promise you especially if you consider that all the Apostles but S. Iohn were dead before this time and that this was in the very end of S. Iohns time Yea but after I say that Titus was Bishop of the Cretians I cry you mercy I should haue said Cretans and yet by his leaue the Geneua translation and others read Cretians and Timothy of them in Asia therefore parishes were distinguished in the Apostles times Neither is this a contradiction for although Timothy was Bishop of Asia and Titus of the Churches in Creet yet it followeth not that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Creet were distinguished They were both by Pauls direction as well by letter as example to ordaine Presbyters in the seuerall cities but that they placed any in the country or assigned the Presbyters to seuerall cures in the Cities wee reade not To returne therefore to my proofes The induction standeth thus In Rome and Alexandria and so in other cities the parishes being once diuided were assigned to seuerall Presbyters the Bishop remaining superintendent ouer them all Therefore the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the cities after they were once diuided As touching Rome I shew that the parishes were first distinguished by Euaristus about the 100. yeare and not a Presbytery but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them as hath beene prooued heeretofore At Alexandria I proue that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches within the first 200. yeares But what I say concerning Alexandria might well haue beene spared for that is his vsuall censure of such proofes as he knowes not how to answere because that Church is excepted against as the beginner and breeder of diocesan gouernment Excepted against why what was done in Alexandria which all the Churches in the world did not practise so soone as the parishes were diuided But what if this order began in S. Iohns time what if by S. Marke who died fiue or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul let Eusebius alledging the reports of them that went before him be witnesse viz that Marke being sent into Aegypt did preach the Gospell there and was the first which did constitute the Churches in Alexandria it selfe Then euer since S. Marks time there haue bene Churches in Alexandria which all from the beginning were subiect to the B. Of these Churches as J alledged in the sermon was Iulianus Bishop in the first yeare of Commodus viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus Demetrius was Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches in Alexandria And againe more fully that in the 10. yeare of Seuerus Laeâ—us was president of Alexandria and the rest of Aegypt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the Churches there Demetrius had lately receiued the Bishopricke after Iulianus In the third yeare of Philippus after Heraclas had beene sixteene yeares Bishop Dionysius receiued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishopricke of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria So it is said of Peter the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria of Alexander that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop one of the Churches which were many at Alexandria for the Arians Valens by his letters signified that Athanasius might safely retaine the gouernment of the Churches What these Churches were Epiphanius before in part declared signifying
shall bee lawfull to take another The vntruths therefore which the Refuter hath bestowed vpon me here he must be intreated to take to himselfe To proue their dissent from vs in this fourth point I alleaged Beza his distinction of Bishops into three sorts and because it is an odious distinction I conceaâ—â—d his name and to salue his credit J shewed that although hee came farre short of Caluins moderation yet he is more moderately affected towards our Bishops then the Disciplinarians among vs vsually bee who as they speake despitefully of them calling them Antichristian pettite Popes c. so doe they wish and labour for the extirpation of them whereas Beza speaking reuerently of them praieth for their continuance But both his distinction and his wish by the Refuter are peruerted expounding him as though he had accounted for humane those which had onely a priority of order whereas indeed he acknowledgeth such a presidentship as you haue heard to be a diuine ordinance and vnderstandeth his praier where he wisheth the continuance of the Bishops as if he had wished that so long as England hath Bishops they may bee such as may giue their liues for the truth as they did Where whiles hee vnderstandeth Beza as wishing our Bishoppes to be Martyrs he indiscreetly maketh him to wish that our Princes may bee persecutors which God forbid That which he addeth concerning my saying Amâ—â— to the like wish for the Churches of France and Scotland and yet be no maintainer of their presbyteries is meerely idle for I did not bring in Beza as a maintainer of Bishops bvt rather did note him as one of their chiefe opposites citing his differences from vs and mentioning that distinction of Bishops howbeit I acknowledge his proposition to be with more moderation then is commonly to be found in the Disciplinarians among vs. Now I am to descend with him into the particulars which I propounded to be handled first to shew that the Bishops or Angels of the primitiâ—e Church were as well as ours superior to other Ministers in degree and secondly to declare more particularly wherein their superiority did consist But before he entreth the combate distrusting himselfe and his cause he seeketh as such champions vse to doe which way if need be he may make an escape and hauing to this purpose looked well about him he hath found out two starting holes whereby he hopeth to finde some euasion The former hath these windings and turnings in it 1. That the primitiâ—e church is to be confined to the Apostles times and not extended to the whole 200 yeares 2. That the question is â—â— be â—nderstood of the Angels of the 7. Churches 3. That I must pâ—â—â—â—e these Angels to haue had sole power of ordination and iurisdiction The first of these argueth extreame diffidence for Caluin and others in this question within the limits of the primitiue Church include the times of Constantiâ—e at the least yea Caluin includeth all the time aâ—tepapaâ—â—m before the Papacy in which time he acknowledgeth the forme of Church gouernment to haue had nothing in it almost dissoâ—ant from the word of God And whereas saith he euery prouince had among their Bishops an Archbishop and whereas also in the Councill of Nice there were established Patriarchs who in order and dignity were superior to the Archbishops that appertained to the preseruation of discipline And although he misliketh that the gouernment so established was called Hiera â—hy notwithstanding if omitting the name saith he we looke into the thing we shall finde that the ancient Bishops would not frame a forme of Church gouernment differing from that which God prescribed in his word And Beza confesseth that those things which were ordained of the antient Fathers concerning the seats of Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarches