CHAP. I. Answering the Refuters Preamble.

THE refuter,Ad pag. [...] before he would encounter the Sermon it selfe, thought good to spend some of his splene vpon the Author of the Sermon, the matter, and the text: proud­ly insulting ouer the Au­thor; scornefully gibing at the matter, and captiously carping at the choyse of the text.His insul [...] ouer the [...]thor of th [...] Sermon. His insultation is ioy­ned with scorne, and with slander, therein behauing himselfe like another insulting Goliah, gibing Tobiah, slandering Sanballat. He insulteth I say, Goliah-like, despising the Author of the Sermon (comming against him in simple maner, like Dauid, with The points in [...] Sermō, m [...] and plain [...] handled. fiue smooth stones taken out of the fountaine of Gods word, & streames of antiquitie) as not able to stand in his hands, being as he saith, litle worth, yea miserable poore indeed. He scoffeth Tobiah-like Neh [...] 4.3. at my building as ruinous and tottering, so readie to tipe and fall, as if belike but one of the foxes Cant [...] 15. The foxe [...] heretikes schi [...] ma [...]l [...] ▪ that trouble the vine doe come vpon it, the goodly mansion built for our reue­rend Bishops, as a tower of defence for their Lordships to rest in, [Page] (which proud and disdainefull sco [...]fe hee repeateth againe pag. 8.) will fall to the ground.

For answere whereof, I desire the Reader to compare the latter end of his preface, with this begining of his confu­tation. For there, bearing the Reader in hand, that he hath sufficiently confuted my Sermon; hee vseth my praise as a steppe to raise himselfe, and to aduantage his cause, giuing me greater commendation, then either I doe desire, or de­serue: but here, beginning his confutation, he would per­swade the Reader he shall easily performe it; his aduersarie being little worth, yea miserable poor [...] indeed, his building rui­nous and tottering ready to tipe and fall. Which imputations, if they be not true, proue him to be a lyer; if true, a worth­lesse and witlesse fellowe; worthlesse, who passing by all the worthies of our side, and their most accurate and learned treatises,Answ. to the [...] pag. 15. as himselfe tearmeth them; maketh choyce, ei­ther of such an aduersarie to contend with, as is little worth, yea miserable poore indeed, or of such a building to assaile, as is ruinous and tottering, ready of it selfe to tipe and fall. Witlesse, in making choyse of such an aduersarie, in van­quishing of whom, being so weake and miserable poore, as he can gaine no credit to himselfe or his cause; so can hee bring no great disaduantage to the aduerse partie. The fault being in all reason to be ascribed to the weakenes of the Champion, not to the badnesse of the cause. But if so weake and worthlesse a defendant, did in a Sermon prouided in 9. or 10. daies at the most, so foret [...]fie the cause of the Bishops, that the greatest worthies of the aduersarie partie assailing it withall their force, haue not beene able in twice so many monethes to make the least breach therein, then must it be confessed, that howsoeuer his aduersarie may be inferiour to him in other things, yet he is superiour in the cause.

1. King. 20.11.But soft [...] let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that puts it off. When I consider the weakenesse of your strength, and badnesse of your cause, I wonder at your confidence. You might doe well to followe the counsell of [...]rch [...]damus to his foole-hardy sonne, [...], either adde to your strength, or abate [Page] from your confidence.

And whereas Sanballat-like he saith, I make ‘great boast in my Sermon of much riches, &c.’ I answere with Nehemiah, Ne [...] it is not done according to these words, there is no such mat­ter in my Sermon, but it is a fiction of your owne heart. Such vanting suiteth better with my aduersarie, who, as in the forefront of his booke, most arrogantly applyeth the words of wisedome and truth to these his owne writings,Pro which for the most part are either false or friuolous; ‘Giue care saith he, for I will speake of excellent things, and the opening of my lippes shall teach things that be right: for my mouth shall speake the truth, and my lippes abhorre wickednes:’ so now in the very entrance hee playeth Pyrgopolinices himselfe,Pl [...] glori [...] tu le [...] dissi [...] spiri [...] si ver [...] soli [...] taking on, as if with a little paper-shotte he could ouerthrowe all my building, and blowe poore me away as it were with a breath.

Sect. 2. The matter also he scoffeth at, applying vnto it the speech of one of the sons of the Prophets (whō he calleth H [...] at the [...] of the [...] 2. Ki [...] a poore laborer, to make him, as it seemeth the liker to me) saying of his axe when the head fell into the water, Alas Maister, it is but borrowed. Neither doubteth he with what forhead I knowe not (for he goeth vnder a vizard) to affirme, that my whole building from the foundation to the roofe, is but old stuffe ‘taken out of D. Bilsons booke of the perpetuall gouernement of the Church.’Which base calumniation framed (as it may seeme) according to his owne practise, he doth odiously re­peate ad nauseam vs (que), euen so often harping on this string, as I haue occasion to handle, (though neuer so differently,) the same points with that most learned and reuerend di­uine. To which obiection I answere, that if it were true, it would proue the refuter to be but a childish, and yet an odi­ous wrangler. Childish, for it is the fashion of wrangling boyes in their Sophemes and disputations, when they can­not tell how to answere an argument, to tell the opponent, he had it in such a booke. And it is the part of an odious wrangler to seeke the disgrace of my person, by that which doth no whit aduantage his cause. For what aduantage is this to his cause, to obiect, that my proofes are the same [Page 26] with D. Bilsons; seeing his proofes be such, as neuer were, and neuer wilbe answered. But if the obiection be false, as euery man that compareth the treatises may easily dis­cerne; then, besides the testimonie of odious wrangling, he shall gaine to himselfe the commendation of a slanderous libeller. For, besides my consent in iudgement with that most reuerend learned man, which I most willingly and gladly professse, there is not any thing almost besides con­currence in diuerse allegations, which should breed any iust occasion of this surmile. And as for them, I doe professe, that the most of them are of mine owne reading, and those, which before I had either not read, or not obserued, I did not content my selfe to alleadge them as it were at the se­cond hand; but to examine the allegations, and to cite them out of the Authors themselues. So that, although the liquor many times is the same, yet I drewe it at the fountaine, and not at the streame; remembring who saith, Tardi est ingenij riuulos consectari, Cic. de orat. fontes non videre. Which course, better Schollers then my aduersarie, would allowe, especially to one that had no more time then I had, both to prouide what to speake, and to speake what I had prouided.

And forasmuch as in many places of his booke, he ma­keth references to D. Bilsons booke, to shew, that what I deliuer, was taken thence: I intreat the Reader once for all to compare the places. For thereby he shall see this cauil­ler to haue played the Ratte, both in discouering his owne falshood,Suo iudicio tanquam so­re [...] &c. and in betraying his cause. For as touching the former; I doe vnfainedly professe, that I am not conscious to my selfe, either in that Sermon, or any other writing that I haue published, to haue taken any one line, from any, with­out citing the Author. His cause also shalbe notably disad­vātaged, because those things which I did perhaps briefly, and as it were, in hast set downe; the Reader shall sometimes in the booke (whereunto hee is referred) reade the same points fully & accurately handled, to his great satisfaction, and good contentment.

And whereas he obiecteth, that my house is built of old stuffe, &c. Let him knowe, that in these kindes of buildings, [Page] the oldnes of the stuffe is a great commendation. For that, which is the oldest, is the truest. And that which hath beene of greatest antiquitie, for the time past, will also be of the longest continuance for the time to come. As for those buildings which our new Church wrights haue lately set vp specke and spanne new,1. C [...] building Churchframes as it were of wood couered ouer with strawe, which will not abide the fire, I verily thinke they will not continue vntill they be old.

His third quarrell is against the choyse of the text,Ad [...] His [...] at the [...] of the [...] Abo [...] as it were the plot of ground whereon to set my building. The which because it is allegoricall, is compared to a marish ground, where though I digge deepe, and doe what I can, I shall hardly find fast ground whereon to lay my foundation. The which quarrell doth please him so well, that he repeateth it againe, pag. 3. But without cause. For seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtfull, but is confessed on both sides, that as by the 7. starres, are meant the 7. Angels, so by the Angels the Bishops of the Churches: who seeth not, that this assertion, that the calling of Bishops is lawfull & good, is built on the foundation of the Apostle Iohn, as it were vpon a Rocke. For although some obiect, that by the An­gels are meant, either all Ministers in generall, as the newe sect of disciplinarians doth,Bez. i [...] 2. or the presidents of the Presby­teries, as the Elder and more learned disciplinarians doe, who doe not stand for the new-found parish-discipline; yet I doe proue both by the text it selfe, and by other eui­dence, that the calling of Diocesan BB. is in this text com­mended vnto vs vnder this title of the Angels of the Chur­ches. But hereof more in my answere to the third pag.

CHAP. II. Diuiding the Sermon, and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface.

HAuing thus quarrelled with the Author, the matter and subiect of he Sermon, he setteth vpon the The diui­siō of the Ser­mon, vvith the summe of the Preface there­of. Sermon it selfe. Which in the abortiue booke, was dis­membred into sixe parts, and yet one maine part left out. In this after-birth, into 3; viz, the Preface, the body of the Sermon, and the conclusion. The Preface, he saith,‘is concerning the text, and the fiue points I vndertake to handle;’and that againe he mangleth into 4. sections.

But if my aduersaries were as good in diuiding, as they are in making diuision; or so skilfull in analysing logi­cally, as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath bene logically composed; they would, either haue fol­lowed the ordinarie diuision of orations,Arist. Rhet. 3.1 [...]. saying, that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts, which are, 1. [...], the proaeme, (to pag. 2. lin. 3.) 2. [...], the proposition or [...] wherein the points to be handled are first diduced out of the text, to pag. 6. l. 16.) and secondly enumerated and distinctly marshalled (pag. 6 & 7.) 3. [...] the confir­mation prouing and defending those fiue points, (from pag. 8. to 94.) 4. [...] the conclusion containing the ap­plication, (pag. 94. to the end:) Or, if this diuision had not liked them, they might out of the transition pag. 94. haue obserued a distribution of my Sermon into 2. parts; viz. the explication, continuing to that place, and the appli­cation from thence to the end.

The explication containeth 2. assertions: the first, that the pastors or gouernours of the primitiue Churches (here meant by the Angels,) were Diocesan Bishops, & such (for the substance of their calling) as ours be. The second, that the function of Dio­cesan BB. is lawfull and good. Of these two assertions, the for­mer, is an explication of the text; the latter, a doctrine col­lected [Page] out of the text so explained. These assertions are, for the handling of the text, first propounded to be discussed, in that which he calleth the Preface, and afterwards proued, in that which he calleth the body of my booke. The former, as I said, may be called [...] or [...], the proposi­tion; the latter, [...] the confirmation. Now for the tryall of the first, viz. wheth [...]er by the Angels of the Churches we are to vnderstand Diocesan BB. or not, these two points are pro­pounded to be examined; first, what manner of Churches they were whereof they were Bishops, whether parishes onely, (as our new disciplinarians say,) or dioceses, as we and the elder disciplinarians hold: and consequently, whether themselues were parishionall, or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of pre­heminence they had in their Churches, in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches, whether onely a prioritie in order aboue other Ministers, and that but for a short time and by course; or a superioritie in degree, and maioritie of rule for terme of life. And this is the summe of that which he calleth the Preface. Now I come to his secti­ons, and his quarrells against the same.

In these words two questions (which be determined in the 2. assertions,Sect. 2. Concern [...] the 2. [...] prop [...] ­ded: and who are meant by [...]gels. euen now mentioned) are propounded. The former, what manner of persons are meant by the Angels of the Churches. And why this question was to be discussed, I alleadged, as he saith, 2. reasons. The first, because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the starres by Angels, this in­terpretation it selfe is allegoricall, and therefore needeth some exposition.

The second reason is propounded [...] preuen­ting a secret obiection against the former reason, which [Page 30] might be this: though the interpretation be allegoricall, yet the exposition of the allegorie is agreed vpon, to wit, that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Chur­ches, and therefore further explication needeth not: to this I answere in a discretiue sentence, granting the ante­cedent, but denying the consequence, that, although it be agreed vpon, that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches; yet, in these times it is become a great controuersie, and needfull to bee decided, what manner of Bishops they were, which in former ages was not wont to be called into question.

A [...] pag. 3.Against the former reason, the resuter first obiecteth 2. things: the one, that it maketh against my selfe; the other, that it is: [...] and [...] he telleth me how I might haue bestowed [...] maketh against me, he proueth thus [...] faith he is allegoricall, th [...]refore it was [...] &c. Whereunto I haue answe­red, that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides a­greed vpon, and that our aduersaries themselues confesse, that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches: and therefore, by their owne confession, the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had beene said, the 7. starres are the Bishops of the 7. Churches. Yea but, saith he, though it be granted that the Angels be the Bishops, yet not such Bishops as you speake of. Then the vnfitnes of the text (be like) is not because it is allegoricall, but because in his conceit it is impertinent. Which his conceit proueth the exposition of this text to be needfull, as I shewed in the second reason.

Yea, but hereby, saith hee, ‘the first reason appeareth to be superfluous.’ It followeth not. Of the same thing there are many times giuen two expositions, a shorter called [...] a larger called [...] of both there was need in this place. The necessitie of the former ariseth from the allegory, which I breefly expound according to the recei­ued interpretation, viz. that the Angels signifie the Bishops of the Churches. The necessitie of the latter, ariseth from the controuersie,Sect. 3. which some haue raised in these times, &c.

After hee hath shewed that my first reason might well [Page 31] haue beene spared, he telleth me, that IWhether the Angels vvere 7 ‘might haue spent my paines better in opening a doubt, which either I did not, or would not see.’And what is that I pray you? For it is great pittie, I had not your helpe.‘If I would needs haue these Angels to be Dioce­san Bishops, I should haue giuen some reason, why the number of thē is not limited, as well as of the Churches, to seuen & no more.’ And from hence reasoneth thus.

The assumption he proueth, because if the holy Ghost had intended to signifie no more but 7. Angels, he would haue said, the 7. starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches. And hauing so doughtily proued that the number of the Angels is not li­mited, from thence (as if he had made all Cocke-sure) he inferreth 2. things: 1. that the holy Ghost, in not limiting the number, would haue vs to vnderstand, there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches: 2. that where euery Epistle is directed to the Angell of each Church as to one, we are not literally to vnderstād one, but by a synecdoche more then one. Which light as he calleth it, standing at the entry dore, if I had had his eyes to haue discerned, I should no doubt haue seene an high point in a lowe house.

But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. Iohn writeth, iust seuen? helpe me, I beseech you, to remoue this veile, which hideth the light, you speake of from me.

Againe, of 7. monades or vnities, such as be 7. singular persons; the number is iust 7.

That the Angels were 7. singular persons, it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written vnto them, viz: [...] to the Angell of the Church at Ephesus: to the Angell of the Church at Smyrna, &c: where, whosoeuer is able to count 20. may easily finde iust 7. I will recite them, and let the refuter keepe the tale. The Angell of the Church at Ephesus; 1. the Angell of the Church of Smyr [...]a; 2: the Angell of the Church at Pergamus; 3: the Angell of the Church at Thyatira; 4. the Angell of the Church at Sardes; 5: the Angell of the Church at Phyladelphia; 6. the Angell of the church of Laodicea; 7: seuen Angels, nei­ther more nor lesse.

Moreouer, to whom the 7. Epistles were written, they were iust 7: for they were written singulae singulis; the first to the first, the second to the second, &c. ‘To the Angels of the 7. Churches, the 7. Epistles were writ­ten: Therefore the Angels of the 7. Churches, were iust 7.’ The same is testified by Arethas, vnto these 7. Churches, blessed Iohn (saith hee) reckneth, In Apoc. 1.11. [...]: ouerse [...]ing or superintendent Angels, iust of the same number: and by Ambrose, wee must vnderstand the 7. Angels, to bee the go­uernours of the 7. Churches;Ambros. in Apoc. 1. and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churc [...]s.

‘Yea, but the holy Ghost if hee had limited their number to 7. would haue said that the 7. Starres are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches.’

Whereto I answere, that he hath more plainely limited the number, then if hee had said so. For if hee had said, they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, such a captious Sophister as my aduersarie, would haue expounded septem, 7. by septeni, seuen a peece, and so haue multiplied them by 7. as if there had bene according to the number of the sup­posed Deacons at Ierusalem, 7. in euery Church. But when hee saith, the 7. starres are the Angels of the 7. Churches: he plainly signifieth, that there were iust so many of them, as of the Churches: that is to say seuen.

[Page]Seeing therfore the number of the Angels is limited to seuen, it is not materiall what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them.

And whereas he saith, that by the Angel in each inscrip­tion we are to vnderstand more then one: I would know of him, first, what reason he hath to forsake the grammaticall sense? And where the holy Ghost speaketh but as of one, how he dare without good reason expound him as speaking of more then one? Secōdly, whether in one particular con­gregation there were more Pastors then one? Thirdly, whe­ther himselfe did not teach, pag. 2. that the Angels signifie such BB. or Ministers, as were Pastors onely of particular cōgregations: 4. whether in Ephesus there were more parti­cular congregations, seeing in Ephesus as him self saith, pag: 3. there were more angels. For one that had his facultie in syllogizing, might appose him with these Syllogismes.

Which two conclusions, are directly contradictory to his other assertions, both here, & else where in his booke.

Sect. 4. Hauing thus manifestly proued,BB. [...] called the [...] ­gels of the [...] Churches. that the Angels of the seuen Churches were iust seuen; and consequently, that there was one, and but one, in euery Church, whom the holy Ghost calleth the Angel of that Church: it wil be easie, both to free my Text from the cauil, which more then once my aduersary obiecteth against it; as also, out of the text, to [Page 34] cleare the maine controuersie, which is in hand. For, where­as he obiecteth that all Ministers are Angels, Pag. 2. & 4 and 6. ‘as I my selfe teach in the Sermon of the dutie and dignitie of Ministers: And therefore, that nothing can bee gathered from this Text, which is not common to all Ministers: for that the Angels are Bishops (saith hee) who denyeth? but withall, who knoweth not that so are all Ministers?’ I answere, that all Minsters, who haue charge of soules, are in a generall sense called Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are mes­sengers sent from God, to feede & to ouersee his flocke. But yet, where there are many ministers, who are in general cal­led Angels, Pastors, Bishops; if there bee one, and but one, who [...], is called the Angell, the Pastor, the Bishop of that Church, he is plainely noted to haue a singular pre­heminence aboue the rest. Wherof see more in my answere to pag: 6.Infr. S. 12. And this is so plaine a case, that euen Beza him­selfe (though a chiefe patron of the pretended discipline, and one that sheweth himselfe as loath as may be,in Apoc: 2. that the Epis­copall degree should be hence proued; confesseth, that by the Angell of the Church at Ephesus (& so of the rest) we are to vnderstād, [...], him that was the Prelate, or Pre­sident of the Presbyterie; for so els-where he confesseth, that Iustin Martyre calleth him,In Philip: 1. whom others call the Bishop, And although he would haue vs thinke, that this office of Presi­dentship was not perpetuall, but for a short time, and that by course: yet he would haue vs also note out of 1. Tim: 5.19. where Timothy is willed,Notandum in hoc loco Ti­motheum in Ephesino Presbyterio, tum fuisse [...] i. Antistitem, vt vocat Iu­stinus. Bez: in Tim. 5:19. not to receiue an accusation against a Presbyter, but vnder 2. or 3. witnesses; that Timothie was at that time the [...], as Iustine calleth him, that is Antistes, the Prelate or President in the Presbitery at Ephesus. Now it is absurd to imagine, that Timothy was sent thither, to be Pre­sident among them as his course only or turne shuld come, as though the other Presbyters there were equall to him.

Moreouer, we are able to shewe by the testimonie of the most ancient Authors in the Church, who were these singu­lar persons, whome the holie Ghost doth call the Angell of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna. For as before this time, Timothy had bene the Angell, or [...], as Beza, [Page 35] confesseth, so at this time, Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephe­sus, as Ignatius testifieth, & Polycarpus the Byshop of Smyrna: If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Polycar­pus: then wee may be bold to conclude, that the Angell of the Church of Ephesus, was but one singular person, and likewise the Angell of Smyrna; and so of the rest. So much of the first reason.Sect: [...]

The second indeed (saith hee) necessarily occasioneth vs to en­quire what manner of BB. these Angels were, Ad Pag. What [...] of Bishop Angels [...] because, as I said, some of our times haue made a question of that, which in former ages was not wont to be called into controuersie; so saith hee, because B. Bilson and B. Barlow haue fancied to them­selues another sort of Bishops, then either the scriptures of the new Testament do mention, or any sound Diuines doe teach thereout.

This then is the controuersie which remaineth to be decided, whether sort of BB. such, as those learned Fathers, and my selfe, do defend, or such as my aduersary and his adherents do stand for, is that kinde of Bishop, which hath bene but of late deuised, and neuer till of late obtruded on the Church. And on which side the iudicious Reader shall see better euidence, & more pregnāt proofes, I adiure him, in the name of God without partialitie, to assent thereto.