assigning their limits and attributing vnto them certaine authority were appointed optimo zelo out of a very good zeale And therefore no doubt out of such zeale as was according to knowledge otherwise it would haue been far from being optimus the best Zanchius intreating of the diuers orders of Ministers in the primitiue Church as Presbyters Bishops Archbishops c. faith they may be defended Against which some learned man I will not say Beza hauing taken exception Zanchius maketh this apology When I wrote this confessioÌ„ of the faith I did write all things out of a good conscience and as I beleeued so I freely spake Now my faith is grounded chiefly and simply on the word of God Something also in the next place on the common consent of the whole antient Catholike Church if that bee not repugnant to the Scriptures I doe also beleeue that what things were defined and receiued by the godly Fathers being gathered together in the name of the Lord by the common consent of all without any gainsaying of the holy scriptures that those things also though they be not of the same authority with the holy Scriptures proceeded from the holy Ghost Hence it is that those things that be of this kind I neither will nor dare with good conscience mislike But what is more certaine out of histories Councels and writings of all the Fathers then that those orders of Ministers whereof I spake were established and receiued by the common consent of all Christendome Quis aâ—tem ego sim qui quod tota Ecclesia approbauiâ— improbem And who am I that I should disallow that which the whole Church allowed c. Neither doe I see any reason why the Church in Constantines time should not rather bee propounded as a pateâ—â—e for imitation to Churches that liue vnder Christian princes and flourish through Gods blessing in peace and prosperitie then the Churches of former times which were not in all things established and setled according to their desires but were hindred by persecutioÌ„ For in time of persecution their gouernment was not alwaies such as they would but such as they could attaine vnto And vnlesse we would haue the Churches to liue alwaies vnder persecution it is madnesse to require them to be imitated in all things But what was by generall consent receiued and practised in the time of peace and prosperity was that which in their iudgements ought to be done and is of vs being in the like case to be imitated Now that in Constantines time the Bishops had superiority ouer other Ministers in degree and a singular preheminence of power and authority it is most euident Neither was their superiority and authority increased by the accession of the Christian Magistrate as their wealth was but rather diminished seeing while there was not a Christian Magistrate they were faine to supply that defect and by their owne authority did many things which afterward were done or assisted by the Magistrate But though there can no colour of a good reason be giuen why the superiority and authority of Bishoppes as they were diocesan should haue been greater
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
as they being but for matters of lesse importance vicegerents in the Country to the Bishop of the diocesse whose seat was in the Citie being after the maner of the seuenty disciples Presbyters rather then BB. did incroach vpon the Bishoppes rights and prerogatiues not knowing their owne measure therefore they were restrained as in other matters of importance so in ordinations to doe nothing without the leaue of the Bishop Thus the ancient Councill of Ancyra determined That it was not lawfull that Countrie Bishops should ordaine Presbyters or Deacons vnlesse they had leaue granted vnto them by the Bishop with his letters for so Theod. Balsam expoundeth that Canon the Fathers of this Synode determine that the Countrie Bishop may not ordaine Presbyters or Deacons without the letters of the Bishop The Councill of Antioch thus It seemeth good to the holy Synode that those which are placed in villages and countrey Townes called Countrey-Bishops although they haue receiued the ordination of BB. should know their owne measures and administer the Churches subiect to them and content themselues with the charge and care of them and to ordaine Readers Subdeacons and Exorcists and to content themselues with preferring of them But that they should not presume to ordaine a Presbyter or a Deacon without the Bishop in the citie whereunto both himselfe and his countrey is subiect If any shall dare to transgresse this definition he shall be deposed from that honour which he hath and that the countrie Bishop should be made of the B. in the citie wherto he is subiect Which last clause as I suppose was added to take from them that colourable pretence whereupon they had presumed before to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons viz. because they had Episcopall ordination by the Metropolitane and two or three other BB. To preuent this the Councill decreeth that from that time forward they should be ordained not as other BB. by the Metropolitane and two or three other Bishops but as other Presbyters by the Bishop of the citie and so hauing not so much as an Episcopall ordination to make them as they were before titular Bishops they might acknowledge themselues to haue no right of ordination of Presbyters and Deacons Harmenopulus in his abridgement of the Canons setteth this downe as the summe of both these Canons 13. Ancyr and 10. Antioch Let not a Countrey Bishop ordaine a Presbyter or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the licence of the Bishop To the like purpose the Councill of Laodicea determined that Bishops may not be ordained in villages and Countrey townes but visiters and that those which were before ordained may do nothing without the consent of the Bishop in the citie By these two Councils therefore as Episcopall ordination for the time to come was denied to the Countrey Bishops so also power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons To the same purpose I quoted Damasus and Leo who proue that Chorepiscopi were not indeed Bishops but Presbyters and therefore had no right to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons Chorepiscopi saith Leo according to the Canons of Neocaesaria and decrees of other Fathers are the same with Presbyters bearing the figure of the sonnes of Aaron and being after the maner of the 70. Disciples And although in respect of the ministerie they haue a common dispensation with Bishops notwithstanding some things are forbidden them by the authoritie of the old law some of the new and by Ecclesiasticall Canons as the consecration of Presbyters and Deacons c. And to his sentence the Councill of Hispalis subscribed Basil likewise plainely signified to the Chorepiscopi that if any without his appointment were receiued into the ministerie he should bee held for a lay man These testimonies plainely euince that in the primitiue Church the power of ordination was so in Bishops as that either themselues did ordaine or if this power were communicated to others it was by leaue and permission from them And little reason had the refuter so lightly to esteeme these testimonies as being vnder age For