The second question is, concerning the qualitie of the function,The 2. quest concerning the qualitie their functio [...] which is determined in the second Assertion, viz: that the calling of B.B. (who are here meant by the starres and Angels) is lawfull and good. And this is a doctrine so necessa­rily arising out of the Text, that if it be proued that Bishops are here meant by starres and Angels (which was the thing I vndertook before to proue, & now doubt not by Gods help to make euident) it cannot be denied but that their calling is both aproued as good, and commended as excellent. Nei­ther would the refuter haue wrangled with this passage, ha­uing nothing to say, but that which with an idle Coccysme he oft repeateth, and in this place is altogether impertinent, that Diocesan BB. are not here meant: were it not that he was resolued before hand to cauill with whatsoeuer hee should find in my booke. Especially if you consider, that elsewhere hee would make me beleeue the proofe of this doctrine to [Page 36] be superfluous, the former point being once proued.

Sect: 6. Serm. Sect. 2. Pag. 3. For the deciding of the former question, two things are in the wordes offered to our consideration. For whereas they are said to be the Angels of the Churches, we are first to consider what ma­ner of Churches they were, whereof they were the Angels; and secondly, what man­ner of preheminence they had in those Chur­ches, in regard wherof they are called the An­gels of the Churches.

As touching the first: wee are to trie, whe­ther these Churches whereof they were An­gels or BB. were Parishes or Dioceses, and consequently, whether they were Parishio­nall or Diocesan BB. &c: to pag. 5. own case.

That these 2. things are offered to our consideration (saith the refuter) wee denie not: but if he had walked with a right foote in the path hee entred into,For the deci­ding of the for­mer question, 2 things are to be knowne, by ex­plication wher­of the Text is explaned. hee should by his Text haue taught vs the meaning of these 2. points, and not quite contrarie, as hee goes about, by these two points to teach vs the meaning of his Text.

To whom I will not giue that answere which Festus did to Paul, that too much learning hath made him madde: for hee seemeth not to be greatly sicke of that disease: but I may truely say that too much anger and wrath (which is fu­ror breuis) which he vnmeasurably sheweth in this Section, hath made him so to forget himselfe, that hee wrangleth without witte and against sense. Vnlesse any man that is in his wittes will say, that it is not lawfull for a Preacher to ex­plane [Page] his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand? was it not to indeuour the explication of my Text, and to shew what manner of BB: are here meant by the An­gels of the Churches? for the explicatiō wherof, what could more fitly be propounded, then the consideration of these 2. things? viz: what manner of Churches they were, where­of they were the Angels or BB: and what manner of prehe­minence they had in those Churches, in regard wherof they are termed the Angels of the Churches; that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the do­ctrine of the lawfulnes of their calling, and from it inferre the vse.

Indeed if I had bene now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text, or vrging the vse therevpon in­ferred, there had bene reason I should prooue them, as after­wards I doe, by the Text already explicated. But when I am about to explicate the Text, & propound the points that are therein questionable to be discussed for the clearing of the Text, who seeth not that the handling of these points is the very explication of the Text, and the Text that which is ex­plicated? And if the Text be that which is explicated, who could bee so senselesse, as either to require that the points should be explaned by the Text, or to finde fault, that by the handling of them the Text is explaned.

But now hee is pleased of his grace to consider them. Sect. 1. Whe [...] the Chu [...] were Di [...]ses, or P [...] ­shes, and BB. Dio [...] or Parish [...] ­nall; and this was p [...]pounded▪ discussed. And wheras I yeeld as a reason of my propounding the former point to bee discussed, diuers new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline, whereof I spake but too mildely, as you may see: hee chargeth mee with bitter in­ueighing, scornefull, vpbraiding, ouerflowing of the gall, with spit­ting out vnsauoury reproaches, making a calumnious out-crie in the ende of the Section: and much adoe he had, not to apply to mee that saying of Salomon, (with whome it better fit­teth, let the Reader iudge) Proud, haughtie, and scornefull is his name that worketh in his arrogancie wrath, Ad Pag. Pro. 21. [...] and in the ende out of the super-aboundance of his charitie, hee is afraide for mee, that I care not to loose much of my peace within: that all I here speake is Night worke, proceeding from great [Page 38] distemper of the braine, &c.

Was my aduersaries backe or conscience rather galled, was hee guiltie to himselfe, of being one of the coyners of those newe opinions, that hee thus flingeth and kicketh, when they are so gentlie touched? Who, knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions, for the tryall whereof, the vnchristian and vnmodest offer of dis­putation was made, which are there magnified, as beeing such chiefe points in controuersie betweene vs and the Pa­pists, that if in them the BB. (ioyning as they pretend, with the Papists) haue the truth; then extreme wrong is offered to the Church of Rome, by our separating there­from, and all Protestant Churches are for that cause Schis­maticall: that if the Priests and Iesuites can satisfie them in these points, they would bee reconciled to the Church of Rome:

Who, I say, knowing this, could with more mildnesse haue spoken of such Schismaticall nouelties? For where hee saith, that almost all of them haue bene alwayes gene­rallie maintained and practised, by all soundly reformed Churches, hee seemeth, either not to care what hee spea­keth, or by soundly reformed Churches, to meane none but Brownists, or such like. Betweene whom and these vn­christian and immodest challengers, there went as wee say but a paire of sheeres; These, remaining after a sort in the peece; the other, beeing by open Schisme cut off: Which againe they haue manifested in their late petition to the Kings Maiestie:Anno. 1609. This being the summe of their suite, that they may be tollerated Schismatickes.

But to let passe their new-coyned positions, (excepting those that concerne this cause,) with the Libellers bitter wranglings, and vaine ianglings, There are two things in answere to this Section, which I may not let passe: the one, is his defence of the challengers; the other, a great ad­uantage taken against a word, which as hee saith, I dropt by the way.

His defence is, against that calumnious outcrie, as hee cal­leth [Page] it,Wh [...] Kin [...] a m [...] som [...] rish [...] oce [...] in the ende of the Section, where I brieflie note, that by what reason they denie the Bishops to bee members of the true Church, because forsooth they bee not of some certaine parish, by the same, they may as well denie the King, who hauing a more generall reference to all the Churches within his dominions, as being the Gouernour of them all, in Great Brittaine and Irel [...]nd; is further from being a member of one onely parish, then anie Bishop in this Kingdome.

Hee answereth, that the challengers ‘hold the King and his Houshold to bee an entire Church of it selfe.’But tell mee, doe they hold it to bee a true Church? that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church. Or if they doe; Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his familie, to bee an entire familie by them­selues? But it is no matter what they holde, vnlesse they were more learned and iudicious.

The aduantage which is taken at my words had need to bee verie great,Ad pa [...] Sec [...] Their [...] that by sertion [...] cesan [...] Popelin [...]swered. or else the refuter and his copartners doe shewe themselues to be very weake men: seeing it is fiue times repeated in print; once in their late petition, with great amplifications; once in the Abortiue booke, with this note in the margent, sic tu beas amicos? Thrice in this Booke, with great triumphes and insultations: not onely in the treatise it selfe, but also euery where in the margent, demanding with scorne, in this place,Pag. 1 [...] Is this your kindnesse to your friends? in the second, sic tu beas amicos? in the third, quid facias odio, sic vbi amore noces?Pag: 4 [...]

The Reader must needes expect some great matter,Pag: 1 [...] Montes perbi su [...] Aug: [...] Psal. 10▪ Quid d [...] tanto fe [...] hic prom [...]sor hiat [...]. parturiunt montes, nas­cetur ridicu­lus mus. Horat: de art: Poet. see­ing these hilles thus to swell, The words whereat they take aduantage were these.

Least they might seeme to set vp an abso­lute Popeling in euerie parish, who should haue not onely supreame, but also sole au­thoritie [Page 40] in causes Ecclesiasticall, they adioyne to him (that 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, [Page 41] 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)

Sect. 10. To let you see,In their [...] foure vn­truthes co [...]tained. The first [...] truth. 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.

[Page 42]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 po [...]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 shalbe 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,In the booke of ordination it is presuppo­sed, that a Mi­nister may and ought to Mi­nister the doc­trine and sa­craments and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this realme hath receiued the same. Fol. 12. in­terrog. 2. The second vntruth. 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. [Page 43] 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.The thi [...] truth. 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 giue the sole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Bishop.

Indeed,The four [...] vntruth. if we were so madde, as to thinke that there were no Ecclesiasticall gouernement but parishionall, there were something in his speech. But when besides and aboue the gouernement not onely parishionall but also Diocesan, we acknowledge a superiour authoritie in the Archbishop and his courts, in the prouinciall synodes, especially that authoritie of making Church-lawes, whereby both Dio­ceses and parishes are to be ruled: it is apparent, that al­though I did take all authoritie from parish-bishops and their Elders, yet it would not follow that I giue the whole authoritie Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan alone.

But that which hee saith of my ascribing the ‘supreme au­thoritie’ in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Diocesan Bishops, that is the supreme and the loudest lye, and maketh the assumption of his chiefe Syllogisme most euidently false. [Page 44] Doe I, or any of vs say, that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall? doth not our Church subiect the Bishop to the Archbishop, and pro­uinciall Synodes? doth not appeale lye from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop, and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates? doth not himselfe acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subiected to the two Arch­bishops, as that if we may iudge by the outward appearance and practise, we may in his opinion seeme to haue but two Chur­ches, and those prouinciall, the one of Canterbury, and the other of Yorke? doe wee not all, with one consent, acknowledge, the Kings Maiestie to haue the supreme authoritie in cau­ses Ecclesiasticall? and whereas the greatest authoritie of Churchmen is exercised in Synodes, and the greatest au­thoritie of Synodes is the making of Church-lawes; yet the ratification of them we submit to the King (according to the Practise of the Euseb. in vita Con­stant. lib. 3. saith that Constantine [...]. [...]. Concil▪ To­l [...]t. [...]. in sin [...], edict. reg. de confirm. con­cil. Conc. Const. 5. Rogamus clemētiātis­am saith the counsell to the Emper­our Theodos. vt per litras [...] pietatis ratum esse jubeas con­f [...]mes (que) con­cilij decre­ [...]um. Con. Chalc. [...]ct. 3. sacro [...] edicto [...] Marti­ [...]us the Emperour [...] confirmamus. ancient Churches liuing vnder Orthodoxall Kings) in so much that they, and all our Church-lawes, are called the Kings Sir Edw. Cooke do iure regis Ecclesiastico. Ecclesiasticall lawe.

Now then, if neither I take all authoritie from the pa­stors, nor giue all to the Bishops, nor ascribe vnto them [...] sole, nor supreme authoritie; what haue the libellers gai­ned by all their triumphing outcryes, but the manifesta­tion of their owne manifold vntruthes? Yea but the title of absolute Popelings agreeth better to our Diocesan BB. then to their parish BB.

Neither did I say that they are such, but that if they did not ioyne vnto them a consistory of Elders, they would seeme to set vp, not onely a Popeling, but an absolute Popeling in euery parish▪ a petite pope indeed their pa­stor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe vnto him, (making him the supreme Ecclesiasticall officer in euery Church) which wee deny to our Bishops, and were it not, that hee hath a consistory ioyned to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, hee would bee more then a pope.

[Page 45]And againe, whereas our Bishops are to be guided by lawes, which by their superiors are imposed vpon them; their pastors with their Elders and people hauing (as the Pope saith he hath) a supreme, immediate and indepen­dent authoritie sufficient for the gouernement of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical, and therefore for ma­king of Ecclesiasticall lawes, they are to be gouerned by their owne lawes. For the chiefe thing in Ecclesiasticall gouernement, is the authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesi­asticall. If therefore each parish hath (as they say it hath) sufficient authoritie within it selfe, for the gouernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall, immediately deriued from Christ; then questionlesse they haue authoritie to prescribe lawes Ecclesiasticall.

And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superioritie of a synode to impose lawes vpon him, no more doe they. They will giue synodes leaue to deliberate of that which may be best,H.I. & supplic. an 1609. and to perswade thereto, but they will not be ruled by them. As for the Kings supremacie in causes Eccle­siastical, how it may stand with their maine assertion, where­in they ascribe to euery parish an independent authoritie immediately deriued from Christ, sufficient for the go­uernement of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall, I will not dispute.

The 2. what preheminence the BB. had, and why this point was pro­pounded.Of the two points seruing to shew, by way of explication of the text, what manner of Bishops were meant by the An­gels, the latter I propounded in this section to be exami­ned. A reason whereof I alledge a controuersie betwixt vs and another sort of disciplinarians, who are as I said, more wise and learned then the former, who though they grant that which the former denied, yet doe greatly differ from vs concerning the preheminence which the Angels or an­cient Bishops had in the Churches. So that in this section are 2. things, first the proposition of the second point, con­cerning the preheminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches, secondly, a reason thereof. To the proposition he answereth,‘that they had this name Angels, in regard of their generall calling of the ministerie, not because of any soueraignetie or supremacie ouer other their fel­low Ministers, as (he saith) I imply here, and plainely but vntrue­ly affirme afterwards.’ In which fewe words are 2. vntruthes. Whereof the former is an errour, that they are to tearmed in respect of their generall calling of the ministery. For though to be called Angels, generally agreeth to all Ministers: yet for one and but one among many Ministers in one and the same Church to be [...], called the Angell of that Church, is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their generall calling, but a peculiar stile be­longing [Page 47] to one, who had singular preheminence aboue the rest,Conf. wit. Hart. pag [...] 461. Act. 20.1 Apoc. 2.1. that is to say, a Bishop. So saith D. Raynolds: in the Church of Ephesus, though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it; yet among those sundry was there one chiefe, whō our Sauiour cal­leth the Angell of the Church, and writeth, that to him which by him the rest should know. And this is he whom afterward in the primitiue Church the fathers called Bishop.

As touching the latter: where he saith that I doe here im­ply that the Bishops haue a soueraignety or supremacy o­uer other Ministers, and afterwards doe affirme it plainely, that plainely is a plaine lie. Soueraignetie and supremacy ouer other Ministers none but Papists giue to their Bishop, and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome. Superioritie indeed belongeth to Bishops ouer other Ministers, and so much is intended in this place.

To the reason,Sect. 13. Ad pag. 7. The refuter mistaking the reason and craftily concealing th [...] diuisiō whic [...] is among them) is bol [...] to charge [...] with foure vntruthes. if it had beene obscure, hee should haue answered, as Aristotle teacheth, [...], I vnderstand not. For better were it to plead ignorance, then to wrangle with that he doth not, or will not vnderstand. For I doe plainely note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians, who are op­posite vnto vs in this controuersie; the one, a new sect of dis­ciplinarians lately risen amongst vs, (who haue coyned the new-found parish discipline, which commeth nearer the practise of the Brownists, then of any well ordered Church) of whom I spake in the former point: the other, a sort of graue and learned diuines, such as Caluin and Beza, &c. who stand for that discipline, which is practised in Geneua, and some other reformed Churches; shewing that as they doe not consent with our newe disciplinarians in the former point, so they dissent from vs in the latter, touching the su­perioritie of Bishops.

The refuter vnderstandeth all as a grant made by them, whereof some part hee acknowledgeth to be true, the rest he reiecteth as false. And though in neither he doe vnder­stand what was intended, yet hee is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech, that ‘with one breath I blowe out both truth and falshood.’

Neither doubteth he, though meerely ignorant of that [Page 48] which he auoucheth, to charge me with foure vntruthes; de­nying 1. that ‘they grant Bishops which here are called Angels, to haue beene set ouer Dioceses, that is to say, the whole citie and countrey adioyning.’

2 That they teach the onely gouerning Elders, to be lay or annuall.

3 That the Angels of the Churches were nothing else but pre­sidents of the Presbyteries.

4 That their presidentshippe was onely for a weeke or a moneth, and that by course as being common to them in their turnes.

For the manifestation of the truth in all these points, I shall not need to seeke further then to the writings of Cal­uin and Beza. That Caluin and Beza, &c. hold 1. that the Churches were Dioce­san.

Sect. 14. As touching the first, Caluin teacheth, that in the primitiue Church (when in the gouernement thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from Gods word) each citie had a colledge of Presbyters, Inst. lib. 4. c. 4. who were Pastors and Doctors; and that to euery citie was assigned a certaine region, which should receiue their Presbyters (meaning the pastors of seuerall parisnes) from thence, Sect. 1. Sect. 2. and should be accoumpied as part of that Church. Euery Colledge was subiect to some one Bishop. But if the coun­trey, which was vnder his Bishopricke, was larger, then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop; in cer­taine places throughout the countrey were appointed certaine Pres­byters, who in busines of lesse importance should be in his steed. These were called Chorepiscopi, because in the prouince they re­presented the Bishop. Likewise de gra­dib. ministr. c. 24. Beza teacheth, that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses, was framed according to the diuision of the prouinces vnder the Romane Empier, into [...], as it were precincts of gouernement, which Plinie calleth conuentus & iurisdictiones, in the chiefe cities whereof the pre­sidents kept their courts of iudgment, of which sort Pliny Plin. lib. 5. cap. 29. & 30. reck­neth 9. in Asia the lesse, fiue whereof are mentioned in the Apoca­lypse (viz. Laodicea, Sardes, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus. Neither are we, saith he, to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a councill or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together, then from the very instinct of nature, and insti­gation of necessitie.

[Page 49]Now saith hee, in the chiefe Towne of euery Diocesse, the So by A [...]brose his w [...] rant hee cal­leth a B [...]sho [...] vvho saith th [...] Timothie wa [...] such a one at Ephesus. first Presbiter, who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis, was called a Bishoppe, in the daily common iurisdiction, Prae­erat caeteris, tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis, com-Pres­byteris, id est, totj Diocoesi; was President ouer his fel­low Presbyters, both of the Citie and Countrey, that is, the whole Diocese. And because sometimes the Countrey was of larger ex­tent, then that all vpon euery occasion, could conueniently meete in the Citie; and forasmuch, as other small Cities and Townes did neede commune inspection or ouersight, they also had their Chore­piscopi, that is, Countrey-Bishops, or Vice-Bishops.

For the second,§ Sect. 15. that they acknowledge their onely go­uerning Elders to be of the Laitie it is plaine.That the onely gouer­ning Elders be of the Lai­tie, and annuall officers. For where­as Caluin diuideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks, Clerum, sc. & plebem; the Clergie and Laitie, hee plainely saith, that these Elders are chosen from among the Laitie. And forasmuch as being chosen, they doe not become to bee of the Clergie,Inst. lib: 4: c. 12. Sect. 1. li. 4. c. 3. Se. 8 hee must needes meane, that they still conti­nue to be of the Laitie. And that hee thought they should be annuall, the order of the Church of Geneua by him set downe, doth declare.

Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together.de grad: Mi­nistr: c. 11. In this Citie of Geneua saith hee, those gouerning Elders, (which in the title of the chapter hee called annuall) are chosen yearely, not of the baser sort of the people, but out of the very order of 25.60. and 200. men: (which be the councills of state in Geneua, 2. being chosen out of the 25.4. out of the 60. and 6. out of 200.) not without the knowledge and consent of the people: I say, euery yeare newe are chosen, or the olde confirmed. So euery where (saith hee) in other free Churches, according to the condi­tion of the place, the like choice is obserued. For of the Laitie, some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearely, in the Low-Countreyes they are chosen for 2. yeares, the halfe of them being changed euery yeare.

Now it may not be doubted, but that those which bee of the 25. or 60. or 200. in Geneua, being all States-men (as their gouerning-Elders bee) are Lay-men.

[Page 50] [...]Againe, great consideration must bee had (saith Beza) that Princes and Noble men, and such as haue authoritie and prehe­minence in the Church, bee chosen to be of the Seignorie.

And surely, saith he, in another place, (prouing that there ought to bee such Elders of the Laitie ioyned to the Mini­sters) vnlesse some chosen men out of the bodie of the whole congre­gation, The Presby­ [...] & [...]. pag: 112. doe sit in that assemblie, whereby the whole Church is go­uerned, Scarcely shall the vniuersall name of that Church agree to that assemblie, wherewith notwithstanding Christ adorneth it: Namely, because they being chosen out of all the parts of the whole Church, should represent the whole Church.

His reason therefore is, that as the whole Church consi­steth of the Clergie and Laytie: So that Senate, which is to represent the whole Church, must consist not onely of the Clergie, but of the Laitie also.

And in another place he prooueth by a necessary disiun­ction (as he thinketh) that if there must bee a Presbyterie at all,De grad: Minist: cap. 11 pag: 64. § Sect. 16. a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laitie. Whence doe they thinke they are to be chosen, if not of them whom they call Lay-men? &c.

Thirdly, that they make the Angels of the Churches or ancient BB. in respect of their superioritie,They held that the An­gels were but Presidents of the Presbyte­ries. only Presidents of the presbyterie, &c. Nothing is more plaine.

The Presbyters (saith Caluin) in euery Citie chose one out of their number, to whom specially they giue the title of a Bishop, least from equalitie (as is wont) dissentions should arise. But yet the Bishop was not so in honour and dignitie superiour, Inst. lib. 4. c. 4. Sect: 2. Vid T. C [...]li: 1.109. & 110. Eccles. disci­plia. ang, pag: 181.182. that hee had do­minion ouer his colleagues. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propound matters, to aske voyces, to goe before others in counselling, admonishing, exhorting, by his authoritie to rule the whole action, and to execute that which by common counsell hath bene decreed, that office did the B. beare, in the assemblie of the Presbyters.

Againe, euery Colledge of Presbyters onely for preseruation of peace and good order, were subiect to one Bishop, who did so goe before others in dignitie, that himselfe was subiect to the assem­blie of the bretheren, meaning the Presbyterie.

[Page 51] Caluin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops, nothing else but presidents of the Presbyterie, or mode­rators of the Assemblie.

Beza, In Apoc. 2.1 as by each of these Angels he vnderstandeth [...], the President of the Presbyterie, (as before I no­ted; So he will acknowledge the first Bishops,de grad: Mi­nistr: cap. 20 114.123. to haue bene no other but presidents of the Ecclesiasticall Senate, Presi­dents ouer the assemblies of Pastors, (to wit, of diuerse Pa­rishes, belonging to one Church) whose authoritie he will acknowledge to bee nothing else but the Dignitie of the first place in the sacred Assemblie, with the right of ruling the common action, without any dominion ouer those which sit with him. And such a presidentship hee acknowledgeth to bee a Diuine or­dinance. cap: 21▪

And whereas Ierome saith, there was a time when the Churches were gouerned by the common counsell of the presbyters, hee would not haue him so vnderstood, as if they had not alwayes a president.cap: 23.139 140. And whereas D. Sara­uia objecteth, that in Saint Iohns time, these 7. Churches of Asia had by Diuine ordinance 7. BB. set ouer them, whome hee calleth the Angels; Beza replieth; Wherefore vrge you this against Ierome & vs? cap: 23.159.160. For when he saith, that the Churches at the first were gouerned by the common counsell of Presbyters, wee may not thinke he was so vnwise, as to dreame that none of the Presbyters was President of the assemblie.

And most plainely in the next Chapter.

As touching the first Presbyter (saith hee) or Bishop of the Diocesse, cap: 24.168. what his Dignitie was, and wherein it did consist, I haue often shewed; that it was wholly of Order, and not of degree. Euery one of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Pa­rish, and that first Presbyter or Byshop of the Diocesse, hauing a super-intendencie or in-spection ouer all his fellow-Presbyters, thus farre, as to admonish them of their dutie; as also hauing as­sembled his Presbyterie, either on set dayes, or extraordinari­lie, to propound matters to them concerning the Diocesse, or the Censure of manners, to aske their voices, to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good. From which iudgement, it was law­full [Page 52] to appeale to a Prouinciall Synode.

As touching the last point, what the learned disciplina­rians hold,§ Sect. 17.4. That they held the Presi­dentship to haue bene but for a short time, and by course. may be gathered by the practise of Geneua, and other Churches, which they did reforme, as was pretended, according to the discipline of the primitiue Church; the Presidents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetuall, or for terme of life, but for a short time. But omitting the rest, Sec T.C. lib. 1.110. Eccl. discipl: Ang. pag. 184. Beza often vrgeth this point, that the ancient BB: had this presidentship, but for a short time, and that by course. And as hee professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of euery Church, to be a diuine ordinance, & immutable; So hee acknowledgeth those BB: alone for diuine, who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course.

How be it hee confesseth, that howsoeuer, the or­der it selfe,De Minist: grad: cap: 23 pag: 142. ca: 141.153. (Namely, that there should bee a president in each presbyterie) is perpetuall and immutable, as beeing essentiall: Yet ordinis modum; the manner of this order: though it were a diuine ordinance, that it should bee by course and for a short time, was variable, as being but ac­cidentall.

ca: 140.141.But his wordes which most plainely testifie that, which I deliuered, are these;‘In what sense it is to be taken, that Ierome saith, The Churches in the beginning, were gouerned by the common Counsell of the Presbyters. Ambrose teacheth; namely so, as there should bee one among them, not superiour in degree, but first in the dignitie of Order and Honour; to which of­fice euery one should succeede in their turnes. Now, what space of time was prescribed to this Presidentship, [...]ed hebdo­madi [...]am hanc [...], fuisse, proba­bile est. pag: 143. Ambrose describeth not. But it is probable, that it was a weekely course, such as that of the Aaronicall Priest-hood.’

And after, speaking of that change which Ierome no­teth, hee giueth this reason thereof; ‘That the Primacie of Order, by course or turnes of mutuall suc­cession, was by experience found not sufficient for auoyding of Schisme: the dignitie of this Primacie being communicated vn­to each of the Pastors in their turnes.’

[Page 53] Therefore that which had bene common to all in their turnes, it was thought good to translate vnto one; and that one chosen by the iudgement of the whole Presbitery.

Let the refuter therefore take home those foure vntruths to himselfe, which hee obiected against mee; whether out of vnmannerly ignorance, or rather cunning-rudenes. For it can hardly be thought that such bolde challengers of the BB. and so confident an vndertaker of this busines, could simply be ignorant of these things:The refu [...] his Cop [...] plead for [...] cipline, n [...] taught by [...] uin and o [...] learned Pr [...] tants, no [...]ctised by [...] reformed Churches. but rather cunninglie sought to conceale the diuision, which is among them­selues; fearing lest their fauourites, (whereof some followe, some goe before them, out of a zeale not guided by know­ledge) should take notice, that the aforesaid challengers, and this Champion stand for a Discipline, neither taught by Caluin and Beza, and such other learned men, nor yet pra­ctised by the reformed Churches: whereof I desire all men to take notice.

And verilie, for my part, I was of opinion, till I sawe H.I. booke to the King, and the vnmodest & vnchristian of­fer of disputation: that they who stand for the pretended reformation among vs, had sought for no other discipline, then that which Caluin and Beza taught, and the reformed Churches, especiallie of Geneua doth, and Scotland did pra­ctise. But when I saw the nouell Assertions, wheron the new-found parish discipline is founded, vrged with such bold ve­hemencie, I must confesse, I was much alienated from that side. And so I hope will all moderate Christians, when they shall consider how they make no ende of broaching more and more Nouelties.

[Page 54]Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explicati­on haue beene propounded to be discussed. Now, in this Section, I made way to the proofe hereof, by enumerating distinctly the seuerall points which I purposed to handle, for the proofe of either. And first for the former, which is the explication of my Text (viz:) that the Angells or Pastors of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops, and such, for the substance of their function, as ours bee.) I endeuoured to prooue it, both [...], by disproouing the presby­terian discipline, wherein I intended a disiunctiue argu­mentation, that (the question beeing, whether the Chur­ches were gouerned by presbyteries, as they say, consisting for the greater part of Lay-men, or by BB: as wee holde,) the disproofe of their presbyteries, might bee a proofe for our Bishops: and also [...], by shewing what the authoritie of the Angels or ancient Bishops was, as well extensiuè, against our newe disciplinarians, (viz:) that the Churches whereof they were Byshops, were Dioceses, and themselues Diocesan Bishops; as intensiuè, against the El­der, and more learned disciplinarians, that BB. were superi­our to other Ministers, not onely in order, but in degree also. &c.

And for the proofe of the 2 Assertion, which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explaned, concerning the lawfulnesse of the Bishops calling, this is proposed to bee proued, that the fanction of Byshops, is of Apostolicall and diuine institution; and this, as in the ende of the Section is signi­fied, was the thing chiefely intended by mee. These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies, which the grea­test part doth not so well conceiue and remember, but for more easinesse, was content to make a bare enumeration of them.

And this is the frame, of that which hee calleth the bo­die of my Sermon, the which our refuter endeuoreth heere to put out of frame: For hauing first, of the fiue points which I propound, referred the first foure to the former part of my maine distribution (as he calleth it) where I enquire what man­ner of Bishops the Angels were; and the last to the latter, which [Page 55] respecteth the qualitie of their function: in the next words, as if presently he had forgotten himselfe, after hee hath shewed his scornefull and disdainefull spirit, hee setteth vp a frame of his owne to worke vpon. The mansion (saith hee) that hee buildeth, is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships, vnder the roofe whereof, their Honours may dwell safely, as in a Sanctuary, without danger of the aduersarie, and much delight. Looke we vpon the bare frame, as it standeth, with­out glasing, painting, &c: it is of this forme:

The proposition of this syllogisme is laid downe, pag: 2. and 55. where hee saith, that the office and function of Bishops, heere meant by Angels, is in this Text approoued, as lawfull and commended as excellent: That is is lawfull and good; hauing diuine, both Institution being Angels, and approbation being starres.

The assumption is in the same second page propounded thus: The Bishops of the 7. Churches, (for the substance of their cal­ling (were such as the reuerend fathers of our Church are. The which hee saith, by the grace of God hee will plainely prooue, and that in the foure first points of the fiue, for to them he there refer­reth vs for that purpose. pag. 61.

Wee are therefore in the next place to see, out of which of those foure points it is concluded, and how: Which to my vnder­standing must be out of the second, third, and 4. points, after this manner.

Sect. 19. The refuter by a forced A­nalysis, hath put the frame of the Sermon out of frame, to make him­selfe worke.Beholde, to how great trouble too much Learning will put a man! Nimia est miseria doctum esse hominem nimis. If his skill in the Analysis of a Treatise had not bene extraordina­rie, all this stirre had bene needlesse. But if you marke the ende of his ouerbusying himselfe in resoluing my Sermon, and then putting the endes together to make vp his owne frame, perphaps he will not seeme so skilfull in resoluing, as wilfull in dissoluing the same. The end of his double dea­ling, appeareth in the sequele to haue bene double.

For first, whereas there are of the fiue points which I pro­pounded, two of principall vse, seruing directly, the one to disproue their Presbyterian discipline, the other to approue the gouernement by Bishops, (both which, hee could wish that I had spared) hee would faine make his Reader belieue, that of these two,Pag. 9. the former, is impertinent; and the lat­ter, superfluous;Pag. 107. or as else-where hee speaketh, the former bootlesse, the other needlesse. 2. When hee could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points, hee bringeth them to his frame,Pag. 53.70.84. as it were to the racke: first, finding fault, that they doe not directly prooue, that which hee would haue them: and then, by torture, making them to say what hee pleaseth, that he may the more easily contra­dict them.

To countenance these sophisticall shifts, he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge, and hauing hammered it well, hee hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllo­gisme, with the proofs thereof. Vsing this syllogisme for the [Page 57] parts of my Sermō, as the tyrant vsed his bed for his ghests, cutting off those parts which seeme to reach ouer, and ret­ching out those which seeme to come short.

But let vs examine his Syllogisme which with the pro­syllogisme of the assumption hee propoundeth as the Ana­lysis of the whole body of my Sermon. The function of the Bishops of the seauen Churches is lawfull and good, &c. I doe not deny but that out of diuerse places of my Sermon patched together, some such Syllogisme as this may be framed. But in Analysing we must respect, not what we can deuise or collect, but what the writer did intend, and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis. It is apparant that I propounded two things to be distinctly proued, the one as the explication of the text shewing what manner of Bishops the Angels were: the other as a doctrine collected out of the text, concerning the qualitie of their function, viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawfull and good. This, which I propounded as a doctrine to be col­lected out of the text, pag. 2. and as a conclusion to be pro­ued in the last part, pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposi­tion, but the conclusion of the Syllogisme which himselfe frameth, he would against sense make the Reader belieue was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllo­gisme. As for the proposition which he assigneth to me, I did not expresse, but tooke it for granted in the collection of the doctrine out of the text, which may be collected af­ter this manner: Bishops are such as are here meant by the An­gels of the Churches, therefore their function is lawfull and good. Of which collection if any man should make doubt, the consequence would be proued by the addition of the pro­position. The calling of such, as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, is lawfull and good, &c.

Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me, so if he had drawne the same into two distinct Syl­logismes concluding the same question, and not confoun­ded the parts of the Sermon to make the principall bran­ches thereof to seeme heterogeneall or superfluous, he had not much missed of my proiect. The former Syllogisme as [Page 58] I haue said might be this.

The proposition I tooke for granted, and therefore did not expresse it. The assumption is the same with the former assertion, and is proued by the foure first points. The con­clusion I did not expresse, being implyed in the collection of the doctrine out of the text.

The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical & diuine institution, Therefore it is lawfull and good: of this Syllogis­me the assumption, is the same with the fift point here pro­pounded.

So that of the fiue points, which I propounded, not any one is either impertinent or superfluous, the foure former seruing to proue the former assertion which is the assump­tion of the former Syllogisme, the fift and last being the as­sumption of the second Syllogisme.

As for the second Syllogisme which he assigneth to me, I vtterly disclaime it: because as no one part thereof is pro­pounded by me, so both the premisses are false and contra­rie to my meaning. For neither to the Angels of the Chur­ches, nor to the Bishops, doe I ascribe that sole power of or­dination and iurisdiction which he speaketh of, as after shall appeare.

But that his Analysis of my Sermon was meerely forced against the light of his owne conscience, appeareth, first, by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised, seeing by his Analysis, of the fiue parts the first seemeth impertinent, the last superfluous, the three in the middes not prouing that for which as he saith they are brought. For could he perswade himselfe that his Analysis or resolution was answe­rable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon, when he saw two parts of the fiue could not be brought to his [Page 59] frame, and the other three not to be sutable vnto it? Second­ly, by the distribution of my Sermon, and the transitions which I vse, wholy disagreeing from his Analysis. Thirdly, by the Analysis propounded here by my selfe, and by the defence of the seuerall parts here ensuing, wherein I shall by the helpe of God manifestly proue, that neither the first of the fiue was impertinent, nor the last superfluous, nor the other three concluding besides the purpose. But now we are to intreate of them seuerally, hauing first giuen you to vn­derstand, that he diuideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into fiue parts, & euery part into diuerse sections: as namely, the first, which concerneth the Eldership, into eight sections, in all which the summe of that which I main­taine is this, that there were no other Presbyters in the pri­mitiue Church, but Ministers.

CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders.

AS touching this first point, the refuter endeuoureth two things.Sect. 1. That the [...]pute con [...]ning Lay­ [...]ders is no [...] impertine [...] Pag. 49. fine. First, as hee saith, he wardeth and repelleth my blowes: and then, that we may see what a man he is of his hands, he sheweth, that he also can strike if need be. His former act is a re­proofe of my treatise, the latter a proofe of his owne assertion. And first in grosse, he reiecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent, [Page 60] and after descendeth to the particulars.A [...] pag. 10. For the first: Reason would, saith he, ‘that M. D. had shewed vs, how this first point pertaineth to the proofe of the matter in question. Whatsoeuer he conceiue of it, I discerne not, what affinitie it can haue with any member of his former assumption, &c.’

Pag. 6. li. 18.I might answere, that common sense would, that what he seem done, he should conceiue and acknowledge to be done. And charitie would (which selfe loue would not) that if he discerned not the affinitie of this point with his pretended assumption; he should rather haue suspected his owne Analysis to be forced, then haue blamed me for his owne want of iudgement. But that he may discerne this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question; I would but intreat him, to take notice what is in question betweene vs. The question, discussed in the Ser­mon, is twofold. The first de facto, whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by Presbyteries of such Elders, as they spake of. The se­cond, de iure, whether the Church may lawfully be gouer­ned by Bishops, as we hold; or must needs be gouerned by their Presbyteries, as they affirme. The first questiō is hand­led in the former part of the Sermon, the second in the latter.

The question debated in the former part of the Sermon, I say againe, is this; whether the primitiue Churches were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, such as (for the substance of their calling) ours be; or by such Presbyteries, as the Presbyterians stand for. And those, either parishionall, con­sisting of the Parish-Bishop, and a company of lay or onely gouerning Elders, as the new and shallow sort of disciplina­rians doe boldly, though ignorantly affirme: or Presby­teries in the cities, consisting of the president and other Presbyters, whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some lay or onely gouerning Elders, as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians doe teach.

[...]. Arist. M [...] ­taph. li. 10. c. 5.In this question, as the refuter will confesse, (vnlesse he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logicke) this dis­iunction is implyed; either the Church was gouerned by [Page 61] Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by such Presbyteries, as they speake of. And this disiunction, though it be not absolute­ly necessarie, yet is it necessarie ex hypothesi, and so presup­posed on both sides. For, this being the question, whether the Church were gouerned by Bishops, [...] Ibid. or such Presby­teries; it is granted on both sides, and agreed vpon betwixt vs, that it was gouerned either by the one or by the other: and that one, and but one of these assertions is true. For if both parts of the question or disiunction were true, it were but a foolish question,Pag. 6. in med. as the Phylosopher saith. And that this is the question betweene vs, the refuter hath truely wit­nessed in respect of the parts of the disiunction, though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion, where he saith, the que­stion betweene vs is, whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops. The question in­deed de facto for the time past, is, whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyte­ries as they speake of. The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come, is, whether the Church may or should be gouerned by Bishops as we say, or must be go­uerned by their Presbyteries, as they affirme. This there­fore being the question, whether by our Bishops, or their Presbyteries, and this question implying a necessarie dis­iunction: who seeth not that the disproofe of their Pres­byteries, is a direct proofe for our Bishops. The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus.

The proposition is implyed in the very question be­tweene vs: and the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie.

The assumption is, that first point of the fiue, which now we haue in hand. The conclusion determineth the asser­tion which in the former part of the Sermon was propoun­ded to be proued, viz. that the primitiue Church was go­uerned by Diocesan Bishops.

[Page 62]This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders, will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent.

Sect. 2. The summe of that which in the Sermon was said con­cerning Lay-Elders.Now that the Church was not gouerned by such Pres­byteries as they speake of, I proued in this passage. Because howsoeuer with great vehemencie the Presbyterian disci­pline by lay or only gouerning Elders hath beene by them vrged and obtruded vpon vs; yet they are not able to proue that euer there were any Presbyters which were not Mini­sters.

For, the question, which now we haue in hand, being, whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitiue Church, as were not Ministers: forasmuch as the Presbyte­rians are the opponents and plaintiffes, not onely holding the affirmatiue, that there were such, but vehemently vr­ging that still there ought to be such; we contrariwise the respondents and defendants, holding the negatiue, to wit, that neither there were such, nor now need to be: the Rea­der therefore is to vnderstand, that, this burden of prouing, lieth vpon them which hold and vrge the affirmatiue, that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders: and that in vs it is a sufficient proofe of the negatiue, if we can maintaine, that they are not able to proue the affirmatiue. And where­as all their proofes may be reduced to two heads, for either they be such testimonies where the worde [...], or Presbyter is named, or where at the least the function it selfe is (as they suppose) meant; to these two heads there­fore I oppose two contrarie assertions. The one, that the word [...] or Presbyter, doth alwayes signifie a Minister: the other, that there is no one pregnant testimo­nie mentioning or meaning the lay or onely gouerning Elder. The former of them, being affirmatiue, I doe briefly confirme by three reasons; the latter, being such a negatiue as cannot otherwise be proued (for the induction of the particulars were infinite) I doe therefore maintaine it a­gainst the principall instances of the aduersaries. And this is the summe of this passage. Now I come to his cauils, with the particulars.

§ Sect. 3.The two assertions (which I did euen now mention) [Page 63] opposed to the two heads of their proofes, the refuter ca­steth into one Syllogisme, and hauing so done, wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition, and also with the manner of setting them downe. The Syllogisme is this.

In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts:Ad pag. 11. His cauill a­gainst the for­mer part of the antecedent and the con­sequence de­duced there­from. the former whereof he reiecteth as superfluous, because the latter is as firme and full without it. And yet hauing reiected the former, he saith the consequence is infirme and weake. But if the former be therefore superfluous, because the lat­ter is firme and full without it, by this reason it shall not be lawfull for a man to bring two arguments for one thing, the one concluding the question without the other. Yea but these two are ioyned in one proposition, and therefore either must afford necessarie helpe to the other, or the one is superfluous. Blame him then that ioyned them, and disdaine th [...]t sophisticall shifts of the refuter, deuised to make himselfe worke. Yea but if they be not ioyned, the former wilbe weake and of no strength, for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth euermore signifie a Minister, vnlesse I added onely. For though it alway sig­nifie a Minister, yet it may also signifie him that is no Minister. But in mine vnderstanding, if it alwaies signifie a Minister, it neuer signifieth him that is not a Minister. Neither will it serue their turne that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and gouerning-Elders, vnlesse they can shew, that as alwaies it signifieth a Minister, so in some place, an onely-gouerning Elder also, and they must remember that in this cause of Elders, they are the opponents, and therefore they must proue that the places which they alledge for their [Page 64] Lay-presbyters, not onely may, but of necessitie must be vnderstood of them, or else in vaine doe they vrge and ob­trude them vpon vs.

And surely we must needs esteeme it a very partiall ge­nus, and such as yet was neuer heard of, that is alwaies predi­cated of the one species, and neuer of the other. If animal, did alwaies signifie a man, and were neuer predicated of any other thing but man, we should hardly thinke it were the genus, but the selfe same species, and conuertible with it; as indeed Presbyter is with Minister, and therefore not the genus of it▪ and that I proued, [...]. Arist. Poster 17. when I said, it alwaies signi­fieth a Minister, because in english it is priest, and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, and noteth such a person as must be [...], able to preach.

But let him adde onely if that would please him, though so much be signified without it. No, it will not serue the turne, for though Presbyter doe alwaies and onely signifie a Minister, and neuer signifie an onely gouerning Elder, yet there might bee gouerning Elders, who were signified by other names. Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers, which was the point to be proued. And what then becommeth (which is the chiefe scope of this place) of all those testimonies, wherein the word Presbyter is men­tioned, which T. C. and others doe alledge; supposing the most of the places in the scriptures, councils and fathers, where [...] or, Presbyter is mentioned, to be so many proofes of your gouerning Elders? call you this a weake proofe, which doth not onely at once bereaue you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned, and wherein your chiefe strength did lie;§ Sect. 4. His answere to the latter part, and to the conse­quence infer­red thereon. but also proue, that there were no Presbyters but Ministers. This consequence therefore was not to be denied.