vnlesse he be able to shew that in the first 200. yeares the Presbyters either had de iure the power to ordaine or that de facto they did vse to ordaine which he will neuer be able to shew the worst of these testimonies for the Bishops is of more worth then all that he shall be able to say against them Let him produce if he can any one testimony of Scripture any one sentence out of Councils Histories or Fathers prouing that Presbyters without a Bishop had right to ordaine and I will yeeld to him But he doth not goe about by sound learning and euidence of truth to refell my assertions which indeed he cannot doe but by vnlearned shifts and sophistiall cauillations to elude them as he can either not doubting but such refutations would serue his turne to reteine the people in their preconceiued alienation from Bishops or else hoping that J would not vouchsafe him an answere But to returne to my proofes For one there remaineth yet out of the Councils shewing that in ancient times they were so far from permitting Presbyters without a Bishop to ordaine that when as a certaine Bishop in the ordination of one Presbyter and two Deacons vsed only the help of a Presbyter to reade the words of consecration and to blesse them himself laying on his hands but being not able for the paine of his eies to reade the Councill of Hispalis reuersed the ordination as vnlawfull This is the Councill which the refuter judged to deserue neither imitation nor approbation by which censure of this one though he durst not giue it of any of the forenamed Councils yet it being indefinitely propounded he discrediteth the rest with the vnlearned who are not able to distinguish But let vs heare more particularly his graue censure of this Councill What a toy was it for the Councill of Ciuill in Spaine to reuerse the ordination c. What a boy is this might these Fathers say that presumeth thus to censure vs was not Isidor the Archbishop of Ciuill the president of this Councill and author of these Canons one of the most learned writers which haue beene in the Church within this 1000. yeares with whom this Refuter for learning is not to be named the same day was not this Council held against the Heretickes called Acephali did it not learnedly and judiciously confute them did these graue fathers toy when by graue censures they sought to preserue the discipline and canons of the Church to maintaine the lawfull authoritie of BB. and to preuent the presumptuous vsurpation of Presbyters contrarie to the Canons of the Church had not the ancient councill of Orenge decreed That if any Bishop should by any infirmitie or weaknesse either fall into the dulnesse of his senses as this Bishop did or loose the facultie of speech he should not suffer
authoritie ouer them or reprooued for suffering them And if they were not Presbyters because they called themselues Apostles be like they were better men Js it not then against sense to deny that Presbyters were subiect to the ceÌ„sure of the Bishop because he imagineth these who were subiect to their censure were better men Whatsoeuer they were whether Presbyters or in a higher degree whether of the Bishops presbytery or not whether of his diocese originally or come from other places it is plaine that they were Teachers and that being in their diocese the Bishops had authoritie either to suffer them to preach or to inhibit them to retaine them in the Communion of their Church or to expell them My other reason that BB. had correctiue power ouer the Presbyters is because Timothe and Titus had such power ouer the Presbyters of Ephesus and Creet as I proue by most euident testimonies out of Pauls epistles written to them and Epiphanius his inference on these words to Timothe Against a Presbyter receiue not thou an accusation but vnder two or three witnesses c. Therefore saith he Presbyters are subiect to the B. as to their Iudge To my inference out of S. Paul he answereth that Timothe and Titus were not BB. and that I shall neuer prooue they were I desire therefore the Reader to suspend his iudgement vntill hee come to the proofes on both sides and if he shall not find my proofes for their being BB. to be better then his to the contrarie let him beleeue me in nothing In the meane time let him know that if the generall consent of the ancient Fathers deserue any credit for a matter of fact then must it be granted that Timothe and Titus were Bishops Against Epiphanius hee obiecteth that hee tooke for granted that which Aerius constantly denied But this is one of his presumptuous and malapeit conceits for when Epiphanius prooueth against Aerius that Bishops were superiour to other Presbyters because Timothe was taking it for granted that Timothe was a Bishoppe what moderate or reasonable man would think otherwise but that this assertion that Timothe was a Bishoppe was such a receiued truth as hee knew Aërius himselfe would not deny it Serm. sect 12. pag. 50. But consider also the Presbyters as seuered in place from the Bishop and affixed to their seuerall Cures c. to offenders pag. 52. My first Argument to proue the iurisdiction of Bishops ouer Presbyters assigned to their seuerall cures is that when any place in the country was voide the Bishoppe assigned a Presbyter to them out of his Presbytery which as hath beene said before Caluin confesseth and is an euident argument as to proue the iurisdiction of the Bishop ouer the country parishes and Presbyters thereof so to demonstrate that the Bishops were Diocesan This reason because hee could not answere he would as his maner is perswade the Reader that it is needlesse Secondly I alledge that these Presbyters might doe nothing but by authority from the Bishoppe from whome they had their iurisdiction and therefore were subiect to him as their ruler Thirdly that they were subiect to his iudgement and censures These two points with their proofes hee passeth ouer as if hee made hast to the reason following which he supposeth to be the weakest For this is his maner to passe by in breuity or in silence the best proofes and if he meet with any thing which seemeth to him weaker then the rest there he resteth like aâ—lie in a raw place But by his leaue I will insist a little on these two points And first for the former point in generall the ancient Councell of Laodicea hauing ordained that Country Bishops might do nothing without the consent of the B. in the City in like maner commaundeth the Presbyters to doe nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the consent of the B. The same hath Damasus who hauing spoken of Country Bishops in like manner saith this must be held concerning Presbyters vt sine iussu proprij Episcopi nihilagant that they do nothing without the commaundement of their owne B. To omit those actions that belonged to the power of order which I haue already proued they could not performe without licence and authority from the Bishop consider how in respect of their persons those of the Clergy were subiect to the Bishop to be disposed by him First hee had authority to promote theÌ„ from one degree to another as he saw cause insomuch that if they refused to bee promoted by him they were to loose that degree from which they would not be remoued Secondly they might not