And much lesse the other. For if there cannot be pro­duced so much as any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures, councils, or fathers, mentioning or meaning, any lay, annuall, onely-gouerning Elders, with what proofs will they vrge them, or with what conscience can they ob­trude them, as the ordinance of Christ? An argument ta­ken [Page 65] from the scriptures alone negatiuè, was wont to be a sufficient disproofe of any pretended ordinance of Christ; and shall not an argument holde negatiuely from Scrip­tures, Fathers, Councels, and all?

Notwithstanding, the consequence must needs‘be infirme and weake, for although there be no proofe of any Lay-annuall-one­ly gouerning elders, yet may there be, & indeed is for all that, proofe sufficient, for such only gouerning Presbyters as are ecclesi [...]sticall, & and to be perpetuall. Wherefore which way soeuer the proposition lye, the consequence therof I flatly deny,’ saith our ryming refuter.

But heere I intreat the Reader to trie the spirit of this So­phister. For if himselfe acknowledge, that my meaning is, simply to denie the onely-gouerning Elders; then can hee not be excused from this imputation of setting himselfe to wrangle against conscience. But so much hee acknowled­geth, when hee commeth to the assumption, for otherwise he could not haue wrangled therewith.Pag. 12. ‘M. D. meaing (saith he) is simply to denie all kinde onely-gouerning Elders, therefore I denie the assumption. His meaning was not to denie all, but annuall and Lay-Elders, therefore I flatly denie the consequence.’

Thus you see, how he is carried with a spirit of contradi­ction, not caring to gaine say himselfe, so hee may seeme to contradict mee. But so farre was the consequence from be­ing to be denyed,Though by the refuter they were lewdly vnited as afterwards will appeare. because I mention Lay, and annuall, that rather it was to be graunted; These words being added, ad maiorem cautelam, and distinctly propounded, to make the consequence so much the stronger, and to signifie that I spake of all Elders whatsoeuer, that are not Ministers, call them as you will, whether Lay, or annuall; or onely gouer­ning Elders.

And here againe, let the Reader obserue, that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not haue such Elders as lately were in Scotland, and still are at Geneua, and the Low Countreys▪ No, they scorne such, those be Lay & annuall, as you haue heard, but these may not be so.

Therfore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise, who, though they were faine to yeeld that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laitie, yet they did [Page 66] foresee that the Ministers would beare the sway (as indeed they ought) because they were perpetuall, the others annu­all, or but for a short time; whereas these men, making the Lay-Elders perpetuall, and referring matters to be ruled by pluralitie of voyces, absurdly subiect the Ministers to bee ruled and ouer-ruled by them, who, in the most Countrey-parishes, are more fitte to holde the plough then to sit at the sterne of the Church.

And so, desperate or franticke whether are they nowe growne, that although they make their parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church; and doe holde that euery parish hath a sufficient and independent authoritie, immediately deriued from Christ,Supplicat. anno. 1609. for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall: Notwithstanding, offer to submitte their Bishop and his Consistorie: yea, their whole visible Church, with their whole managing of cau­ses Ecclesiasticall, to the ouersight and superintendencie of each Iustice of peace.

§ Sect. 5. H [...]s answere to the assumption and first to the former part, that Presbyter alwayes signi­fieth a Mini­ster.Hauing thus wrangled with the proposition, hee setteth himselfe also against the assumption, containing the two a­foresaide Assertions: The former whereof, viz: that the word Presbyter, (noting an Ecclesiasticall person, in the Church of Christ) euermore in the Scriptures, Councells, and Fathers, signifieth a Minister, hee denyeth. For, if the word onely bee added▪ it is vtterly false. ‘For I shall make it euident (saith hee) that the worde Presbyter doth sometimes signifie one that is not a Minister.A [...] pag. 12. And if it bee left out, it will be false ne­uerthelesse. For it shall appeare, that sometimes the word is v­sed for an Ecclesiasticall person, that is no Minister.’

So that, by his owne confession, all is one, whether the word onely bee inserted or omitted, the contradictorie be­ing one, and the same, that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister.

But though hee delay the Reader for his owne proofes, (which I dare assure him will not satisfie his iudicious ex­pectation) yet seeing he setteth himselfe to catch and snatch at euery word, he should not haue passed by those argumēts [...]hereby I proued my Assertion, and I am perswaded, would [Page 67] not, if silence had not bene his best answere. For a man of his Acumen, might easily out of those fewe words haue rai­sed three syllogismes, which he could not so easily answere. But the labour which hee thought best to spare, I will vn­dertake for him. For,

• 1. If the word Priest, (freed as it is in our Church, from the popish abuse, and conceiued without all relation to reall sacrifices) be the proper English of presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person, then presbyter signifieth a Mini­ster onely, and as well might question bee made whether there were any Lay-priests, as Lay-presbyters; but the former is true, therefore the latter.

• 2. That word, which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop, doth signifie a Minister onely.

  But Presbyter by their owne confession,Cal. in Tit. is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop.

  Therefore presbyter, doth signifie a Minister onely.

• 3. That word, which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note such a person as by the Apo­stles rule must be [...], able to preach, doth sig­nifie a Minister of the word onely; for in none but Mi­nisters is that propertie required.

  But Presbyter is such a word, as beeing in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note a person, who must by the Apostles rule be [...], or able to preach. Therefore the word Presbyter, doth signifie a Minister onely.

‘The latter part of his assumption (saith he) in case he vrge the words Lay, His answere to the latter part of the assump­tion. and annuall, may perhaps be true, and his cause neuer the better, nor ours the worse by it, it being enough for vs, if there be Ecclesiasticall gouernours, which are no Ministers.’You see then the cause of the new reformers, is not the cause of o­ther reformed Churches, as I said.

‘But seeing M. D. saith hee, is simplie to denie all kinde of one­ly gouerning Elders, I as plainely denie the assumption. So that both his propositions in this Syllogisme doe want their armour of proofe, and waite vpon M. D. as two poore seruants vpon their master for their cloth, before they can doe him any seruice.’

[Page 68]Marke well the spirit of this man. For hauing denyed without reason the consequence of the proposition, being (euen as himselfe propoundeth it) vndeniable, were it not that he cauilled with the words Lay & annuall, which in his a [...]swere to the [...]ssumption, he confesseth were not to be ca­uilled with: and hauing barely denied both the former part of the assumption, which I fortified by 3. reasons, which hee could not answere, and also the latter, without any shew of reason, though the proofe of the contradictory in both lye vpon him, (which course any man might take to an­swere the best argument that euer was propounded,) not­withstanding hee scornefully craketh, as if hee had done some great act, which might giue occasion to leaue figh­ting, and fall a crowing. For my part, I greatly wonder a [...] him, how he could either content himselfe, or hope to satisfie his reader with such answeres. For if it be a sufficient answere to say. I fl [...]tly deny the proposition, & I do as plainely de­ny [...] assumption;‘who cannot answere sufficiently any Syllo­gisme whatsoeuer?’ But if a man hauing thus answered, shall take occasion thereby to insult ouer his aduersary, verily as hee deludeth egregiously his Reader that is simple, so he maketh himselfe ridiculous, if not odious, to him that is iudicious.

§ Sect. 6. [...]:Hauing seene how substantially he hath dealt with the substance of each proposition, let vs now see how mānerly [...] hee dealeth with the manner of laying them downe. For in regard thereof, he chargeth me with three no small faultes. First, inclination to popery: 2. falshood: 3. contempt and scorne. The which imputations, if he cannot make good by sound euidence, he will shew himselfe vnmanerly in ob­iecting them.

How then proueth hee the first? He saith, and saith it againe,‘that I delight to call the Ministers of the Gospell by the n [...]me of Priests, which all but those that are Popish, or desi­rous to please the Papists would rather forbeare.’

First, I denie that those which call Ministers by the name of priests, are popish. For those worthie instruments vnder God, of that happie reformation, which is among vs, & sepa­ration [Page 69] from Poperie, in the booke of Cōmon prayer, in the booke of Orders, and in other their writings, doe ordinarily vse that name. And when they distinguish the Clergie into three degrees, they vsually reckon these three orders, Bi­shops, Priests, and Deacons, therein imitating the most an­cient and purest writers, both of the Greek & Latin Church, who seldome vsing the word Minister, distinguish the same degrees by words of the same signification: viz. [...]: Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, that is, Bishops, Priests, Deacons.

Yea, but the ‘Popish shauelings haue appropriated the words to themselues.’, and protestant writers find fault with them for calling the Ministers of the Gospell by the name of Priests, to which purpose he alleadgeth D. Whitaker, & D. Raynolds Whereto I answere: of the word Priest, there are two vses, whereof the one is an abuse, the other is the right & proper vse of the word, according to the natiue signification therof. The abuse is, when it is ascribed to the Ministers of the Gos­pell, as it is the English of Sacerdos, which signifieth a Sa­cificing Priest, and implieth a relation to sacrifices. Thus the Papists abuse the name when they applie it to the Ministers of their Gospell, with relation to their sacrifice of the Masse.

And thus D. Whitaker denieth both Sacerdos and Priest (as it is the English of Sacerdos) to agree to the Ministers of the new Testament.Ad Duraeū. The right vse of the word is, when it is vsed as the English of Presbyter, and without any relation to sacrifice. For Presbyter is the name which the Apostles and all antiquitie gaue to the Ministers of the Gospell,Conf. with Ha [...]t. 4 [...]3.464 and the English of Presbyter is Priest, as D. Raynolds doth con­fesse, where also he sheweth, that the Papists play the sophis­ters in vsing the word Priest, after a double sort, the one, as it is deriued from Presbyter, the other, as it signifieth the same that Sacerdos. For Priest, as i [...] signifieth a man appointed to Sacrifice is [...] Sacerdos, and not Presbyter. The name which the Apostles giue a Minister, [...] is Presbyter and not Sacerdos.

And againe, ‘though th' Apostles call the Ministers [...], whence our English name of Priests is deriued; yet they did [Page 70] not call them priests, as the name of priest hath relation to Sa­crifice. For the worde Priest hath two meanings: the one of [...], the other of [...], whereof the one is giuen by the Apostles, but doth not implie authoritie to sacrifice; the o­ther, doth implie authoritie to Sacrifice, but is not giuen by the Apostles.’ It is plaine therefore, that the worde Priest is rightly vsed in the signification of presbyter, but abused, as I said, in the Sermon, to signifie Sacrificing priests.

I confesse, that the first Translators of the Bible into English, in these latter times, being, (as D. Fulke saith) not Lords of mens speech,Mo [...] trium literarum ty­rannus. but ouer-ruled by the popish vse of the word, as it were by a tyrant, did giue the name priest to Sacrificing priests, as the papists doe, and hauing so done, when they were to translate [...], Presbyteri, which doe not signifie Sacrificing priests, but Ministers of the Gospell, they auoided the name, least they might seeme with the papists, to make the Ministers of the Gospell Sa­crificing priests. And so I doe confesse that their purpose was godly, who translated presbyters not priests, but El­ders: though I dare not say that the cause was sufficient. For if they had called Sacerdotes Sacrificers, as the French doe in their Translations,Sacrifica­teurs. they might safely haue giuen the Name Priest to the Ministers, and left the name of Sacrifi­cers to the popish priests.

The name Priest saith D. Fulke, wee doe not finde fault with, as it commeth of presbyter, Co [...]r. Rhem. in Matth. 23. S. [...]. In Act. 14. S. 4. but as it is commonly vsed for a Sa­crificing priest.

Againe, as for the name priest, as it is deriued of the Greeke, wee doe not refuse it, but rather wish that the Sacrificers of the Law had neuer bene called by it.

And againe more fullie,‘wee doe not contend for the terms, nor refuse the name priest,In Lam. 5 l. 4. when it signifieth the same whome the Apostle calleth presbyter: but when by abuse and vaine cauillati­on of papists, it is taken to signifie a Sacrificer.’

To conclude therefore, ‘according to the true Etymologie, wee confesse the name to be good, and doe vse it in our seruice booke and otherwise, knowing that it implieth no sacrificing, as you most fondly and ridiculously would enforce out of it’. But in Transla­tion, [Page 71] because by common speech a priest was taken for a Sacrificer, and the Translators had no other name, whereby to call the Sacri­ficers of the Lawe, but priests, to make and obserue that difference which the holie Ghost alwayes obserueth in the Newe Testament, they call the one Priests, the other Elders. But if they had called the one Sacrificers, and the other priests, that priests might haue bene knowne to differ from Sacrificers, it had bene a small matter, and perhaps hindered you of this vaine quarrell. It is not a po­pish abuse therefore to call Ministers priests, but to giue the name priest, to Sacrificers.

And likewise, it is an abuse of Innouators, to giue the Name presbyter, or [...], (as it is a name of an office, and not of age,) which is proper to Ministers, to them who are no priests. Who, though they may be cal­led Saecerdotes, that is, Sacrificers, as all Christians may, yet presbyters they cannot truely be called.

But how doth hee proue that I‘delight to haue the Mini­sters of the Gospell called priests? Forsooth because there was no necessitie laid vpon me to call them so, but might haue contended my selfe with the name of Ministers.’

Whereto I answere, that I mention the Name Priest, (the proper English of presbyter;) as a necessarie argu­ment, to proue that [...] or presbyter, doth signifie a Minister, as I shewed before, affirming that they might as well make question, whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay-presbyters. For this was the first argument of the three; to none whereof the refuter could see any necessi­tie laide vpon him to answere. It is necessarie with him (belike,) to wrangle with words, but not to answere argu­ments.

Now to conclude my answere to his first accusation, I appeale to the refuter himselfe, and to all which either know mee, or haue read my other Bookes; whether this imputation was laid to my charge, out of an vpright consci­ence, or not rather out of an vncharitable desire to bring mee, though vniustlie, into the dislike of the people, to whom the Name priest is odious, as D. Fulke truely noteth; [Page 72] because they knowe not the Etymologie of it.Matt. 23. For if they knew that the English word Priest, as also the like wordes in French and Italian, were deriued from Presbyter, and that [...], or Presbyter, is the name which the holie Ghost and all antiquitie ordinarilie giueth to the Ministers of the Newe-Testament; They would rather condemne them that abuse, either the name Priest, to Sacrificers, as the Papists do; or the name Presbyter, wherof Priest is the true English, to signifie Lay-Elders, as our Disciplinarians doe: then hee would mislike our Church, which vseth the word aright? Namely, as the proper and true English of Presbyter, from whence it is deriued, without anie relati­on to Sacrifices at all.

Wherevnto this is to be added, that howsoeuer our first Translators in King Henrie his time, auoyding the worde priest, translated Presbyteri, by Elders; Yet by Elders they vnderstood no other but Ministers. As appeareth by this speech of M. Tindall.

Presbyteri Pag. 251.All that were called Elders (or Priests, if they so will,) were called BB. also.

§Sect. 7. His second ac­cusation, char­geth mee vvith vntruth.Secondly, hee chargeth mee with vntruth, for saying, that question might as well bee made, whether there were annuall Ministers, or Lay-Priests, as annuall or Lay-Presbyters.

But this I prooued, when I demonstrated by three ar­guments, that [...] or presbyter, doth signifie none but a Minister.Ad Pag. 13. For if [...], or presbyter, as it is the name of an Ecclesiasticall office, doth signifie nothing but a minister or priest, as I prooued; then that question might as well bee made of Ministers or Priests, as of presbyters.

But how I pray you doth hee conuince mee of falshood? with an if begging the question, ‘if Presbyter doth not signifie onely a Minister, then question may be made of Lay-Presbyters, though not of annuall Ministers or Lay-Priests.’ As if hee should haue said, if you will graunt mee the question, and denie that which you haue already prooued, and I could not answere, then I shalbe able to charge you with vntruth. Yea, ‘but the vntruth of my speech was before manifest in the former [Page 73] part of the answere to the proposition’. His words there, be these: that the ‘consequence is weake, because there might be other Presbyters in the primitiue Church, though the word Presby­ter did euermore signifie a Minister.’

So that this was but a poore shift for want of proofe to referre the Reader as oft he doth to another place, where he should find little to the purpose. In both places, as you see, all that he can say is, that seeing it might be there were Pres­byters that were not Ministers, and if there were such, which I haue disproued, then that would appeare to be false, which I haue proued to be most true.

I come to his third accusation:§ Sect. 8. The third i [...]putation of scorne and contempt. ‘It would be noted saith he, with what contempt and scorne he calleth the Elders in question, Lay-annuall-onely-gouerning Elders.’ And it would be noted say I, with how bad a conscience he wilfully de­praueth the manner of vttering my words, to giue some small colour both to his vnconscionable denyall of the proposition which himselfe contradicted in answere to the assumption; and also to this forged calumniation. For whereas I propounded the words distinctly with a Comma or note of distinction, lay, annuall, onely-gouerning Pres­byters, vsing these diuers titles more fully and certainely to expresse whom I meant; he hath ioyned them with notes of vnion ‘Lay-annuall-onely-gouerning Elders’, as if I had in contempt & scorne of them, framed a nickname for them, compounded of all these words.

And whereas he saith, that I call them lay‘in disgrace of the Elders, and reproach of those who stand for them, as though they committed the gouernement of the Church to such as are base and priuate persons: ’the truth is, that he disgraceth the laitie intollerably, as if there were no lay persons but base and priuate men. Indeed if I had said, that such men as be not of the Clergie, are to be called idiotae, (as some of your side would haue them called, rather then lay men) you might haue had some colourable pretence for this accusa­tion. But when with Caluin we diuide the whole Church into the clergie and laitie:Instit. li. 4. c. 12. li. 1. vnder the laitie, we comprehend the noble as well as the base, and publike persons as well [Page 74] as priuate, and men of excellent gifts as well as Idiots.

And it is but a seely exception, which you doe vsually make, that you would not haue them called lay, but Eccle­siasticall. For first, that word doth not distinguish them from the Ministers. And secondly, because Ecclesia the Church, being diuided into the Clergie, and laitie, those which be lay men (as not being of the Clergie,) may haue Ecclesiasticall offices, and in regard thereof may be called Ecclesiasticall officers, as Church wardens among vs, offi­cials, Chancellers, and commissioners in causes Ecclesi­asticall, as well as your Elders, whom though you make Ecclesiasticall officers, yet you cannot denie them to be Lay-Elders.

Let our great Clergie men saith he, know and be all men by these pre­sents giuen to vnderstand &c.Now to auoide this imagined disgrace, he would haue all men to take notice, what manner of persons they would haue by prayer and imposition of hands ordained and set a part to this Ecclesiasticall office: not such as each parish is like to afford, but according to the vtopicall Idea con­ceiued in their owne braine. And though there must be many of them in euery parish, men religious, of great gra­uitie and pietie (you may be sure) and of good yeares, ad­ioyned to the Ministers: and though matters are to be carried by pluralitie of voices, euery one hauing the like right of suffrage; yet we must not in any case thinke, that they will ouer-rule the Minister, but be altogether ruled and directed by him.De grad. Ministr. cap. 11. Beza saith, that in the sacred senate, which is called the Presbyterie, there is no superioritie of degree or power, but a distinction of order; and that all matters are managed by common and equall right in giuing their voices: the whole consistorie being for that cause called a Presbyterie, because, howsoeuer otherwise there may be distinction of degrees among them, yet in this common function the Ministers are made equall with the Elders, and the Elders with the Ministers. So that they wrong them shrewdly, who shall say, where all haue equall right, and where all things are swaied by the greater number of voi­ces, the one or two voices at the most of the Ministers, are like to be ouer-ruled by the multitude of Elders.

Where the words of the abortiue booke seemed bitter and spitefull enough,Ad pag. 1. there our refuter followeth that copy: otherwise to that potion of worme-wood, he addeth an in­fusion of gall, as in this place. ‘It is strange saith the abor­tiue booke, that a man of such skill in logicke as I acknowledge D. D. to be &c: and more strange that one of his temper &c: is it fit for D. D. modestie, &c.’ Not so, saith the libeller, you must not attribute any skill in logicke, or modestie to him now: wee must make our followers belieue, that since he hath written in defence of the Antichristian calling of the prelates, those petite popes, he hath lost all modestie, and skill in logicke too. For if we cannot answere his argu­mēts, nor take away his answeres, let vs disgrace his person: so will our followers be sure to preiudge any thing he saith, and which is our desire, the people whom he thought to satisfie, shalbe kept in the same tearmes they were wont. But my purpose is not by reciting his words to spread this part of his spitefull libell, and much lesse by vouchsafing an answere to multiply words in this kind with so odious a wrangler. To passe by therefore his barking eloquence, or dogge-rhetoricke, the reader is to vnderstand that in this section and those which follow, I endeuour to defend the two former assertions, viz. that they can neither proue that the word Presbyter doth signifie any but a Minister, nor yet produce any one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning their lay or onely-gouerning-Elders.

[Page 76]Now I would know of my aduersarie for my learning, how such a negatiue as this should be maintained. Whether, by induction of particulars, or by speciall insisting vpon the instances which the aduersaries giue: not the former, for that were to examine euery sentence in the scriptures, coun­cels and fathers, which were infinite. If the latter, should I in one of the least parts intended in the Sermon, where I had promised breuitie, stand vpon euery particular allegation which could hardly haue beene discussed in a whole Ser­mon? or should I make choise of some of the principall, which are of more weight then all the rest? the latter course I was necessarily to make choise of. And therefore suppo­sing our opposites to insist on those two testimonies, which are of more weight then all the rest, yea then all, that all of them can say besides in this cause, I endeuoured to defend my assertions against them. And although I did not intend to dispute Syllogistically as the opponent, but to defend the truth as the respondent; yet this my defensiue answere is brought to the anuill, and forged into a Syllogisme after this manner.

In answering the proposition, ‘he wonders, and wonders againe at three things. § Sect. 10.’ First at my want of modestie, in that I gloriously despise, and insolently reiect the iudge­ments of those diuines, who besides those two, alledge many other testimonies, when I say, I esteeme these two onely worth the answering. Whereunto I answere, that I esteemed no other, in that shortnesse of time, worthy to be stood vpon but those two.

[Page 77]And if that answere will not suffice him, I plainely pro­fesse, and yet without despising the iudgement of any lear­ned man, that these two testimonies are the two maine pil­lars, whereon their whole building leaneth: and that, as their other testimonies depend vpon the presupposall of these as giuing witnesse to their Lay-Elders: so these being taken from them, the rest haue scarcely any probabilitie in them, but may as easily be reiected, as obiected. And this I will say, because I am so indignely prouoked, that if my ad­uersarie, or any of his copartners, can produce but any one testimonie, either out of scriptures, or fathers, that either may be compared with either of these, or that in it selfe, without an eye to these, hath so much as any shew of a ne­cessary or demonstratiue proofe, I will then be content, that they should wonder, & wōder again, at my want of modestie.

Secondly, he wonders at my want of logicke in making so feeble a consequence. The consequence, though it be not absolutely necessarie, yet vpon supposall, that these are the two chiefe proofes, without which, all they can say be­sides for their Elders, is scarce worth the answering, it is ne­cessarie. For, if any testimonies proue their Elders, then certainely the chiefe, and which be, as it were, all in all.

Thirdly, he wondreth at the weake proppe, whereby this consequence is vnderset; which is my vnfained pro­fession, that to my knowledge, there were onely these two allegations, which I esteemed (in that shortnesse of time) worth the answering; which was reason sufficient for my insisting on those two alone. If this proppe be so weake, let his knowledge, and the skill of all his adherents, shew but one other testimonie comparable to these two. But that he may leaue both wondring and wandring, I doe againe plainely and confidently affirme, that the whole cause of the Lay-Elders relieth on these two places; and there­fore as in the former negatiue assertion I did imply; so now I expresse, a challenge to him and all his partakers, to produce any one such testimonie if they can. This chal­lenge I say was implyed, when I professed that they can­not alledge out of the scriptures, Councels, or Fathers, any [Page 78] one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning, any lay, or onely gouerning Elders.

§ Sect. 11. Ad pag. 15.To this challenge, what doth our insulting refuter, reply? ‘Sundry others besides these two I both could and would alledge, and approue also (I doubt not) to all iudicious and indiffe­rent men,His answere to the chal­lenge. but that others before now haue said enough to that purpose. And at this time, (professing my selfe an answerer onely, not an opponent) it is not my The abor­t [...]e booke hath the [...]e worde, no man can rea­sonably looke that we should dispute the question. part to dispute the que­stions, but d [...]fend the truth, so farre onely as M. D. opposeth to it in his Sermon.’

In which words, though he dares not, as you see, accept the challenge, yet he setteth a good face vpon it. For where­as I said, and say againe, that besides these two testimonies, they can produce no more of any moment in comparison; he saith, that hee both could and would produce many more. He would, I doe not doubt, if he could: but because he doth not, you may be assured, he cannot. What he, and all of them can doe, he performeth afterwards, when he will let you see that they can strike also; and yet that all, is as nothing to these two.

The reasons of his refusall are two; the one, because ‘others before now, haue said enough to that purpose’; but that I denied vpon certaine knowledge. And what they haue said to any purpose, hath beene confuted also before now; and that, though often repeated, and oft refuted, as threed­bare as it is, himselfe doth afterwards produce, hauing no­thing to say, that hath so much as a good shew of a necessa­rie proofe, as hereafter shall appeare. The other, because ‘he being the answerer onely, and not the opponent, it is not his part, neither can it reasonably be expected at his hands, that he should dispute the questions, but onely defend the truth.’

The which is a sophisticall, and if I may freely speake what I truely thinke, a lewde shift, to elude my answeres and the reasons thereof, and to delude the vnlearned Reader.

For who I pray you, be the opponents and plaintiffes in this controuersie, wee or they? Those which be in pos­session doe not vse to be plaintiffes.

[Page 79]Neither would there haue beene any controuersie be­twixt vs, if they did not oppose: forasmuch therefore as they are the opponents, vrging the pretended discipline; we the defendants maintaining the established discipline among vs; it is a sufficient defence of our cause, especi­ally where wee hold the negatiue, if wee shewe that their proofes are not sufficient; and their proofes are not suffi­cient, which doe not necessarily and ineuitably proue, that which they vrge.

Neither let them euer hope to bring in their Lay-El­ders, till they haue necessarily proued that they ought to be admitted.

But the lewdnes of this shift is then most manifest, when as I ex professo vndertaking to answere their obiections, he will needs make me the opponent: and where it is requi­red of them, necessarily to proue what they say, and is suffi­cient for me, to shew that their proofe is not necessarie; absurdly, against all order of disputation, he maketh him­selfe the respondent, and me the opponent. So that my answeres must be put into Syllogismes, and his proofes be thought sufficient, if he can but say, that they make not against his cause, though they doe not proue it. Ex­amples of this shamefull dealing wee shall not want long. For in the discussing of their allegation out of 1. Tim. 5.17. which is their chiefe obiection, it is most manifest, that they are the opponents, and I the answerer. But my aduer­sarie maketh me the opponent, and my answeres must be oppositions, and so put into Syllogismes: and in the end as you shall see, whereas that is the onely place in scrip­ture which they can with any shew of necessarie proofe alledge for their Elders; hee would make the Reader be­lieue, that he hath acquited himselfe well, if their Elders be not necessarily disproued out of that place. When indeed, if they be not necessarily and ineuitably proued out of it, they haue no ground nor warrant for them in the scrip­tures.

Againe in my preface (where the refuter vnderstandeth me to haue made a challenge,§ Sect. 12. & as it were to haue cast down [Page 80] the gantlet) as I desired they would distinctly answere my arguments, so also that they would produce their proofes, (for it is an easier thing to pull downe, at least to seeme so, then to set vp:) in his answere to my preface, he accepteth of the offer, acknowledging that I ‘desire nothing but rea­son;’ and doth not onely promise to satisfie my desire, but also beareth the Reader in hand, that hee hath brought ‘sound demonstrations, pregnant proofes, arguments strongly grounded vpon the scriptures, &c:’ but now, when he should come to the performance, when I againe renew the chal­lenge; auerring, that they haue no such proofes, and ex­specting that he should produce them, if he haue any: his answere is, that alas he is the respondent, and it cannot with any reason be exspected, that he should bring proofes or dispute the questions.

And that you may yet more fully note the absurditie of this disputer, (of whose great acts in this booke, I heare no small vants) though he say, it is not his part to produce proofes, neither can it with reason be exspected of him, which afore he confessed to be reason: yet this is to be vn­derstood of needfull proofes, whereby hee might proue something, which is by vs denied. But if there be any thing, which seemeth to make for his cause, and which we freely confesse, as for example, the consent of diuerse protestant writers with them in some things, there he will be sure, to be plentifull in prouing of that, which no man doth denie.

And this is the chiefe thing, which he and his consorts in compiling this booke, haue laboured. As if they should haue said: doe you indeed grant, that diuerse protestant writers expound such and such places as we doe? and doe you not denie, but that diuerse of them agree with vs in some things? Mary that will we proue at large, and although reason grounded on scripture, testimonie of antiquitie, and no small consent of newe writers be against vs: yet we will make a faire muster of those newe writers which be for vs: and though the greatest part of them be parties in the cause as well as our selues, yet we will alledge them as witnesses without exception, and will neuer haue done with alled­ging [Page 81] their testimonies. For though the learned will easily discerne the desperatenesse of our cause, yet the vnlearned sort, who are carried away with shewes, seeing such a multi­tude of learned men on our side, will still cleaue vnto vs, &c.

And this shall suffice (saith hee) for his proposition. To his as­sumption I answere, by denying it, and affirming that both these places doe speake of onely gouerning Elders, and that I will cleare (as the opponent, no doubt) by the places themselues, which now come to be handled.

CHAP. IIII. Containing my first Reason, why Lay-Elders are not pro­ued, out of 1. Tm. 5.17.

THeir reason briefly standeth thus: The Apostle in this place, doth set downe 2. sorts of Elders, the one, onely ruling; the other labouring also, in the word and do­ctrine.

[Page 82]Therefore besides the Ministers which laboured in the Word and Doctrine, there were other Presbyters or Elders, which were no Ministers.

This, as I sayd, is the principall reason that is alleadged for the Lay-Elders, wherewith the Disciplinarians doe won­derfully please themselues.

T. B. is so confident, that hee iudgeth them to be of no sound iudgement that will not acknowledge two sorts of el­ders to be contained in this place.D [...] grad. Minist. [...]. 13 Another T. B. that spi­ed them vnder the wings of the 4. Beasts, Apoc: 4. saith plainely: they are blind, and of no vnderstanding, that can­not or will not see them in this place. T. C. setting some co­lour vpon Act. 14.23. to make it shewe for Lay-Elders, at length he saith, Why should wee follow coniectures? when S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.17. doth declare what these Elders are? The author of the counterpoison affirmeth, that the Apo­stle in expresse words, doth in this place set downe their two sorts of Elders. And this is vsuall with them all, to confirme their exposition of other places which are ambiguous, by this which they esteeme most cleare.

To their reason I answered, by denying their antecedent, and because I would not shake off the opponents with a bare deniall as enemies, but satisfie them as bretheren, I yeelded some reasons of my deniall, which I set downe in 2. degrees. For whereas they vrge the Lay-Elders, as necessarily collec­ted out of this place;

First, I answere, there is no necessitie that the place should be vnderstood of any other but Ministers. And secondlie, that this place is so farre from concluding Lay-Elders, that it doth exclude them, or conclude against them.

The former againe, I maintaine by two reasons: The which I can well bee content that my aduersary shall re­duce into Syllogismes, so hee would frame them, as beeing the reasons of a respondent, that is, such as bee propoun­ded, to shew that there is no necessitie of their inference from this Text. For that as I saide, is a sufficient defence for the respondent.

[Page 83]The first reason is this; ‘If none of the Fathers, nor any other before our age, did euer vnder­stand this text of Lay-Elders, but all with one consent, concei­ued of it, as spoken onely of Ministers: Then is it not necessary, nor yet likely, that Lay-Elders are meant in this place.’

For surely if there had beene anie such Elders in the Apostles times, the ancient Fathers, which were neere those times, had bene more likely to haue noted these two sortes of Elders, then those who came so manie hundred yeares after.

Of this Syllogisme he denyeth both the the parts.§ Sect. 2 Ad Pag. 1 [...] His first reaso [...] of his denyal [...] of the conse­quence. And of his deniall▪ of the consequence in the proposition, hee giueth three reasons.

The first, because wee may not argue negatiuely, concer­ning the sense of the Scriptures, from the authoritie of the Fa­thers, &c.

Wherevnto I answere, that I argue as affirmatiuely from the consent of the Fathers, and of all before our age, who alwaies conceiued of these words, as if the Apostle had said, Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: as negatiuely: Neither doe I reason as he would make me to argue, that ei­ther because this place is not by the Fathers expounded, of Lay-Elders, therefore that exposition is necessarily to be reiected: or because it is alwaies by them interpreted, as spea­king of Ministers onely: Therefore this interpretation is necessarily to be receiued. But thus I reason, that this expo­sition is more likely, which hath the perpetuall and vni­uersall consent of the Fathers, and of all writers before our age, then that which not onely hath not their allowance, but is cleane contrarie to their interpretation.

Wherevnto I now adde that, which my aduersarie will neuer be able to answere.

For my part, vntill my aduersarie shall bee able to dis­prooue this assumption by some one instance, which I am well assured hee shall neuer be able to doe: I will take it for graunted, and in my conscience am fully resolued, that the Apostles meaning in this place, is all one, as if he had said; Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: which argu­ment, if no more could bee added, is sufficient to shew, that Lay-Elders cannot be prooued out of this Text.

§ Sect. 3. His 2. reason, because their exposition fa­uouring Lay-Elders, hath the cōsent of new writers.His second reason is this:

To the parts of which syllogisme before I answere, I must knowe of the disputer, whether he meane the consent of all the new writers, or not, for if the word all bee not added, the proposition is absolutely to be denied. For it is against sense, that the opinions of some new writers should be pre­ferred, not onely to other, and perhaps as many, and as lear­ned new writers; but also to the generall and perpetuall con­sent of all writers before our time. If it be added, then is the assumption manifestly false. For that exposition hath not the consent of all, nor as I am perswaded, of the most pro­testant diuines. Notwithstanding, hee endeuoureth to prooue both.

That the proposition is true,His propositiō examined, and whether the authority of old writers, or new is to be preferred. hee appealeth to my consci­ence. Whence he shall receiue this resolution. Where the contrary expositions of the old and new writers concerne a point of doctrine, I would not encline to the authoritie of the new, vnlesse they haue better reason then the olde. For where the question is simplie of authoritie, which is the greater; I say with the Philosopher, that whereas witnesses be of two sorts [...], some olde, some new:Rheti. l. 1. c. 15. [...], the ancient are of grea­test credit. If it concerne a matter of story or fact, as whe­ther there were any Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church, or not; I would without comparison, giue credit to the anci­ent writers, who liued in, or neere those times, then to them who liued 13. or 14. hundred yeares after them.

Yea, but ‘the points being in question in these dayes, and not in the Fathers, the newe writers haue beene the more occasioned to search into them.’

Tell me then, why was not this point called into que­stion in the Fathers times? Was it not because there was none to contradict their iudgement? And doth not this proue, that the Assertion, which in this cause is opposite to antiquitie, is to be condemned of noueltie?

Againe, you say the iudgement of the new writers is to be preferred, because they haue more searched into the mat­ter, [Page 86] as being now in question.

Wherevnto I answere, that in this very respect, the au­thoritie of the ancient is to bee preferred, for the reason which the Philosopher giueth in the place before allead­ged. [...]. The olde be of most credit, for they are vncorrupt, or vnpartiall. Whereas contrary wise, the new writers, which oppose themselues to vs, who follow the auncient, are parties in the cause; and therefore to be preiudged as partiall.

And whereas he challengeth mee‘to shew if I can, what mou [...]th [...] to thinke that the spirit of God, who enlightned them, as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did faile them in this particular:’ I aske him whether hee doth thinke they were free from all errour or mistaking in the expoun­ding of Scriptures? and if hee thinketh that they did faile in any particular, I would desire him to shew what moueth him to thinke, that the spirit of God, who enlightned them as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did faile them in that particular? This therfore was a meere co­lour: or if there were any weight in it, might not I more iust­ly make the like demaund of him concerning the Fathers; what reason he hath to think, that the auncient Fathers who had such profound knowledge in the greatest mysteries of diuinitie, whereby they confounded the most subtill here­tikes, should be ignorant of those things which appertaine to the outward gouernement of the Church? or what rea­son he hath to imagine, that the writers of our age do know what was done or not done in the primitiue Church, better then the Fathers, that liued in those times?

§ Sect. [...]. His assumption answe [...]ed [...] the [...] of [...] writers.As touching his assumption: if hee speaketh of all the new writers, it is manifestly false, if not of all, it is to no purpose, neither doth it need to be proued, because it is not denied. Yea, but the naming of 25. writers, and boasting of more in a case not denied, though to the learned and iudicious it seeme a verie idle and vaine flourish, and in this writer, who is copious onely in this kinde, a manifest signe of a desperate cause, which cannot be fortified by bet­ter proofes, which hee forbeareth to alledge vnder a poore [Page 87] pretence, that hee is the answerer, and yet spendeth aboue 20. whole pages in his booke, in proouing what wee denie not, that manie writers are partly of his minde. Notwith­standing, it is a matter of great content to the vnlearned Reader, to be ledde along, (for so hee speaketh more then once) by such a worthie leader, from one to another till he hath seene the whole Troupe, and hath heard the commen­dation of euery one.

For that also is to be noted, how hee playeth the egregi­ous Mountae [...]banke, in commending and setting forth his au­thorities in most glorious manner.

‘Luther that rose vp as a bright morning starre, euen another Elias of these times. Bullinger, that learned and faithfull Pastor of the Church of Zuricke: Peter Martyr, that burning and shi­ning lampe of Oxeforde: Zanchius, a man admirable for iudge­ment and paines: the very Oedipus, (saith the abortiue booke) of the Schoole-mens riddles: Chemnitius, the worthy examiner of the Tridentine Councell, and ouerthrower of their heresies: Olde Father Nowell, in his booke published by authoritie, and com­maunded to be taught: D. Whttaker, who like another Dauid, fought valiantly against the popish Goliah. D. Fulke, one of the wonders of our daies, &c.’ Iust commendations I confesse of worthy men, whose memories are blessed.

Notwithstanding when he hath all done, one good rea­son alledged, though it were by the meanest of his 25, had bene of more worth then the allegation of all their autho­rities, though they had bene as many more. But this was done as I said, to please the vnlearned: for otherwise where the new writers gainsay him and his fellowes, as they do in the points of their new-found parish discipline, they set not a button by them all.

But if bragging of all, or almost all the new writers, he name but 25,§ Sect. 5. Not all those whom he ci­teth, doe ex­pound this tex [...] of Lay-Elders. and stoope very low for some of them, (espe­cially if you consider that they are to be weighed with the auncient Fathers) and if of the 25. hee thought good to cite but 8: now if all these 8. be not cleare on his side, what shal we thinke of the rest? Surely Luther, though he tell him that hee rose vp as a bright morning starre, euen another [Page 88] Elias of these times, will not be gotten to speake a word for him.Aduers. falso nomi [...]. Episc. 331. For in the place by him cited, hee doth not so much as speake of this Text, and much lesse expound it: But hee speaketh onely of the 19. verse, Receiue not an accusation a­gainst an Elder: where vnderstanding Elder, according to the vse of the word, in the first verse of that chapter, as a word of age, as well as of office, (as Chrysostome also doth, though he vnderstand, vers: 17: of Ministers onely) he saith, that how soeuer the popish Bishops, against whome hee writeth, did expound this place of Priests, that is themselues, that they might be the more free from accusation or reproofe: yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri, that is, Elder and graue men, (for such then, bare rule in the Church) meaning thereby most plainely auncient Ministers, as appeareth by the words following; which the refuter hath Sophistically and shame­fully peruerted. For the Apostle doth not speake, De ijs Episcopis (saith Luther,) & Sacerdotibus, qui iam nostra aetate plerum (que) sunt aetate florenti & penè adolescentes, sed de senibus & grand [...] bus in Scriptura peritis loquitur; Of those Bishops and Priests, which now in our time are, for the most part of a flourishing age, and in a manner young youthes, and lusty gallants, (which hee meant in the words going a little before, when he calleth them Penelopes sponsos,) but hee speaketh of such as be aged, and ancient men, skilfull in the Scriptures.

Obserue now our Sophysters dealing.

First hee saith, Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-El­ders; when as Luther doth not so much as speake of this text: 2. that he should say, their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then, when hee plainely speaketh of ancient and aged Mini­sters. 3. that Luther denieth simplie, that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests. For so hee citeth his words; Ne (que) enim lo­quitur de Episcopis & Sacerdotibus, whē he saith, that he spea­keth not of such Bishops as were in his time, young & lusty men; but of such as were aged & skilfull in the scriptures.

Bullinger in neither place alledged, doth say, that there were elders in the chuch, which were not ministers, but rather the cōtrary. For on 1. Tim. 5.17. he vnderstādeth that text, as re­quiring the stipend of the ministery, & seemeth to confound [Page 89] the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halues. Cum emin varià sint in ecclesia munia non vnius quo (que) generis ministri aut Presbyteri sunt. For where Bullinger saith, Ministers or Presbyters be not all of one kind, by Presbyters, meaning no other but Ministers, he citeth him thus: the Elders are not of one kind, leauing out the word Ministers. And vpon the words following in the nineteenth verse, he saith, as to a diligent & good Mini­ster of Christ sustenāce is due, so also defence, the reason of which law is this, a Presbyter is the Minister of truth, and truth procureth hatred,Dec. 5. Serm. 3. &c. In his Decades he saith, the Elders in the Church of Christ, are either BB. or otherwise prudent and learned men added to the BB. who albeit they did not teach alwaies as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught, &c. Where he doth not speake of lay and vnlearned Elders, but of wise and learned men of the Clergie.

The rest, in the places cited, doe acknowledge a second sort of Elders, besides those which chiefely laboured in the word and doctrine, but whe they were of the laitie or Cler­gie they doe not mention.

As for D. Fulk in his answere to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17. he giuing two interpretations of that place, preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are vnderstood of Mini­sters or Priests onely, that as euery one of them laboureth more in preaching and teaching, he is so much the more to be honoured.

But of his assumption this is more then enough, seeing this is not the question betweene vs, whether any of the new writers doe stand for the new Elders, for that is con­fessed.