remoue from one Diocese to another without his consent If they did he had authority to call them backe Or if any other Bishop should ordaine any of his Clerks without his coÌ„sent or letters dimissory and in that Church preferre him to a higher degree his own B. might reuerse that ordination bring him again to his own Church Con. Nic. c. 16. Arel 2. c. 13. Sard. c 15. Constant. in Trullo c. 17. Venet. c. 10 Epaun. c. 5. Thirdly they might not so much as trauel from one City to another without the B. licence his commendatory letters This was decreed by the councell of Laodicea and diuers others as Con. Agath c. 38. Epaunens c. 6. Aurelian 3. c. 15. Venet. c. 5. Turon c. 11.12 Hereby the Reader will easily discerne that the whole Clergy of euery Diocese was subiect to the B. as to their Ruler And that he was their iudge it is euident Cyprian testifieth that heresies and schismes arise hence that the Bishop is not obeied nec vâ—us in Ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos ad tempus index vice Christi cogitatur neither is one B. in the Church and one iudge for the time in the stead of Christ acknowledged First in their controuersies for when Clerks are at variance the B shal bring them to concord either by reason or by his power If there be a controuersie betweene Clerks saith the Councel of Chalcedon they shal not forsake their owne B. but first their cause shall be tried before him And if in their sutes they thought themselues wronged in their Bishoppes court then were they either to seâ—ke to the next BB if the matter could not be differred to the next Synode or else they might appeale to the Metropolitane or Prouinciall Synode But that the B. should be ouerruled controlled or censured by his owne Presbytery it was neuer heard of vnlesse it were by way of insurrection or rebellion Secondly in causes criminall that the Presbyters and others of the Clergy were subiect to the BB. censures it is euery where almost in the ancient Canons and Councels either expressed or presupposed If any Presbyter or Deacon saith the ancient Canon be excommunicated by the B. he may not be receiued by another
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
as much in effect yea and in expresse termes had been giuen to others as to the B. of Alexandria called by some the iudge of the whole world to the B. of Constantinople called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch to Iames the B. of Ierusalem Heare B. Iewels words Clement vnto Iames B. of Ierusalem writeth thus Clemens Iacobo fratri Domini Episcopo Episcoporum regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis sed omnes Ecclesias quae vbique Dei prouidentia fundatae sunt Clement vnto Iames the brother of our Lord the B. of BB. gouerning the holy Church of the Iewes at Ierusalem and besides all the Churches that be founded euery where by Gods prouidence These be all his words sauing that hee saith if Harding had so good euidence for the B. of Rome he would not thus haue passed it ouer in silence Which if you compare with the refuters allegation you may well wonder at his dealing Doth not B. Iewel himselfe in plaine termes call Iames the B. of Ierusalem and that which is said of his gouerning other Churches is not his saying but Clements if it be truely printed in the copies which B. Iewel did follow Neither would it follow of those words alledged as they are that he was no otherwise B. of Ierusalem then ouer all the other Churches The B. of Constantinople though he were called vniuersall or oecumenicall Patriarch yet was he the Diocesan B. of the Church of Constantinople alone and that was his peculiar Diocese So if Clement had meant that Iames had beene the gouernour of all Churches yet the Church of Ierusalem was his Diocese wherein Simon and the rest of the Bishops of Ierusalem did succeed him and thereof he had his denomination The Pope himselfe though he claime to be vniuersall Bishop yet is he specially Bishop of Rome and his cathedrall Church is the Church of Laterane of which he is Bishop Howbeit in the edition of that Epistle set forth by Sichardus and printed at Basill together with his recognitions anno 1526. we read thus Sed ominibus Ecclesiis quae vbique sunt By which copy if it be true Iames is not signified to be the gouernour of all Churches but Clements Epistle is directed not onely to Iames but to all Churches c. Yea but D. Whitakers by eight arguments doth proue that he neither was nor might be B. of Ierusalem I promise you this maketh a faire shew if it be true But this also is a manifest vntruth For the arguments that he vseth are to proue that Peter was not Bishop of Rome Yea but the same are as effectuall to proue that Iames might not be Bishop of Ierusalem and therefore to these eight arguments he doth referre me But this also is vntrue For six of these eight are such as the refuter with all his sophistry cannot with any shew of truth applie to St. Iames. For his third argument taken from Peters long absence from Rome after he was according to their opinion B. there cannot be applyed to Iames who was resident at Ierusalem as the Actes besides other witnesses testifie Nor the fourth that if Peter were B. then had he two Bishopricks For he had beene by their owne doctrine as well B. of Antioch as of Rome But no such thing can be obiected against Iames. Nor the fift that whiles Peter liued Linus was B. of Rome so he was indeed by the appointment of Peter and Paul as Irenaeus teacheth But whiles Iames liued none was B. of Ierusalem but he But after he was dead Simon was chosen to be his successor Nor the sixt that the authors which mention Peters going to Rome note this to haue beene the end not to be B. there but to oppose Simon Magus But the cause of Iames his staying and continuing at Ierusalem was to take charge of that Church which during his life had no other B. Nor the seauenth that if Peter were B. of Rome then would he haue professed himselfe the Apostle of the Gentiles neither would he haue conuenanted with Paul that he and Barnabas should take care of the Gentiles but himselfe and Iames and Iohn of the Circumcision For Iames as he is said to haue beene B. of Ierusalem so hee professeth himselfe to haue beene the Apostle of the Iewes For besides that he writeth his Epistle to the Iewes he and Peter and Iohn gaue the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas that themselues would be for the Circumcision And for as much as Peter and Iohn trauelled to other parts Iames alwayes abiding at Ierusalem it is more then probable that the Church of Iewry was peculiarly assigned to him Neither is it for nothing that both in the 15. of the Acts he is noted as President or chiefe in that Councill and in the 2. Chapter to the Galathians Paul speaking of such Apostles as were at Ierusalem he giueth the precedence to Iames before Peter and Iohn Nor the eight for they that say Peter was Bishop of Rome say Paul was also meaning that they were both founders of the Church but Linus was the B. to whom they both committed the Church as Irenaeus saith But they which say Iames was B. of Ierusalem mention him alone Neither was he founder of that Church but Christ himselfe who was the minister of Circumcision But it will be said the two first reasons of the eight doe proue that Iames was not B. of Ierusalem That commeth now to be tryed The first reason is this Bishops haue certaine Churches assigned to them The Apostles had not certain churches assigned to them Therefore the Apostles were not Bishops The assumption is to be distinguished according to the times For when Christ gaue them their indefinite commission goe into all the world hee assigned no Prouinces nor parts of the world to any Notwithstanding before they were to goe abroad he willeth them to stay at Ierusalem till they had receiued the holy Ghost who should direct them what to doe and we may be assured that he did not direct them to goe confusedly but distinctly some to one part of the world some to another Howbeit when they ceased to trauaile in their olde dayes and rested in some chiefe Citie where they had laboured they were reputed Bishops of that place where they rested though some of them perhaps were not properly Bishops And this is true of Peter and of the most of the Apostles But herein Iames differeth from the rest for to him at the first before their dispersion the Church of Ierusalem was assigned Neither did he trauaile as the rest from one Country to another being not confined to any one Prouince though in the end of their trauels some of them made choise of some speciall place where they rested exercising no doubt a patriarchall authority as it were in that circuit where they had trauailed and planted Churches Thus Iohn rested at Ephesus and others in other places That
owne confession was common to all Pastors though afterwards appropriated to some speciall persons as if he should haue said I grant that which here you doe proue but yet that followeth not hereon which you intended not That the Churches were Diocesses and the Bishops Diocesan like to ours for the substance of their office I proued before in the former part here I am so farre from inferring or prouing it that I presuppose it as sufficiently proued before But this is the poore shift which the refuter vsually flyeth vnto when he hath nothing to answere He perswaded himselfe such was his iudgement that in the question of parishes and Diocesses he had the vpper hand and therefore when he is foiled in any of the points following he flyeth to that as his refuge yea but though this be so as you say yet the Church was not a Diocese nor the Bishop a Diocesan But how little reason he hath to imagine Philippi one of the cheife Cities of Macedonia to haue beene a parish Church may be gathered by that which before hath beene said of the like Cities Where he saith I goe about to deceiue the reader with the like equiuocation of the word Bishop he doth me wrong But he and his consorts deceiue the readers when they would perswade them that because in the Apostles writings and for some part of the Apostles time the names Episcopus Presbyter were confounded namely vntill Bishops began to be chosen from among the Presbyters that therefore the offices were confounded For here I shew that when Presbyters were called Episcopi those who euer since the Apostles times haue beene called Bishops were then called the Agels and the Apostles of the Churches to whom as I noted before out of Theodoret those who were then called Episcopi that is Presbyters were subiect For as I said in the Sermon whiles the Episcopall power was in the Apostles and Apostolicke men those who had that power were called Apostles and therefore Ambrose by Apostles in some places of Scripture vnderstandeth Bishops and to the like purpose Cyprian Apostolos id est Episcopos praepositos dominus elegit the Lord chose Apostles that is Bishops and Gouernours For as Theodoret hath well obserued on 1 Tim. 3. In times past saith he they called the same men Presbyters and Bishops and those who now are called Bishops they named Apostles But in processe of time they left the name Apostle to those who are properly called Apostles and the name of Bishop they gaue to them who had beene called Apostles Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians Titus of the Cretians and Timothie of the Asians Which testimony if it be conferred with some before cited out of Ierome the truth concerning this matter will appeare to be this Whiles the Bishops were Apostles and Apostolicke men for such were the first Bishops the Angels of the Churches were also called the Apostles of the Churches other Ministers being then called Presbyteri Episcopi indifferently but when the first Bishops being dead their successours were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which Ierome noteth to haue been done at Alexandria euer since the death of S. Marke and was done in all other places where were no Euangelists or Apostolicall men remayning then they left the name Apostle and for difference sake called him the Bishop Wherefore as I said in the Sermon it was not long that the name Episcopus was confounded with Presbyter For Ignatius who was a B. aboue thirtie yeares in the Apostles time after that Evodius had beene B. of Antioch aboue twenty yeares before him appropriateth the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Bishop and vsually distinguisheth the three degrees of the Clergie as the Church euer since the Apostles hath distinguished them by these three names Bishop Presbyter and Deacon Yea but we may gather out of Theodorets testimonie saith the Refuter that the report which M. D. maketh of Ignatius his appropriating the name of Episcopus to a Diocesan Bishop is without any sufficient warrant For seeing Ignatius liued in the Apostles times and died within sixe yeares after S. Iohn and Theodoret saith that in processe of time the name of B. was imposed it is not likely Ignatius should be the imposer of it No man includeth the processe of time within the compasse of sixe yeares any man will thinke The processe of time wherof Theodoret speaketh was as appeareth by conference of him with Ierome in the Apostles time At the first towards the beginning of the Apostles time the Gouernours of the Churches were called Apostles but in processe of time when the first Bishops who had beene Apostles or Apostolicall men were dead and now were to be chosen out of the Presbyters which was towards the latter end of the Apostles times then they began to be called Episcopi Bishops And that this was so appeareth not onely by Ignatius who continually vseth the word as the first and highest degree of the Clergie Presbyters as the second and Deacons as the third but also by other monuments of antiquity which I mentioned in the Sermon I haue the longer insisted on this point because it is of great consequence For hereby it appeareth first that when the name Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded yet the offices of Bishops and Presbyters were not confounded Secondly that Bishops being then called Apostoli were superiour to other Ministers who were called Presbyteri Episcopi And lastly that such Bishops as were superiour to other Ministers were in the Apostles times and mentioned in the Apostles writings The IIII. CHAPTER Shewing the Places where and the Persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB but chiefly that Timothie was B. of Ephesus and Titus