His third reason for the deniall of my proposition:§ Sect. 6. Ad pag. 21. His third rea­son: because my exposition is not made by any of the Fathers. that ‘if that consequence is good, my interpretation of this place is naught, seeing it hath not so much as the naked shade of any fa­ther to couer it.’ Naked to couer! But what figge leaues can he find to couer this naked, and shamelesse vntruth? For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points, the first and principall that by Presbyters I vnderstand, Mini­sters, [Page 90] as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well &c:Primas. in 1. Tim. 5.17. [...] 1. Tim. [...]. [...] This is to rise well, to spare or forbare no­thing for the care of the sheepe. § Sect. 7. the secōd that by the words [...] which commonly are translated gouerning well, I vnderstand the cōmendable performance of their duetie in generall, for the latter I alledged the authoritie of Ierome and of the Syricke Paraphrast, to whom others might be added; for the for­mer, I haue the generall consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age, who haue expounded this place, and not one of them can be produced to the contrarie; and yet he is not ashamed to say, that my interpretation hath not the patronage of any one Father.

And thus much of the proposition: in confuting where­of, when he hath spent fiue whole pages with very ill suc­cesse as you see, he concludeth with as vaine and causelesse a bragge, as his successe was badde.

The assumption (that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did euer expound this text of any but Ministers) though he dares not plainely denie it; yet that it may appeare, how he setteth himselfe to wrangle with euery thing, he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes: out of which he may easily be driuen, if the Reader wil but remem­ber these two things. First, that I speake of such as haue be­fore our age, (meaning hoc seculum this cēturie or hūdred of yeares) expounded this place, either in their commenta­ries, or in their other writings, which be extant. For it were foolish presumption to rely vpon their iudgements, who, either did not write of it, or whose writings are not extant, whereby their iudgement might be knowne. Secondly, that I am in this point the respondent, answering their allegation out of this place; and that the refuter is the opponent; who, if he will say any thing to the purpose, must proue by good instance the affirmatiue, that some one of the Fathers, or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders; and not absurdly vrge me, being the respondent, to proue the negatiue; which as it cannot be otherwise proued, but by alledging, that no instance can be giuen to the contrarie; so might it be easily disproued by any one instance, if any such could be giuen. If these two things be remembred, the bare [Page 91] recitall of his fiue exceptions wilbe a sufficient euidence of his folly.

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 vnderstādeth 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,In Cant. 8.1 [...]. ‘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 [Page 92] 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 compo­ [...]e [...] 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 cōfuting 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.

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, [Page 93] 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,1. Thess. [...] 12.13. 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,Ad pag. 22. which are frequent with him, of ‘[Page 94] 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.

§ Sect. 2. His answere to the 2. rea­son, and first to the propo­sition.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 escape so, thinke we? No, I war­rant you: though hee can obiect nothing against the mat­ter, yet he must needs cauill at the words, for he will play small game rather then s [...]t out: two faults hee findeth with the words, charging me that I speake ‘vnfitly and vnkindly’. vnfitly, when I say the Apostle doth here note two duties of Ministers, ‘the one generall, the other speciall. What logicke or reason is there in this kind of speech, saith he. What opposition betwixt these two duties?’so much is he set vpon opposition and diuision, that hee thinkes there is no reason in that speech, where is no opposition.

And what is the logicke that this logicaster doth teach me? forsooth I should haue said, that the Apostle first spea­keth of the Ministers dutie in generall, and afterwards in speciall. Thus, in disprouing the manner of my speech he doth vn­wittingly approue it: such is his iudgement. For if the A­postle first speaketh of the dutie in generall, and after­wards in speciall; then doth hee speake of two duties, the one generall, the other speciall. For when you speake of a dutie in generall, doe you not meane a generall dutie? and when you mention a dutie in speciall, doe you not [Page 95] meane a speciall dutie? Yes, your selfe doe speake so pag. 25. where you say, ‘the duties are in the former clause, generall; in the latter, speciall.’

Neither doth that need to offend you, that I call them two, when you speake of them in the same place in the plurall number. For if the one be not the other, as you will grant, then there is no question, but they are two. But, if want of opposition was the fault of my speech, what opposition I beseech you is in yours? or what lo­gicke was in this, to require opposition betwixt the whole and the part? or if you conceiued of Dutie as the Genus, and of this speech as a distribution thereof, what logicke was it, not to discerne an opposition in a distribution of duties into generall and speciall? for generall and speciall I hope be opposite.

All this notwithstanding, my logicke maister chideth me for want of logicke.‘If a man saith he should say, there are two duties of a Logician, the one generall, to reason well, the other speciall, to iudge well, would he not be thought to speake of logicke, without logicke?’ Yes verily, if in so spea­king hee should intend a perfect distribution of logicall duties: Which, notwithstanding your cauills, might thus be performed.

The duties of a Logician are either generall, as that which is comprehended in the definition of Logicke, to reason well: or speciall, as those which be contained in the distribution of Logicke, to inuent well, and to iudge well.

But, if in imitation of the Apostles speech, you should say, Logicians that reason well, that is all good Logicians, are to be honoured, especially those which are iudicious, or which doe excell in iudgement, I might note out of this speech, not two sorts of Logicians, but two duties or faculties of all Logicians, in respect whereof they are to be honoured; the one generall, to reason well, the other speciall to iudge well, disposed not in a distribution, but in a comparatiue sentēce, which some Logicians call axioma relatae qnantitatis, wherin the duties of a Logician are thus compared; that whereas Logicians are to be honoured for the performance of their [Page] [...] [Page 97] take libertie, to disgrace, reuile, slaunder, and libell, against our betters, we may not be touched in the least degree▪ nei­ther will wee sticke obliquè to reuile him,By appl [...] [...]o him. [...] [...]6.16. that shall but say, wee imagine that, wherein wee foulely, if not perniciously erre. For your misinterpreting of this one place, is the ve­rie foundation of your Presbyterian discipline, and the vr [...]ging of that discipline, the very cause of that pernicious di­uision which is amongst vs. And thus much of the pro­position.

The assumption was this;§ Sect. [...] but a [...] shift. that this place may very well (for so much is sufficient for mee, being the respondent, to say, but I doe also adde) and in mine opinion, is to bee vn­derstood of two duties of Ministers: the one generall, the other speciall. In respect whereof, double [...]onour [...] due vnto them; This difference onely being put, that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers, for the performance of their dutie in generall: yet especially for their paines in the Ministery of the Word, they being chiefly to be coun­ted worthy of double honour, who excell that way.

This assumption containing the exposition of this place, hee oppugneth with all his force, cauilling that it is but a bare shift, and such as will not serue my turne: and this hee vnderta­keth to proue by three reasons, which will prooue nothing, but his owne want of iudgement.

For,Ad pag. 2. & [...]4. as touching the first: Is not this extreame want of iudgemēt, to alledge the manifold expositions of this place, as a matter of great disaduantage to vs; when as indeed, it notably disaduantageth his cause? especially, to triumph and insult ouer vs for this cause, Saying ‘Loe here, how their tongues and pennes in the exposition of this place are diuided, as in the building of the Tower of Babell: and how they hauing no sure holde to trust vnto, 2. King. 22. flie from one to another, as Zidkia [...]h went from chamber to chamber, to hide him.’

Now whether this multitude of expositions bee an ad­uantage to his cause, or disaduantage, the Reader may hereby iudge.

For seeing the learned men of our side doe reason thus, as I noted before, (if diuerse and sundry expositions of [...] text [Page 98] [...] be giuen, not including your Lay-Elders, euery one whereof is [...] probable th [...]n yo [...]rs: then is it not necessary, nor yet like­ly that your Lay-Elders be heere meant.) Who seeth not, but by how which the more expositions can bee giuen in this ki [...]e, by so much the lesse necessitie there is to admit your exposition of Lay-Elders.

But our men doe thus reason: D. Bilson, pag: 130. The fourth reason (saith hee) that holdeth mee from receiuing this construction (implying Lay-Elders) is, that I finde diuerse and sundry interpretations more agreeable to the Text, and more answerable to S. Paules meaning then this. His reason standeth thus. If diuerse and sundry interpretations are found more agreeable, &c. then that for Lay-Elders, then haue wee no reason to yeelde that Lay-Elders are meant in this place. But diuerse and sundry such interpretations may be giuen, which he proueth, by producing foure of them.

Likewise D. King, as your selfe doe cite him, arguing to the same purpose, saith, How many interpretations may bee brought to diuert and disappoint Lay-gouernours? and then al­ledgeth diuerse.

Of all which interpretations, (which by Presbyters vn­derstand Ministers) it may truely be affirmed, that they are more agreeable to the meaning of the Apostle, then yours. Seeing they expound the word Presbyter according to the perpetuall vse of it, in the writings both of the Apostles and Fathers: wheras of your vse of the word, after all your paines and laying your heads, and helps together, you are not able to produce any one testimonie, no not one.

Wherefore, looke how manie such probable expositions may be giuen, vnderstanding this place of Ministers onely, they are so manie proofes, that there is no necessitie of ad­mitting your interpretation.

§ Sect. 4.But let vs now examine your reasons, whereby you would prooue my exposition to be but a bare shift, and such as will not serue my turne.

‘His 1. Reason that my exposi­tion is a bare shift. The first. If others opposing to Lay-Elders haue brought 8. or 9. expositions, which are but shifts to auoid them, all of them [Page 99] being diuerse among themselues, and from that which M. D. brin­geth, then this 10. of his, is but a shift also: but the former is true, therefore the latter.’

If the reader desire to haue examples of such lame legs, as the refuter talketh of, here hee may haue a couple. For as touching the proposition: seeing among different exposi­tions, one onely is the true and proper meaning of the place: may not this exception be taken against any exposi­tion be it neuer so true, being but one amongst manie? For suppose the other 9. were but shifts, how will it follow, that therefore the tenth is so: Must all expositions bee false or vnfit, because the most are such?

If those 9. expositions be shifts as you say, and if yours be false as I haue proued, this is so farre from preiudging the truth of mine, which is the eleuenth, as that it is a strong presumption to confirme it.

For, seeing it is to be presumed, that some one true expo­sition of this Text is knowne; and seeing all other knowne expositions of this place, are either supposed by you, or pro­ued by mee to be false: it remaineth therefore, that this ele­uenth is true: The consequence therefore of the propo­sition is starke lame.

The assumption also is false. For those diuers expositions are not shifts, as this shifting Sophister cauilleth, but being all (I meane so many as by Presbyters vnderstand Ministers) more probable then that which stādeth for Lay-Elders: (for that doth not so much as touch the subiect wherof the Apo­stle speaketh) they are so many proofes to auoid the necessi­tie of their Lay-Elders, which by thē are as necessary, vrged and obtruded vpō vs. And this was his first reason, which he brought, to ‘make it appeare that my exposition is but a bare shift’.

His second, brought to the same purpose, either proueth it thus,§ Sect. 5. His 2. Reason. or not at all.‘If M. D. vtterly reiect 8. of the aforesaid expositions, and resteth vpon one of those 4. which D. Bilson pro­pounded, then his exposition is a bare shift.’

But M. D. reiecteth 8. of the former expositions, and resteth vpon one of those 4 which D. B. propoundeth.

Therefore his exposition is a bare shift.

[Page 100]In the proposition, there is not so much as a shewe of a good consequence, vnlesse it be presupposed (which I haue disproued) that D. B. expositions are but bare shifts. His as­sumption, which in plaine termes he setteth downe, contai­neth two vntruthes.

For first, if you vnderstand my words, as they may be vn­derstood of them that conceiue mee to be the answerer in this place, and as my selfe euen now propounded them, then doth it not follow that I vtterly reiect all other expo­sitions: because, in adding this to the former, I seeme to preferre it before the rest.

Againe, that I rest in one of those 4. expositions, which he recited out of D. B. is not onely false, but if you respect his intent, sclanderous also, as all other his references are, as to any that will compare them, may easily appeare: For not any of D. B. 4. expositions vnderstādeth the former branch as containing the generall dutie of a Minister. Howbeit some of the examples which hee produceth, together with his explication of some of them, doe well agree with my ex­position, as you shall heare in my answere, to his third rea­son, which being his shoot-ancor, if it faile him, his Lay-El­ders are like to suffer shipwracke. Heare his words.

§ Sect. 6. Ad Pag. 25. His third rea­son, cōtaining 3. Syllogisme [...] Thirdly, that it may appeare, that M. D. is besides the true meaning of the Apostle, in the sense hee resteth on, let vs weigh the Apostles words well, and wee shall finde them clearely and euident­ly, to speake of persons, and at the most, but indirectly of duties. ‘The Elders that rule well, especially they: can any man be so blind as not to see, that these Elders, and they must needes signifie per­sons, who must be counted worthie of double honour?’

No, saith M.D. but this account riseth from the consideration of their duties. Euen so, we denie it not: but may it not be so▪ and yet 2. sorts of Elders heere noted? Yes verily. The elders that faithfully discharge their dutie in gouerning the Church, are wor­thie of double honour: especially those who labour in the Word and Doctrine. Is there any thing in this Scripture thus vnderstood, to shutte out 2. kindes of Elders? Are not the duties in the former clause generall, in the latter speciall? Yes saith he, but for all that, they bee indeed two duties of the Minister onely.

[Page 101]Of which discourse, the best that I can make, is this: If the comparison betwixt the persons euidently noted in this Text, doth seeme to fauour the distinction of Elders, into 2. sorts, and the comparison betweene the duties indirectly noted, doth not hinder the said distinction, that, then is there nothing in this Text, to ex­clude two sorts of Elders.

But the antecedent is true in both the parts thereof:

Therefore the consequent.

The former part of the antecedent is proued thus:

The persons here mentioned are in the comparison noted to be of two sorts.

Elders are the persons here mentioned:

Therefore Elders are in this comparison, noted to bee of 2. sorts. The latter thus: The distinction of duties into generall and speciall: doth not exclude two sorts of Elders:

For the generall agreeth to both sorts.

The distinction of duties heere mentioned, is into generall and speciall:

Therefore the distinction heree mentiond, doth not exclude two sorts of Elders.

By the refuters maine conclusion, it is euident, that hee hath gotten the wrong end of the staffe. For whereas this place to Timothie, is the chiefe; and, as I iudge, the onely place to speake of in the Scriptures, which all of them with­out exception obiect, and most confidently vrge, as necessa­rily including and concluding their Lay-Elders, in answe­ring whereof, this part of my Sermon is spent: my aduersary by his Sophysticall shifts, in making mee the opponent, and himselfe the respondent, would make the Reader belieue, that he hath acquitted himselfe well, if this place bee not a­gainst Lay-Elders.

But the Reader must remember, that it lieth vpon my aduersarie, and those of his side, out of this place, invinci­bly, and ineuitably to inforce Lay-Elders, or to confesse that they cannot be proued out of the Scriptures. Neither will it suffice him to say, they may be here meant, vnlesse he can necessarily proue and demonstrate, that they are, and must necessarily be meant in this place.

[Page 102]Otherwise I may graunt his maine conclusion, without a­nie preiudice to our cause: when the chiefe thing which he proueth is, that the principall, and almost onely place obie­cted by themselues for Lay-Elders, doth not make against them. But if the onely place, which can to any purpose bee alledged for them, doe exclude them, which in the last rea­son I doe endeuour to proue; being as yet not proceeded so farre, but onely to maintaine that they be not heere inclu­ded; then is the cause of the Lay-Elders most desperate. The which, that it may appeare, I will not refuse, seeing my aduersarie hath found this starting hole, to examine his proofes.

And first, I denie the connexion or consequence of his proposition.§ Sect. 7. Answere to his first syllogisme For though neither of the things by him na­med did exclude Lay-Elders; yet there are two words in the Text, which doe plainely shew they are not included. The one is, the word Presbyters, which alwayes signifieth the Mi­nisters, and neuer signifieth the supposed Lay-Elders.

For if this Text include them, then are they included in this word Presbyteri, the Text speaking of none but such. But that word, being a word of order proper to Mi­nisters or Priests, doth not include them, nor can any one example or testimonie produced to that purpose: There­fore Lay-Elders are not included in this Text.

To the 2.The other is double honour, or maintenance appointed to all the Presbyters, of whome Paul speaketh; from which Lay Elders are excluded, as I shall shew in my third rea­son.

As touching his second Syllogisme, I answere first to the proposition, that the persons here mentioned, are not noted to be of two sorts: but that the comparison is betweene two duties belonging to one sort or order of men; or if you will, betweene men of the same order, in respect of their duties; the words being as plaine in the lāguage of the Apostles, and of all the Fathers, both Greeke and Latine, as if it had bene said in our language, Let the Ministers or Priests, &c: And this I hold for a most certaine and vndeniable truth.

[Page 103]The comparison betweene the dueties, I explane thus, that as to Presbyters or Ministers double honour is due, for their dutie in generall: So especially, for that which is the principall: the comaprison being betweene the generall or whole duety, & a particular, or part of the duty, which is pre­ferred, as being the principall. The comparison betweene the persons, in regard of those duties, and depending vpon the former standeth thus: that as all they that performe the generall are to be honoured, so especially they, who in speciall sort performe the principall.

Thus much then the words import, that as all Presbyters who demeane themselues well in their places, are to bee ac­counted worthy of double honour: so especially those that labour painefully in the Word and Doctrine.

Let vs consider the like examples. All Counsellours that demeane themselues well in their functiōs are highly to be honored, especially, those that are good Patriotes, or Comon-wealths­men. From whence it were absurde to inferre, that there is a sort of good counsellours that bee not good Patriotes. But in this speech I note, in respect of the duties of coun­sellours, that this is the principall; and in respect of the per­sons, that they are chiefly to be honored, who are in speciall manner such. Likewise (to vse the refuters owne example) All Logicians that reason well, that is, all good Logicians are to bee honoured, or well esteemed of: especially, those that are iudicious, or that haue a speciall facultie of iudging well.

It may not hence be gathered, that there are any good Lo­gicians, that are not iudicious, or that cannot iudge well. But I note, that as among the faculties of a Logician, good iudgement is the principall; so they which be iudicious, are most to be esteemed.

So, all good Seruants are worthie to bee rewarded, especially, those that are faithfull, &c: In like manner, when the Apostle saith, All Presbyters or Ministers, that demeane themselues well: (that is, all good Ministers) are to be accounted wor­thie double honour: especiallie those which labour in the Word and Doctrine: Wee may not collect from hence, that there is a sort of Presbyters worthie of double honour, which doe [Page 104] not labour in the word. But the meaning of the compari­son is, that as among the duties of Presbyters, or Ministers, Preaching is the principall: so they chiefly are to bee ac­counted worthie of double honour, who labour; or if you will, who in speciall manner doe labour therein. And this speciall manner is noted in the word [...]: For [...], is to labour painefully, and vnto wearinesse. Which paines is to be esteemed, as well by diligence, in the studie of the Word: 1. Tim. 4.3. Attend to rea­ding and do­ctrine. as either by the frequent, or laborious deliuery of the Doctrine. The comparison therefore is so farre from being made of all Elders, as they imagine; that it is not of all Ministers, but onely of those which be good. And the grea­test distinction of persons, that can hence bee gathered is this, that among good Ministers, there are some, who are more especially to be counted worthy of double honour for their paines in Preaching.

Pag. 7. & 8.Now because the refuter referreth you to D. Bilsons preface, and I promised euen now to acquaint you with some of his examples and explication thereof; you shall well perceiue, that my exposition, though it be none of the foure which he propoundeth, is not vnlike to haue the approbation of that most learned, reuerend man. Doth not [...], (saith hee) that is chiefly (the note of comparison) distinguish as well things as persons, and not so well diuerse respects, as diuerse sub­iects [...] for example, if we should say, Magistrates that gouerne well are worthie of double honour, specially they that heare the com­plaints of the poore: Were hee not very fansifull that would hence conclude, there are therefore two sorts of Magistrates, one that go­uerne well, another that heareth the complaints of the poore. No­thing is more common, then by this kind of speech to note as well two diuerse qualities in one man, as two sundry sorts of men; yea thereby to preferre a part before the generall comprising that part. As teachers are to be liked for their learning, specially for their knowledge in the scriptures: Good men are to be loued for their ver­tues, especially if they be liberall.

To the assumption affirming that Elders are the persons here mentioned, I answere, that no Elders are here mentio­ned but Ministers, and that Presbyteri in this place are vn­fitly [Page 105] translated Elders: for though that be the english of it, as it is a word of age, yet it is not the english of it (accor­ding to the vse of our language) as it is a word of order, no­ting (as it doth in this place) an Ecclesiasticall function, but Ministers or Priests, whō we do not vse in our common speech to call Elders. But hereof I haue alreadie spoken.