of Creet Serm. Sect. 7. pag. 72. But we are also to shew the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned BB. and first out of the scriptures c. to all ordayned there pag. 75. IN this section and the two next following I proue that Timothie and Titus were by S. Paul ordayned Bishops the one of Ephesus the other of Creet and maintaine the same assertion against their obiections Afterwards I shew out of other the auncientest monuments of antiquitie that other BB. of other places were ordayned by the Apostles This saith the Refuter is the last supply to maintaine the former antecedent by shewing the places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordayned Bishops If this faile he is vndone As who should say that all which hitherto hath beene said hath by him beene very learnedly and sufficiently refuted When as in truth hee hath not beene able to confute any one sentence or line of the Sermon hitherto with soundnesse of reason or euidence of truth And the like assurance I haue of that which followeth Now that Timothie and Titus were by the Apostle ordained Bishops I proue by a two-fold reason which I ioyned together is thus to be
cheife burden must lye vpon Mat. 18. dic Ecclesiae which hath bin before examined Beza making mention of one Morellius who pleaded in like manner for the popular gouernment giueth him this stile Democraticus quidam fanaticus shewing that these who plead that cause are lead with a phantasticall fanaticall spirit For is it not a phrensy to vrge the peoples supremacy in Church-gouernment is there any shew in scripture or in reason that the sheepe should rule their Shepheard or the flocke their Pastor But for the confutation of them I referre them to other Disciplinarians from whom they had their first grounds seing by this fancy they seeke to ouerturne as well those Churches where the Geneua discipline is established as ours The third dreame is that the lawes of Church-gouernment prescribed in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus were prouided for the democraticall state of the Church So that when Paul saith lay not thou hands on no man hastily you must vnderstand the speech directed not to Timothie to vvhom the Epistle was written but to the people that they should not suffer their Lay-elders when their minister is dead to be hasty in laying hands on a new And vvhen hee saith doe not thou receiue an accusation c. it must be vnderstood of the people and Presbyterie After two or three admonitions doe thou auoid an hereticke or excommunicate him that is thou people What of Creet belike the whole Iland of Creet was a Parish too The next fancy is that the popular state of the seuerall Churches did first degenerate into an Aristocraty and after into a Monarchie But it is as cleare as the light that the seuerall Churches were at the first gouerned by the Apostles or Apostolicall men seuerally and that either perpetually as by Iames Marke c. or but for a time as by Peter Paul c. and that when the Apostles left the Churches they committed them to other Apostolicall men such as Timothie Titus Evodius Simon the sonne of Cleophas Linus Clemens c. communicating vnto them the same authority both for the worke of the ministery and for the power of ordination and iurisdiction which themselues had in those seuerall Churches and what authoritie each of them had their successors in the seuerall Churches had the same Neither haue our BB. at this day greater authority in menaging Church causes then Timothie and Titus and other the first Bishops had Who was to ordaine ministers in Creet and to gouerne that Church did not Paul commit these things to Titus without mentioning either of Presbytery or people are not all his precepts for ordination and Church-gouernment directed onely to Titus for Creet to Timothie for Ephesus and doth not this euidently shew that howsoeuer they might vse either the presence and consent of the people or the Counsell and aduise of the Presbyters in causes of greatest moment as Princes also doe in common-wealthes yet the sway of the Ecclesiasticall gouernment was in them It is therefore most plaine that in the Epistles to Timothie and Titus it is presupposed that they had Episcopall authority and that the rules and directions giuen to them are precedents for Bishops and patternes vnto them for the exercise of their Episcopall function And this I proue againe in my Sermon by another argument which the refuter hath framed thus Those things which were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world were written to informe Diocesan Bishops But those Epistles were written to informe not Timothie and Titus alone as extraordinarie persons but them and their successors to the end of the world Therefore they were written to informe Diocesan BB. The assumption for with that the refuter beginneth I proued by testimony and by reason And first by the testimony of Paul straightly charging Timothie that the commandements and directions which he gaue him should be kept inuiolable vntill the appearing of our Lord Iesus Christ therfore by such as should haue the like authority to the end Hereof Caluin saith thus nomine mandati significat quae hactenus de officio Timothie disseruit Vnder the name of the commandement he signifieth those things whereof hitherto he had discoursed concerning the office of Timothie And againe omnino ceriè ad ministerium Timothie refero I doe wholy referre it to the ministerie of Timothie For Paul wrot to this end to giue direction to Timothie how he should behaue himselfe in the Church which is the house of the liuing God Which directions he chargeth him Chap. 6. to obserue inuiolable vntill the comming of Christ which could not be performed in the person of Timothie who was not to continue to the end but in a succession of them who should haue the like authority vntill the end T. C. and other Disciplinarians hauing fancied that the Apostles had giuen direction in that Epistle for onely-gouerning Elders hereupon conclude that they are to be continued vntill the comming of Christ So that they can conclude vpon that charge the continuance of an office not once mentioned in that Epistle but they cannot or will not see how the continuance of that office which Timothie did beare for the execution whereof all these directions are giuen is concluded vpon the same ground The second testimonie was of Ambrose writing on those vvords of Paul saying that Paul is so circumspect not because he doubted of Timothie his care but in regard of his successors that they after the example of Timothie might continue the well ordering of the Church The reason whereby I proued that Paul giueth direction not to Timothie and Titus onely as to extraordinary persons but to them and their successors vntill the end of the world was because the authority which was committed to them for the execution whereof the Apostle giueth his directions is perpetually necessary without the which the Church neither can be gouerned as without iurisdiction neither yet continued as without ordination therefore not peculiar to extraordinary persons but by an ordinary deriuation to be continued in those who are the successors of Timothie and Titus The effect of the refuters answere is that he could be content to graunt this assumption were it not that he is resolued to deny the conclusion which followeth thereupon For first hee granteth Pauls purpose to instruct those that should succeed Timothie and Titus in the authoritie which they had but not in their office And that this authoritie was not nor was to be in the hands of any one particular man but the right of it was in the whole congregation the execution in the Presbytery So that the power of ordination and iurisdiction might be continued without Bishops c. It is sufficient for the truth of the assumption which the refuter granteth that what Paul did write to Timothie Titus he wrote not to
them alone as extraordinarie persons vvhose authoritie should dye with them but to those also which should succeed them in the like authoritie vntill the end But whether the Bishops were to be their successours or the whole congregation or the Presbyterie belongeth not to the assumption but rather to the proposition Howbeit that which he saith either in denying the Bishops to be the successours of Timothie and Titus or affirming the congregation and Presbyterie to haue succeeded them in the power of ordination and iurisdiction is spoken altogether as against the truth so without proofe I will therefore returne to the proposition which is grounded on this Hypothesis that Diocesan Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus For if that be true then is the proposition necessary though the refuter flatly denyeth it Thus therefore I reason If the successours of Timothie and Titus were Diocesan Bishops then those things which were written to informe their successours were vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops But the successors of Timothie Titus were Diocesan BB. Therefore those things which were vvritten to informe the successours of Timothie and Titus vvere vvritten to informe Diocesan Bishops Here the refuter thinking he had as good reason to deny the one part of this syllogisme as the other denyeth both The consequence of the proposition is feeble saith he vnlesse it were certaine that the Bishops both de facto were de iure ought to haue beene their successors That the Bishops were de facto their successors of all other Apostolical men in the gouernment of the Churches I haue already proued and there vpon haue inferred that de iure also they were Because what gouernment was not onely generally receiued in the 300. yeeres after the Apostles but also was in vse in the Apostles times in the Apostolicall Churches that without doubt was of Apostolicall institution The assumption I proue by two arguments first by this disiunction Either the Bishops were their successours or the Presbyteries or which the refuter would adde the whole congregation But neither the Presbyteries nor the whole congregation which had no greater nor other authority and power vnder Bishops then they had before vnder Timothie and Titus Therefore the Bishops were their successors Againe those who succeeded Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of the Churches of Ephesus and Creet were their successors But the Bishops of Ephesus and Creet did succeed Timothie and Titus in the gouernment of those Churches Therefore they were their successors These reasons the refuter saw not onely he taketh vpon him to answere the proofes of this last assumption And first for Timothie his successors in Ephesus it is apparant that not onely the Angell of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. 2.1 whether it were Onesimus or any other was one of his successors and Policrates the Bishop of Ephesus another But also that from Timothie vntill the Councill of Chalcedon there was a continued succession of Bishops For whereas in the Councill of Chalcedon Stephanus the Bishop of Ephesus being deposed some question did arise whether the new Bishop who was to succeed were to be chosen and ordained by the Councill or by the Prouinciall Synode of Aisa Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia in the Prouince of Asia alledged that from St. Timothie to that time there had beene twenty seauen Bishops of Ephesus all ordained there To this he answereth nothing but that which before hath been refuted that howsoeuer the latter Bishops of those twenty seauen might be Diocesan the former were not For it is certaine that both the latter and the former were not onely Diocesan but also Metropolitan Bishops And where I number the Angell of Ephesus in this rancke he saith that I tediously begge the question But I appeale to the refuter himselfe first whether this Angell was not the B. and gouernour of the Church of Ephesus secondly whether he did not succeed Timothie in the gouernment of that Church thirdly whether he was not one of those twenty seauen Bishops mentioned by Leontius in the Councill of Chalcedon And the like may be said of Polycrates who had beene the eight Bishop of his owne kindred sauing that concerning him there is more euidence that he being Bishop of Ephesus was the Metropolitane or primate of Asia For Eusebius saith that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops of Asia who by his authoritie did assemble a Prouinciall Synode to discusse the question concerning Easter As touching Creet because there is not the like euidence the refuter taketh vpon him to deliuer diuers things without booke as if Titus had successours in the gouernment of Creet it would be auailable for Arch-bishops which were not bred a great while after but it maketh nothing for Diocesan Bishops Whereto I answere first though such Archbishops as were also called Patriarches were not from the Apostles times yet such as are Metropolitanes were And againe if Prouinciall Bishops may be proued to haue been from the Apostles times much more may Diocesan For euery Metropolitane is a Diocesan but not contrariwise And although I doe not remember that I haue any where read of the next successour to Titus yet I read of Gortyna the mother City of Creet and the Metropolitane Bishops thereof who were Arch-bishops of Creet and successors of Titus though not his immediate successours For Dionysius of Corinth who flourished at the same time with Hegesippus writing an Epistle to the Church of Gortyna together with the rest of the Churches of Creet hee commendeth Philippe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Bishop for his renowned vertue And although he called him the Bishop of the Churches in Creet yet the Diocesan Churches had their Bishops too as the Church of Gnossus a City of Creet had Pinytus at the same time her Bishop which proueth the other to haue beene an Arch-bishop Theodorus Balsamo saith f antiquius Nomocanonum versaui c. I haue perused the ancient Code of Councils and by the subscriptions I finde that in this Councill held in Trullo Basil the Bishop of Gortyna which is the Metropolis of Creet was present And where he saith that Creet hauing many Churches had no one Bishop to gouerne them after Titus the Euangelist till Diocesan Bishops had got the sway of Ecclesiasticall matters I confesse it is true but he must remember that euen in the Apostles times there were Diocesan Bishops And in the very next age after them Philippe was Archbishop of Creet But though there were no direct proofe that Diocesan or Prouinciall Bishops were the successours of Timothie and Titus yet it might easily be gathered by other Churches from whose forme of gouernment Ephesus and Creet did not vary It cannot be denyed but what authoritie Timothie and Titus had the one in Ephesus the other in Creet the same had Marke at Alexandria Evodius at Antioch Linus at Rome c. Neither may it