There remaineth his third Syllogisme,§ Sect. 8. His 3. Syllo­gisme answe­red. concluding as before, that their two sorts of Elders are not excluded in the distinction of the duties into generall and speciall, be­cause the generall dutie which is to gouerne well, agreeth to the Lay-Elders as wel as to Ministers. To omit that which hath beene said of his conclusion, not concluding as he ought Lay-Elders, if he will vrge them, out of this place, but prouing onely that they are not excluded, which is but a poore proofe, prouing nothing so well as that the cause of the Lay-Elders is come to a low ebbe. And yet for this, all his proofe is, that the generall dutie agreeth to them: which indeed is false, for the generall dutie meant by [...] besides godly life and such attendance of the flocke as might be common to lay Presbyters, implyeth the fulfilling of their ministerie, their going before the flocke in the duties of Gods seruice: their feeding of them with the word and Sacraments. Neither can hee be said [...], according to the Apostles meaning in this place; that doth not (which a Lay-Elder may not doe) attend and superintend his flocke in these respects. This prosillogisme of his proposition, which is his onely proofe, hee seeth and acknowledgeth to be before denied by me, holding that as well the generall as speciall dutie (as they are here meant) be peculiar to Ministers, and there­fore not agreeing to their Elders, making me thus to say, ‘yes saith hee but for all that, they be indeed two duties of the Ministers onely.’ His proofe therefore was nothing else but a meere begging of the question. And when he should haue proued that in the former part of the sentence (Let the Elders that gouerne well) the Lay-Elders are comprised, or else haue ceassed to vrge them: faire and mannerly he slippeth his necke out of the collar, putting me to disproue [Page 106] it, and telling me, that otherwise I should offend (wherein as respondents doe not vse to offend, so himselfe being in­deed the opponent, in this place is extremely faultie that is to say) in begging the question.

§ Sect. 9. The reasons [...] exposi­tion exami­ned.Hauing therefore struggled to no purpose with my ex­position of this text, in the next place he setteth himselfe, hauing no reasons to proue his owne interpretation, to striue (though with the like successe) against those reasons wherewith my exposition is fortified. Now in my exposi­tion two things are specially to be noted, as I haue said; first, that by Presbyters I vnderstand Ministers onely. The se­cond, that by the words which are translated gouerning or ruling well. I vnderstand the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall; and not onely gouerning in that sence, as it may be common to the supposed Lay-Elder. The first is the principall, and alreadie proued; though the refuter had rather seeme not to haue seene the reasons, which he did not see how to answere, then goe about either to con­fute them, or to bring any testimonie where Presbyter doth signifie a Lay-Elder. But as he would not see the for­mer reasons, so either he doth not, or will not see the force of the latter.The first rea­son. For wheras I proue that [...] ▪ doth signifie the generall performance of the whole dutie of the Ministers, being as much in effect as if the Apostle had said thus: Those Ministers which fulfill their office as Ierome and Prim [...]sius expound those words, that goe out and in before their people as becommeth them, according to the phrase of the scriptures th [...]e that demeane themselues well (as the Syriach ▪ paraphrast doth interpret the words) as well in respect of their priuate conuersation, as of their publike administration; whereas I say, I proue all this to disproue their inferrence for Lay-Elders out of this place:A [...] pag. 26. he, as though he saw no force of argument in all this, feareth not to confesse all: and yet will needs maintaine that inference, because forsooth al this ‘may be’ verified of Lay-Elders, &c.

But say I, when you vrge your Elders as from this place, your inference is not, that what is said of Presbyters gouer­ning well, may be vnderstood of Lay-Elders, but must be vn­derstood [Page 107] of them, or else you speake to no purpose. Now, although there be some shew of an inference, if by gouerning well were meant onely so much as might be common to Lay-Elders; yet if you vnderstand these words in the gene­rall sense, you shall see not so much as a shew of a good con­sequence, nor any reason to moue a man to make such an inference: which I did verily thinke, that all men of vnder­standing would readily haue conceiued: and yet my lot is, to light vpon such an aduersary, as either doth not, or will not see it, vnles it be beaten into him. Goe too then: Is not this your inference from this text, that because the Apostle requireth double honour to be giuen to such Elders as go­uerne well, though especially to those which labour in the word, that therfore besides those which labour in the word, there are certaine onely-gouerning Elders? Vnderstand therefore those former words in the general sense which I giue, and your inference will be both senelesse and false. Senelesse thus: the Presbyters that fulfill their office, or that demeane themselues well in their place, are worthy of double honour, especially those, that labour in the word; therefore besides those which labour in the word, there are certain onely gouerning Elders: for of this inference there is no sence, vnlesse it be supposed, that none can fulfill their office or demeane themselues well, but your Lay-Elders. If therefore you will ground them vpon this place accor­ding to the generall sence which you seeme to allow, call them no more the onely-gouerning Elders, but the onely good, or well demeaned Presbyters. False, because the words being generally vnderstood of the whole dutie of the mi­nisterie can be vnderstood of none but Ministers; the gene­rall, which includeth the speciall, being peculiar to the Mi­nister as well as the speciall. Thus therefore I reason:

The proposition you cannot be so absurd as to denie, vn­lesse you will attribute the performance of the whole office of the ministerie in generall to your onely-gouerning-El­ders. The assumption you freely confesse, and all the proofs [...] and yet with great [...]oath of idle and addle words, you [...] maintaine the contradictorie to the conclusion, [...] nor [...]e [...]ng any force at all in my proofe, which yo [...] valiantly ouerthrow by denying the conclu­sion. So that I must conclude▪ that you extremely want, [...] ei­ther a sound iudgement, or a good conscience.

Besides the former proofe, I produce for the confirma­tion of my exposition, the speech of the same Apostle, to the same Presbyters of Ephesus, Act. 20.28. to paralel this. And whereas of my exposition there are two parts, the one concerning the subiect or parties here mentioned, whom I expound to be ministers onely, the other concerning their duties, in regard whereof double honour is due to them, the one generall, the other speciall: in both respects, the one text doth answere the other, as face answereth to face in the water. For first that Presbyters here are Ministers onely, I proue thus:

Secondly that the duties both generall and speciall are peculiar to Ministers, I proue by this argument:

[Page 109]This latter Syllogisme my expert aduersarie obserued not: the former he flingeth after his manner into a connex­iue Syllogisme. For though his forge doe scarcely afford any other, yet hee hath gotten a pretie smacke of Syllogi­zing that way, were it not that his Syllogismes for the most part, are too long by the halfe. But here he surpasseth him­selfe, for hee hath cast my whole Syllogisme into his con­nexiue proposition, and in his minor repeateth at large both the proposition and assumption.

But let vs see what he saith to these Syllogismes. In the first he onely denieth my proposition, viz. that the Pres­byters, Act. 20. were none but Ministers: which I must con­fesse in that breuitie I tooke for granted, because I thought it needed not to be proued. For seeing that verse is not one­ly generally vnderstood, (euen of them which stand for Lay Elders, writing not [...],Caluin, in Act. &c. D. Whi [...]ak de pon [...]. Rom. pag. 1 but commenting vpon, or otherwise expounding that place) of Ministers, but also is alledged both by protestants and papists to iustifie the calling of BB. I did presume, that it was to be vnderstood of such onely as are Ministers at the least. But that which be­fore was for breuitie omitted, shall now be supplyed. First therfore I argue thus: All those that are called BB. in the acts and writings of the Apostles are Ministers of the word.

Or thus: Lay-Elders are no where called BB.

Shall I need to proue any of the premisses. Are our Pres­byterians of late growne so absurd as to denie them? What? are not all BB. Ministers, and are your Lay-Elders growne of late to be Bishops? did not our refuter pag [...] affirme that these Presbyters, Act. 20. are Angels and Bishops, and that Angels are pastors? and are Lay-Elders, Angels and pastors too? [...]ie for shame! and yet so absurd is our refuter, as to say that some of these Elders whom Paul calleth Bishops, were [Page 110] not Ministers, but their lay or onely-gouerning Elders.

§ Sect. 11.But if either reason or authoritie will preuaile with him, he may easily be confuted: my reason I frame thus: ‘All Episcopi or Bishops, must by the Apostles rule (which is generall) be [...] able to teach, 1. Tim. 3.2. that is as he expoundeth himselfe, Tit. 1.9. holding fast the faithful word, according to doctrine that they may be able to exhort with holesome doctrine, and conuince the gain-sayers.’

But not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, doe need by the Apostles rule to be [...], able to preach in that sense that he expoundeth it, Tit. 1.9. For on those words Caluin obserueth, that it is required in thē, that they should be learned, and indued with sound knowledge, and that their doctrine should tend to edification, &c.

Therefore not Lay-Elders, nor any but Ministers, are Bishops. As for authoritie; let him shew me any testimonie of scripture, or of any sound writer, old or new, that is not a partie, vsing the word Bishop for Lay-Elder, or any one that is not a Minister,Inst. li 4. c. 3. § 8. and I will yeeld to him the bucklers. Cal­uin, though a partie, plainly saith, that the scripture vseth pro­miscuously these words, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors & Ministers; to signifie those who doe exercise the ministerie of the word. And hauing intreated of them, in conclusion he saith, that as yet he had not spoken of any other functions but such as consist in the ministerie of the word. And in another place, although he coll [...]teth out of 1. Tim. 5.17. two sorts of Presbyters,Caluin. in Tit. 1.5. yet he saith, that the Presbyters mentioned, Tit. 1.5. are by the context manifested to be no other, but Doctors or Teachers, because Paul presently after calleth them Bishops.

Pag. 101.The author of the booke de Ecclesiastica disciplina, and of the defence thereof, ingenuously confesseth, that onely pastors and teachers are Bishops, and that ruling Elders are not comprehended vnder the name Bishop, and so farre is he from comprehending them vnder the title of Bishop, that although he were resolued to find a roome for them, 1. Tim. 3. yet he durst not comprise them vnder the title and description of a Bishop (though the Bishop be all one with [Page 111] Presbyter, Tit. 1.5.7.) but shrowdeth them vnder the title and description of Deacons, as hereafter we shall shew. ‘Againe, all pastors of Christs flocke are Ministers onely: All the Presbyters of Ephesus, were pastors of Christs flocke: therefore they were Ministers onely.’ Or thus: Lay-Elders are not Pastors of Christs flocke (of other flocks perhaps they may.)

All the Presbyters of Ephesus were Pastors of Christs flocke:

Therefore they were not Lay-Elders.

That they were pastors I proue thus: Bishops set ouer the flocke of Christ by the holy Ghost to feed the Church of God, are pastors:

The Presbyters of Ephesus were such, Act. 20.28.

Therefore they were pastors.In Act. 2 And that Caluin confesseth more then once. And our refuter also in the place before alledged; from whose confession I argue thus:

The Angels were pastors saith our refuter, ‘The Presbyters of Ephesus were Angels, therefore the Presbyters of Ephesus were pastors.’

But why should so plaine a thing seeme to be made doubtfull with longer proofe? for if such Presbyters as were also Bishops and pastors, were any but Ministers: then Presbyters, Bishops and pastors were Lay-Elders also; and Lay-Elders were all in all.

And whereas he obiecteth, that Lay-Elders may be com­prehended vnder the name Presbyter and Episcopus, be­cause D. B. saith, that these words [...] Bishop, Presbyter, Deacō or Minister, are oft so large­ly taken, as that they comprise all Ecclesiasticall functions: I answere in a word, by Ecclesiasticall functions, he meaneth onely the functions of the Ministerie, including neither your Lay-Elders, nor your Lay-Deacons, no more then our Churchwardens and Collectors for the poore.

As touching the latter Syllogisme which the refuter saw not:§ Sect. 12. The proofe of the proposition dependeth vpon the former Syllogisme. For if the Presbyters to whom Paul spake, were Ministers onely as hath beene proued, then the [Page 112] duties which hee requireth of them onely in that place; he requireth peculiarly of Ministers. The assumption affir­ming that the duties both generall and speciall, 1. Tim. 5.17. are the same with those, Act. 20.28. I explaine in the Ser­mon, shewing that [...], which are the words translated to gouerne well, and containe the generall dutie, is the same with attending to themselues and their flocke,Pag. 14.15. which I did more fully deliuer in the Sermon of the digni­tie and dutie of the Ministerie (which the refuter himselfe doth seeme to approue) shewing that [...] is carefully to attend to themselues & their flocke. To them­selues, that they may be precedents, and as the holy Ghost speaketh, [...] patternes and samplers of a godly life. For this in the Apostles phrase is [...] to be presidents of good workes.Tit. 3.8.14. To the flocke also they must attend. First, by ouerseeing and watching ouer them. Secondly, by feeding them in the ministerie of the word & sacramēts; Thirdly, by praying for them both publikely & priuately. The speciall dutie which is to labour in the word and doctrine, is the same with feeding the flocke of Christ, which is also noted as the speciall dutie, Act. 20.28.

The refuter though he saw not the reason, yet he would be sure to contradict my assertion, and therefore stumbling vpon the proposition,Ad pag. 28. he saith,‘that neither of the duties mentioned in the Acts are restrained to Ministers onely. For to attend to the flocke is all one saith he with [...] which is more generall, and the speciall dutie of feeding which he confineth to the word and doctrine, is often vsed for gouer­ning also, as Mat. 2.6. Apoc. 2.27. & 7.17. & 12.5. & 19. 15. Grec. schol. in Act. 14.23.’

The truth of my proposition, as I said, dependeth on the former Syllogisme, as vpon a sure hold, and the dutie signified, 1. Tim. 5. by ruling well: and Act. 20. by attending to themselues and their flocke, being applied (as in both places it is) to Ministers, and importing, as he hath confessed, the whole dutie of the ministerie in generall, must be confessed to bee restrained to Ministers. As for the word [...] which in this pla [...] is truely translated to feed, besides the [Page 113] proper sense wherin somtimes it is vsed, as Luk. 17.7.1. Cor. 9.7. Iud. 12: it hath indeed 2. metaphoricall significations in the Scriptures: translated from shepheards, to ciuill or spi­rituall pastors; the one, as it is applied to Princes, & ciuill Pa­stors, and so it signifieth chiefly to rule;Iohn, 21.1.▪ Act. 20.28 1. Pet. 5. [...] ▪ the other, as it is attri­buted to Spirituall Pastors, and so it signifieth chiefly to feed with spirituall food. For our Sauiour cōmanding Peter, if he loued him to feed his sheepe: (which text the Papists, vnder­standing the word [...],Iohn. 21.1 [...] 16.17. as the refuter doth, of ruling abuse to proue the Popes supremacie) expoundeth [...], by the word [...], which signifieth not to rule, but to feed.To feede [...] flocke, saith Raynolds, to perform [...] the dutie of Pastor vnto Conf. with [...] 461. It is true, that authority of guiding and gouerning his flocke is implyed also in the signification of the worde, but it is a pastorall authoritie, giuen to none but pastors, and to them, vnto this end, that they may feed the flocke. Which ende is noted by Paul. Act. 20.28. to feede the flocke: as also, by our Sauiour himselfe, Luke 12:42: where the Lords seruant is said to be set ouer his houshold, to this end, to giue them their foode in due season. Cal. in 1. Pe [...] 5.2 For therefore are they called pastors, that is, such as doe feede.

Caluin speaking of this word, in 1. Pet. 5.2. saith, the name of Presbyter, containeth in it the dutie of feeding: And the definiti­on of the word is to be knowne. Because the flocke of Christ, Pasci non potest nisi pura doctrina quae sola spirituale est pabulum, can­not bee fedde but with pure Doctrine, which is the onely spirituall foode. Hence it is, that Pastors & Doctors, (which some would distinguish) are in the scriptures confounded. As Eph: 4.11. For whereas the Apostle when he would note diuerse functi­ons, vseth notes of distinction, saying: Christ gaue some to be Apostles, some to be Euangelists, &c when he cōmeth to Pastors and Doctors, he vseth a note of copulation. For he doth not say, some Pastors, & some Doctors; but some pastors and Doctors, vsing the latter word, as the explication of the former,Epist. 59. ad Paulinum. and nothing that by Pastors, hee meaneth such as be teachers. Vpon which words Augustine saith thus: Pastors and Doctors, whome you would haue mee to distinguish, I thinke are one, and the same. For Paul doth not say, some pastors, some Doctors; but to pastors ioyneth doctors, that pastors might vnderstand it belongeth to their office to [Page 114] teach: of the same iudgmēt is Sedulius & Muscul: & some others

In the places, which the refuter quoteth, the word [...], is not applied at all to Ecclesiasticall persons: but either to Christ; and to him, either as our King, & then it signifieth to rule (as Mat. 2.6. cited out of Mi. 5.1. & Apoc. 12 5. as it is vsually paralleld with Psal. 2.9. Apoc. 19.15. compared with v. 16.) or as our pastor & doctor, and thē it signifieth to feed, and so ought to be translated, as Apoc: 7.17. (where, to our hunger & thirst, v. 16. his feeding & leading vs to the waters of life is opposed:) or else it is applied to all the faithfull, who in Christ are made Kings, as Apo. 2.27.Apoca. 1.6. In Act. 14.23. The Greeke scholiast, in the place quoted, hath no such thing: But is alledged by T. C. to another purpose, for the proofe of Lay-Elders (as we shal heare) which perhaps was the cause of this allegatiō, But on the place in hand,In Act. 20.28. vpon those wordes, Attend to your selues, and the flocke: he saith that Paul [...], enioyneth the teachers two things to be done: and noteth also, whom Luke called ver. 17. Presbyters, to bee called in this verse Bishops: either saith hee, because presby­ters or ministers also, must superintend the flocke: [...], or else hee calleth Bishops here, such as indeed be Bishops: & in like manner, on 1. Pet. 5.1.2 with some parallel with Act, 20.28. Hee no­teth that [...], fellow-Elder: in that place, if it bee not vsed as a word of age, doth import [...], the honour of a Bishop, as if he had called himselfe their fellow Bi­shop. For in the booke of the Acts also, Bishops are called Presbyters. and by [...], hee vnderstandeth the Clergie. [...] saith hee, [...]. Hee calleth Clerū, (which is translated inheritance) the sacred com­panie. Euen as we now also do call it, that is to say the Clergie. Which exposition if we follow, then those presbyters to whō Peter writeth, prescribing vnto them how they should [...], That is (saith Caluin,) Episcopatu fungi, exercise the office of a Bishop, and noting their authority ouer the Cler­gie, were such as we call bishops: But of that, by the way.

Now if the presbyters, Act: 20. were ministers and tea­chers as I haue proued, and as all writers, almost, euen those that are parties in the cause do teach: then by [...], we [Page] are to vnderstand the dutie of feeding,Cons. w [...] Ha [...]. p [...] which belongeth to pastors and teachers, and wil neuer be proued to belong to Lay-Elders.

The refuter hauing with such successe as you see, endeuo­red to maintaine,§ Sec [...] that the presbyters, Act. 20. were as wel Lay-Elders as ministers, and that the duties both generall, of at­tending to themselues, & the whole flocke, and also special of feeding the Church, were required, as common to Mini­sters with Lay-elders (which assertions I haue confuted, with euidence of truth) in this exposition, or opposition rather, he doth so please himselfe, as that hee doubteth not to re­tort my Syllogisme vpon me after this manner,

Heere this great Logick-maister, that taketh vpon him to teach, and to comptroll mee in matters of Logicke, bewray­eth himselfe to bee a Logicaster, or smatterer in Logicke: For an entire and a better Syllogisme, concluding the same question as I noted before in his Analyzing of mine, is here tumbled into the proposition; & the proposition and assumption therof, not only idlely, but with disaduantage to himself, if he had meant to haue proued it, repeated. But be­cause he hath bene at some paines with me this way to shew his own ignorāce, I will teach him to make his sillogis: thus:

Therefore the presbyters of whome hee speaketh, Tim. 5.17. were not onely ministers, but Lay, or onely gouerning Elders also.

This propositiō which is but part of his own assumption, whē he shalbe able to make good by any sound proofe, I will sub­scribe [Page 116] to his Lay-Elders. For whereas hee for want of better proofe saith, that hee hath already iustified it by the ouer­throw of mine, it is a most vaine bragge, as I hope it doth sufficiently appeare to the reader. For what one reason, or shew of reason hath hee brought, or can bring, to proue that the Presbyters mentioned, Acts. 20. were Lay, or onely go­uerning Elders?

CHAP. VI. Maintaining the third reason, that Lay-Elders are not men­tioned nor meant 1. Tim. 5.17.

Ad. pag. 29.THe refuter hauing neither learning enough to beare the weight of this argumēt, nor wit enough to forbeare it, in answearing therto, he vttereth more gall then would [Page] well become an honest man. The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leaue to himselfe: The vir [...]s and force of his arguments and answeres, I will take vpon me plainely to confute, and both here and euery where else, by the helpe of God, to put him to silence.

First (as his manner is) though he dares not deny the pro­position of my syllogisme to be most true and vndoubted,His cau [...] the prop yet he must needs cauill with it: And because hee hath no­thing to say against it, hee hopeth with it to wound some of our side, who among other interpretatiōs of this place, haue thought the former part of this Text might more probably be vnderstood of not preaching Ministers, or Deacons, &c: then of Lay-Elders. And although I would bee loth to be­come a Proctor for vnlearned Ministers, especially, when learned may be had: yet thus much I will say, that if the Dis­ciplinarians doe rightly ground vpon this place a distincti­on of Presbyters, into two sorts, that there be some preaching Presbyters, some not: then this text doth without cōparison, fauour the not preaching ministers more thē the Lay-elders. Because it is a most certaine truth, which I haue manifestly proued, and which the refuter will neuer be able to disproue, that by Presbyters, ministers only are meant. As for Deacōs, (I meane not your Lay Deacons) D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them vnder Presbyters, then your W. T. had vn­der the name of Deacons, to vnderstand your Lay-Elders, though T.C. himselfe did subscribe to his opinion. And wheras you challenge those reuerend men, for seeking by warrāt of this place, to surcharge the Church with main­tenance of vnpreaching Ministers and Deacons: I answere, they do not hold, that in euery parish such ought to be main­tained (as you would haue your Presbyterie erected in euery parish) but where better, & more sufficient Ministers cannot be had; which was the case of many parishes in England, at the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne, &c.