the Senatours and of a King were confounded For the soueraignty was in the Emperour and the Senatours might haue beene the same vnder their King which they had beene vnder the Emperour c. As touching the assumption he saith it should haue beene proued and I say if he were able he should haue disproued it For my part I was in this place the answerer and the parts of the assumption be such as either had beene before cleared or seemed to neede no proofe For first that the Presbyters ruled the Churches as vnder the Apostles it is manifest That the Episcopall authority consisting specially in the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction was not in them but in the Apostles partly was proued before to wit that Presbyters neuer had it and partly needed no proofe viz. that the Apostles had it And surely little need had Paul to haue sent Timothie to Ephesus and Titus to Creet to exercise the power of Ordination and publicke Iurisdiction in those Churches if the Presbyters had the same before they came But still I desire some euidence whereby the deriuation of this power of Ordination and Iurisdiction from the Apostles to the Presbyters or people may be warranted Thirdly that the Presbyters were the same vnder the Apostles then which they were afterwards vnder the Bishops I take for a certaine truth For if they were the same vnder Timothie and Titus that they were vnder the Apostles then questionlesse they were the same vnder the Bishops who haue no other function nor exercise any other authority then that which Timothie and Titus had and exercised in Ephesus and Creet And these I hope are reasons sufficient to approue the former part of my answere vntill the refuter who is the opponent be able to disproue it The second part of my answere may be concluded thus If after a while namely when the Apostles were to discontinue from the Churches which they had planted the Apostles themselues ordayned BB. then the Presbyters ruling of the Churches by common counsell for a time doth not hinder but that the Episcopall function is of Apostolicall institution But the former is true Therefore the latter The consequence needeth no proofe the assumption I proue by Ieromes owne testimony For if Ierome doe testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall doe note the time when the place where and the end wherefore then doth he giue plentifull testimony to this truth But Ierome doth testifie that the Apostles ordayned BB. and withall noteth the time when the place where and the end wherfore The time and place he noteth first generally the time when Bishops were ordayned was in the Apostles time the place where in all the world Which two if you ioyne together it will appeare that by Ieromes testimony the function of BB. is of Apostolicall institution For it is vtterly incredible that BB. should be ordayned in all parts of the Christian world in the Apostles times and yet not be of the Apostles ordayning That Ierome helde BB. to be ordayned in the Apostles time I proue out of the place alledged when factions began to spring in the Church saith Ierome some saying I am of Paul I am of Apollo I am of Cephas which was in the Apostles times 1 Cor. 1. and it were fond to imagine that factions did not begin till after their time This argument the Refuter would discredit because Sanders vseth the like and his owne answere he would credit with the name and countenance of certaine learned men which is one of his ordinary shifts to bleare the eyes of the simple who many times respect more who speaketh then what is said But my argument standeth thus When the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh BB. were ordayned as he saith In the Apostles times the factions began whereof Ierome speaketh Therefore in the Apostles times Bishops were ordayned as he saith The effect of the answere which hee bringeth is that Ierome speaking of Schismes which did arise after the Apostles times alludeth to that speech of the Apostle not that hee thought Bishops were ordayned in those times but that hee might shew that schisme was the cause of changing the order of Church-gouernment Which answere might haue some shew of probability if Ierome himselfe did not both in other places which I cite most plainely testifie that Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times and also in the place alledged expressely speake of those factions which did arise in Corinth and other places in the Apostles times The factions whereof he speaketh did arise from hence that vnusquisque eos quos baptizauerat suos putabat esse non Christi saith Ierome euery one esteemed those whom he had baptized to be his owne and not Christs Now it is apparant that this is the very thing which Paul reproueth in the Corinthians that euery one sayd they were his who had baptized them and therefore thanketh God that he had baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the houshold of Stephanas For by this meanes as Caluin also obserueth the factious and ambitious teachers whom he meant vnder the name of Paul and Apollos sought to draw Disciples after them Yea but Ierome in his Epistle to Evagrius sheweth that in the Apostles times Bishop and Presbyter was all one and that afterwards Bishops were first ordayned as a remedy against schisme To this I haue answered before shewing that Ierome there proueth that the names at the first were confounded and the same men were called Presbyters and Bishops vntill one out of the Presbyters in euery Church was chosen and set aboue the rest and called a Bishop Which Ierome there confesseth to haue bin done euer since St. Markes time and therefore in the time of the Apostles For the first Bishops were not chosen out of the Presbytery of the Churches whereof they were made BB. but were Apostolicall men I meane either Apostles or some of their companions and assistants all which while the Bishops were called Apostles as I shewed out of Theodoret the names Presbyter Episcopus being as yet confounded And whereas he saith that I answered euen now the course of gouernment was not changed at the first when factiâ—â—s began he doth but threapen kindnesse on mee for I said no such thing If therefore Ierome teacheth that Bishops were ordayned when factions began and also that in the Apostles time factions did begin then in Ieromes iudgement Bishops were ordayned in the Apostles times but Ierome teacheth both the one and the other as is manifest by that which hath beene said As touching the Place Ierome saith in toto orbe decretum est it was decreed in the whole world that one being chosen from among the Presbyters should be set ouer the rest to whom the whole care of euery Church should appertaine From whence I reason thus A generall decree in the whole Christian world could not be made in the Apostles times without the