But all his spite is against the assumption:His spite a­gainst the as­sumption. though hee spend his spite, neither in disproouing it with force of argu­ment, nor in answering my proofes with any substāce of rea­son, but in sophistical cauilling & odious wrangling. For whē [Page 118] he hath said what he was able, I cannot tell whether he doth denie the assumption, or graunt it, onely hee cauilleth with my proofes of it.

My assumption was this: To Lay-Elders, the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake. Hereunto I require a direct answere.

If hee say that the honour of maintenance, yea, double honor, [...] that is, (as not only Theodore [...], but T. C. also expound [...] plentifull maintenance, is due vnto them: he should haue brought sufficient proofes, both to confute the iudgement of those learned Diuines, who reformed (as directors) other Churches, and condemne the practise of all reformed Chur­ches, which hauing those Presbyters, doe not allow, neither doe thinke themselues bound to allow any maintenance at all to their Lay-Elders: and also to perswade all those refor­med Churches which haue them not, and which in manie parishes are either not able, or not willing to yeeld sufficient maintenāce to one learned minister, to erect in euery parish, besides the Pastor, and the Doctor, a Senate of Lay-Elders, with purpose to vndergoe an vnsupportable charge, and to think themselues bound by the word of God to allow them all, and euery of them sufficient maintenance. But what one reason doth he, or can he alledge to perswade this, or where doth he go about to perswade it? If he say, according to the iudgement and practise of all Churches whatsoeuer, which either haue them, or haue them not, that this honour of maintenance is not due vnto them; why doth he not inge­nuously confesse, that which is ineuitably proued out of the words, that Lay-Elders are neither mentioned nor meant in this place. If hee say (as indeed that is all he doth say) that my proofes are not sufficient: what better proofe would hee require in such breuitie, then the confession of the parties? yea, but they doe not confesse it.

First therefore I will proue their confession. And second­ly, I will demonstrate, that the double honour of mainte­nance, though they did not confesse so much, is not by the word of God, due to their imagined Lay-Elders for their workes sake.

[Page 120]Their confession I proue thus:Their [...] th [...] tenanc [...] due to [...] What the learned refor­mers prescribed to be done according to Gods word as they pretended, that was their Doctrine.

That there should be onely gouerning Elders, elected out of the people or Laitie, without maintenance to be yeel­ded to them, was prescribed by the learned reformers ac­cording to the word of God as they pretended.

Therefore, that there sho'uld be Elders, elected out of the Laitie, without maintenance to be yeelded to them, was the Doctrine of the learned reformers.

The proposition needs no proofe:

The assumption I confirme thus;

That which is practised according to the lawes of Disci­pline, in all those reformed churches: where the Presbyteries be erected, was prescribed by the learned reformers, accor­ding to the word of God, as they pretended.

The election of only-gouerning Elders, out of the Laity, without maintenance to be yelded to them, is practised in all those reformed churches, according to the laws of discipline

Therefore the election of only gouerning-Elders, out of the Laitie, without maintenance to be yeelded to them, was prescribed by the learned reformers, according to the word of God, as they pretended. And consequently, that Lay-Elders are not to haue maintenance, is both the Doctrine of the learned reformers, and the practise of all those Chur­ches reformed by them.

The proposition is manifest, because the lawes of Disci­pline in those Churches, were either prescribed by the lear­ned reformers, or framed according to their prescript. The assumption may also be euidētly proued by induction: For the Lay-Elders, neither in the Churches of Geneua, France, Low-countreys, haue, nor of Scotland, had any mainte­nāce allowed thē, & that according to the lawes of their dis­cipline; neither can the refuter giue any one instance to the contrary. It shal suffice me to make instāce in Geneua, which was a patterne in this behalfe to the rest.Bez. in vit. An. 1536. [...] 1541. In Geneua is this or­der takē by their lawes, whereof Caluin was the chiefe author, that of the 12. only gouerning Elders, ioyned to the 6. mini­sters, [Page 120] 6. shuld be chosen out of the Councell of 200.4. out of the Coūcel of 60.2. out of the Councel of 25. all statesmen;See the lawes of Geneua, & summ. capit. di [...]c [...]ph. Eccl. Gen [...]a inter e [...]ist. Calui [...]j Bez. de grad. M [...]. c. 11. pag. [...]. [...] ibid. [...] before the Hel [...]et confess. Lib. 1. 179. to this end, both that they should be of great countenance, and also that the Church should not be charged with allow­ing them any maintenāce: Beza professeth that euery where in other Churches the like choyce, according to the state of the place, is made; viz: Not of the meaner or poorer sort, but men of great, both abilitie & authoritie, are chosen to be of the Presbyterie: And else-where he saith, that considerati­on must be had, that Princes & Noblemen, and such as be of authority, be chosen into the Seignorie. And T.C. himselfe cōfesseth it to be the practise of the Churches in these dayes, to make choice of such Elders, as are able to liue, without charging the church any whit. Their cōfessiō I haue shewed.

‘§ Sect, 4. His obiection denying their confessi­on refuted. Now let vs see what the refuter obiecteth. 1. That I might haue read the contrary in Calui [...], Bullinger, Beza, Cartwright, D. Bilson, and D. Sutcliffe, but that it seemes I did not read on that side of the leafe.’ And it seemes to mee, that you would not haue me read on that side as yet, or rather, that there is no such thing to be read: Else you would haue pointed, if not to the leafe, yet at least, to the booke. For my part, I professe that I doe not remember, that I haue read any such thing, ei­ther in Caluin, Beza, or Bullinger, but the contrary, as I haue shewed in Caluin and Beza. As for Bullinger, you had lesse reason to alledge him,D. Bil [...]on. pag. 130. seeing that you found him cited to­gether, with the other two, expounding this word honour, as signifying the maintenance due to ministers.

As touching D. Bils: it is strange that you should both ac­cuse mee for taking this reason from him, and also charge him with teaching the contrary. In his preface, hee saith thus:pag. 7. By no precept nor example will it euer be proued, that Lay-presbyters had in the Apostles times, or should haue by the word of God at any time, double honour and maintenance from the Church of Christ. Wherefore they must either giue all Lay-Elders dou­ble maintenance, as S. Paul willeth, which they doe not, or shutte them cleane from these words, which yeeld double maintenance, by Gods Law to Presbyters that rule well. pag. 129.130. Ad pag: 30. And to the like purpose hee speaketh, in the place by you quoted.

[Page 121]The speech of that worthy learned man,D. [...] who is high­ly to be commended for his great learning, good paines, and zealous affection for the maintenance of the truth, whom you vilely and vngraciously abuse, as you doe all o­thers that come in your way, be they neuer so worthy champions of our Church against the Papists, his reproofe I say of T. C. for requiring maintenance as due to the Lay-Elders,Pag. 90. I haue not seene to my remembrance. But this I re­member well, that I haue read in his treatise of Ecclesiasti­call discipline,1. Tim. 5. 1. Pet 5. that the Elders whereof the Apostles speake re­ceiued wages of the Church. But (saith he) the new Aldermen in all Churches where they raigne, liue vpon interest of their owne money or goods, and receiue no salarie of the Churches.

Neither had he indeed any great reason (in my iudge­ment) to blame T. C. (that I may also come to him) as op­posing his iudgement to the practise of the reformed Chur­ches.Lib. 1.17▪ 179. For although he seeme to say, that by the Apostles rule such Elders, as be poore, ought to be relieued at the Churches charge; yet it doth not seeme to be his iudge­ment, that he would haue Lay-Elders maintained at the Churches charge. But this is one of his colours, whereby he would perswade, that the Eldership should rather now be admitted, then in the Apostles times. Because if the Apostle would charge the Churches being in persecution, and therefore poore with maintaining Elders, which being poore, were not some­times able to liue without some reliefe from the Church, &c: how much more ought there now to be Seniors, when the Churches be in peace, and therefore not so poore, and when there may be chosen such for the most part throughout the realme, as are able to liue without charging the Church any whit, as the practise of these daies doth manifestly declare. For if it had beene his iudge­ment, that Lay-Elders are to be maintained otherwise then for need, he would haue argued thus.

[Page 122]But seeing he doth tollere consequens, contradict the con­sequent, saying, that when the Churches are in peace and prosperitie, such a course may and ought to be taken (for that may seeme to be his meaning) according to the exam­ple of all the reformed Churches, that the Church shall not be charged at all with the maintenance of the Seniors, that is to say, by choosing men of abilitie who need no reliefe; it is easie to conclude tollendo antecedens, that his iudgement was, that (this rule of the Apostle notwithstanding,) Lay-Elders were not to haue maintenance for their workes sake, but reliefe onely if they did need.

Chap. 14. Pag. 74.Of the same iudgement is the demonstratour of disci­pline: for it being obiected that the parishes would be ouer­burdened in prouiding for so many: he answereth, it is not necessarie that they should prouide for any more of them, sauing those that are exercised in the ministerie of the word, vnlesse any of the rest may need the liberalitie of the Church.

But suppose that this were T. C. iudgement, or the opi­nion of any other among vs, who hath conceiued a platoni­call Idea of discipline which he neuer saw practised: were this sufficient to disproue my assertion, who haue the con­fession of the learned reformers in respect of their doctrine, and of the reformed Churches in respect of their practise? Or if this were a sufficient exception against the consent of those which stand for discipline, that some one doth hold a singular opinion by himselfe; then can their consent be scarcely alledged for any one affirmatiue point of disci­pline, euery man almost pleasing himselfe in the noueltie of his inuention, and in the singularitie of his opinion. For plentifull proofe whereof,Chap. 4.5.6.7.9.11.12.14.16.17.18.19.31.34. I referre you to the suruey of the pretended discipline.

§ 5. His second obiection is, that although in practise reformed Churches doe not giue their Lay-Elders any maintenance, yet this doth not hinder, but that in their iudgement they may according to the Apostles rule,His 2, Ob­iection. e­steeme them worthy of it. ‘Can we doubt saith he, but our Clergie maisters thinke M. D. worthy of a Bishoppricke for his paines in pleading their cause: yet we see they bestowe not so [Page 123] much as a suffraganeship on him. Shall we therefore say they doe not thinke him to deserue it?’

What a profane mockerie is this, to expound the Apo­stles words, as though hee would haue the people thinke they had discharged their dutie in esteeming onely their Ministers worthy of double honour, when in fact they doe not yeeld them sufficient maintenance. If he were in the mi­nisterie (as I know not whether he be or not) and the peo­ple should answere him thus: Syr, though we allow you no maintenance as you desire, yet let this content you, that ac­cording to the Apostles rule, we count you worthy of dou­ble honour: would he not thinke S. Paul abused, himselfe deluded, yea and Christ his Lord and maister in him to be mocked?Gal. 6.7. Be not deceiued saith the Apostle, speaking in this cause, God is not mocked. That which I say of Ministers, is in like manner to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders, if they be in­cluded in this text. The words of the Apostle are generall, the Presbyters that rule well, let them be counted worthy of dou­ble honour. Wherefore let them either acknowledge that the Lay-Elders are not meant in this place, or else teach the people before they admit Lay-Elders, to thinke them­selues bound by the Apostles rule, to yeeld them double honour,Lib. 1.178. (that is saith T. C. a plentifull reward, such as may be fully sufficiēt for them and their housholds) and to yeeld it willingly & gratefully. For that is the Apostles meaning, when he requireth the Presbyters to be accounted worthy of double honour, not onely that this honour of mainte­nance should be giuen them, as appeareth by the reasons which he hath annexed; but that the people should giue it, not grudgingly, and as it were by constraint of law, as thin­king the Ministers not worthy of maintenance: but willing­ly and gratefully, as esteeming them most worthy of dou­ble honour, and thinking it a small matter to giue tempo­rall things to them,1. Cor. 9.11 Obiect. 3. of whom they receive spirituall. Nei­ther is it to any purpose which he obiecteth concerning either ‘Pauls refusing of maintenance from the Corinthians and Thessalonains, or of wealthy Ministers refusing to burden the Churches by taking maintenance from them:’ vnlesse he [Page 124] can proue, that order being taken in those Churches for the maintenance of their Elders, which they may readily receiue if they will, themselues doe voluntarily, and freely refuse it. For if those Elders be comprised vnder Presbyters in this text, there must the like order be taken for mainte­nance of all by the Apostles rule, though the painefull Prea­chers are chiefely to be respected.

But the contrarie course is taken. Neither is there not hauing of maintenance to be ascribed to their owne refu­sing, as in the example of Paul, and the wealthy Ministers; but to the Churches not allowing them maintenance.

Obiect. 4.To the like purpose is that which he saith, that I‘need not insult ouer those reformed Churches, which with con­sent of the Elders themselues, thinke it best to ease the people of that charge, seeing the paines to be taken in the office of the El­dership is not such, but that they may attend their ciuill callings and meanes of liuing, as well as our Churchwardens, and ciuill officers.’ In which words, first, he wrongfully chargeth me with insulting ouer those Churches. Secondly, he con­futeth himselfe, who hauing before denied them to be Lay-Elders, here confesseth they haue ciuill callings, which they may attend vpon, as well as our Churchwardens. Thirdly, where hee speaketh of the Elders consent in not taking maintenance, it is the consent of obedience to the lawes and orders of the Church, such as is in our Churchwardens, who by the like consent haue no maintenance. But to leaue his words, and to come to the substance of his speech; see­ing their paines are not such, but that they may follow their ciuill callings and worldly busines, and seeing they haue ciuill callings to attend vpon, and other sufficient meanes of liuelihood, being in all these respects like, if not superi­our to our Churchwardens, it may not be thought that the Apostle who was desirous the Churches should be ea­sed as much as might be, would require them to giue dou­ble honour to such, as neither deserued nor needed such maintenance.

And therfore he did not comprise them vnder the name of Presbyters (which indeed signifieth Priests or Ministers) [Page 125] or if he did, no Church must thinke it selfe to haue autho­ritie to dispense with the Apostle, but must acknowledge it selfe bound, if it vnderstand Lay-Elders to be comprised in this text, willingly and gratefully to giue double (that is sufficient and plentifull) maintenance to them, esteeming them worthy of it for their worke sake.

The onely thing which is obiected by the learned of that side,§ Sect. The exc [...] ­tion, that Elders if need, are haue allo [...]ance, ans [...]red. is that, which I mention in the Sermon: that their Lay-Elders, if they stand in need, are to be maintained. Whereun­to I now adde, that some of them so vnderstand the Apostle: and I answere, that if hee be so vnderstood in respect of Lay-Elders, he must in like manner be vnderstood of Mi­nisters, his speech being generall, and fauouring the Mini­sters no more then thus,T.C. that as all Elders are to be main­tained if they need, so especially Preachers; whom notwith­standing the Apostle would haue, according to equitie and iustice, maintained with an honourable stipend for their worke sake, and not onely by way of almes to be relieued for their need.

But here the refuter behaueth himselfe as one that is at a nonplus for reason, and at an ouerplus for rancour: his words added to the last I cited, be these. ‘But to proue it, he propoundeth (out of the surueyour of discipline, cap. 10.) an obiection, and then answereth it. The summe whereof is this, that the maintenance allowed them, is rather a beggarly almes giuen in charitie for need, then that honourable stipend, which iniustice is due to them for their worke sake.’ ‘But to proue it, saith he, what would I proue? the refuter is confoun [...]ed, he knoweth not well what he saith. He propoundeth saith he an obiection out of the surueyour.’ Sure his eyes dazeled, and his witts were to seeke. In the suruey is not so much as a shew of any such obiection: neither is it alledged to any o­ther end, but to proue that, whereunto the letter in the mar­gent directed him, that is, that they make choise of such as haue no need. But what is it?‘the summe whereof is this, that the maintenance allowed them is rather a beggerly almes, &c.’ Is this the summe of the obiection? that is senselesse, and yet he seemes to say so: What then? is it the summe of the [Page 126] answere, or of both? no man that were not at a losse would say it. I professe I haue not often read a speech more sense­lesse. To helpe him out of the maze, and to make him con­fesse that hee was at a nonplus, I will explaine my words. For whereas some obiect said I, &c: My meaning was this, the onely thing which is obiected to disproue my assumption, that to the Lay-Elders the honour of maintenance is not due for their worke sake, is this: that Lay-Elders if they stand in need are to be maintained. Which obiection hath beene made personally to me, I will not say by the refuter, though some thinke so, for I take that obiector to be an honester man: and that which is obiected, is that conceit not onely of T. C. the maister, and the demonstrator his scholler, but of Danaeus also writing on that place:In 1. Tim. 5.17. To this obiection of their need, I answered first, that it is needlesse, (as the refu­ter also in the words following doth censure it) as being preuented by all those reformed Churches where the Pres­byters be erected, in which order is taken, that none shall be chosen into the seigniorie, but such as be of good abilitie. To which purpose I cited the tenth chapter of the Suruey: the argument wherof is this. Their Aldermen must be (accor­ding to their owne positions) men of good calling: and among other things in that chapter, are cited the lawes of Geneua, requiring, that all their twelue Lay-Elders should be men of state &c: as I said before.

Secondly, I answered, if they chance to haue need (which is a case that happeneth as seldome at the least to them, as to our Church-wardens) and if they be relieued (as our Church-wardens also should in the like case) that then the maintenance which is allowed, is for their need, and not for their worke sake. But the Apostle saith, the Presbyters are worthy of double honour, and the workeman is worthy of his stipend, &c. As if I had said: the reliefe which is giuen to Lay-Elders for their need (if euer that doe happen) doth not disproue my assumption, nor proue that they are in­cluded in this text. For,

Now let vs heare what the refuter addeth to his former words. ‘But saith he as the obiection is needlesse, so his answere is insufficient,’ here now he speaketh with reason, though without truth. The obiection is made by the chiefe of his side, and is the best (though needlesse) if not the onely ob­iection, they haue. My answere is such as you haue heard, that is to say, such an answere, as whensoeuer he medleth with it, will bring him to a nonplus againe: but because I said he speaketh with reason, let vs heare his reason. ‘For saith he albeit their necessitie occasioneth their maintenance by com­mon allowance, Ad pag. 3 [...] yet is it for their worke sake that they are main­tained:’ to which I reply: if it were a maintenance in iustice due for their worke sake, and not a reliefe giuen onely in charitie by way of almes for their need; that then it ought in iustice to be giuen to them, whether they be in need or not. For the workeman is worthy of his stipend for his worke sake; and willingly it must be giuen him as deseruing it, whether he need or not. For although it be a crying sinne, and doe offend more against charitie to hold it from him if he need: yet it offendeth as much against iustice, to withhold the stipend from the workeman, that is not in need. The stipend, which Paul appointeth to Presbyters, in respect of their paines in edifying the Church, which is the house of God, is as due in iustice to them for their [Page 128] worke sake, as the stipend is due to a Carpenter, that buil­deth an house. And as it were iniustice ioyned with folly, for a man not to thinke himselfe bound to giue the Carpenter his stipend, vnlesse he be poore: the like is to be conceiued of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth, which is due for their worke.

The rest of his speech is vttered in rancour and gall: but the points be these. First, that‘it doth not become me, &c: to call it a beggerly maintenance. Secondly, that it is more then is giuen to our Church-wardens that are crept into their roomes. The third, which is more plainely vttered in the abortiue booke, that the like perhaps will not make D. D. rich.’ In what sense I called it beggarly almes, giuen onely in charitie, opposing it to honourable stipend, due in iustice, I haue already explaned. To the second I answere, our Church-wardens, hauing lesse trouble, haue notwith­standing no lesse allowance, then your Elders, for they haue none at all. And where you say, our Church-wardens are crept into their roomes: you must first proue that euer they had a roome in the Church. For we will neuer grant that our Church-wardens be your Elders successours, till you haue proued your Elders to haue beene their predecessors. And whereas you make your selues merrie with my want of riches, as you did before with my want of preferment; I tell you plainely, I had rather be poorer then M.D. is with a good conscience, then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction, to be maintained by it.

§ Sect. 8. No honour of maintenance appointed to Lay-Elders in Gods booke. See the suruey of discipli. Pag. 440.441.Thus haue I maintained my assumption, and the pro­syllogisme thereof concerning their confession. Now I will proue by another argument, that the honour of mainte­nance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders, and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God, nor hath any warrant in the scriptures. We haue often heard great words, that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church, if not an article of your faith; that it is to little purpose to receiue the doctrine, vnlesse we also em­brace the discipline of Christ, meaning the pretended disci­pline: that your discipline is the kingdome of Christ, where­in [Page 129] your Presbyters hold, as it were Christs scepter; that to de­nie this discipline,Demōst & yet to professe Christ to be our King, is with the souldiers that crucified him, to put a Reede in his hand,Prefac. demons [...] and a crowne of thornes on his head: that in the se­cond petition of the Lords prayer, Let thy Kingdome come, wee are to pray, that your Discipline may be aduanced; that the question betweene the BB. and you, is about no lesse matter then this,Ibid. whether Iesus Christ shall bee King or no: that in denying your discipline, wee are the men that say, Luke 19.Luk. 19. & 27. Table o [...] cipl. Wee wll not haue this man to raigne ouer vs: and to vs is applyed that terrible doome, Those mine enemies that would not haue mee to raigne ouer them, bring hither, and slay them be­fore mee: and many such like speeches, concerning the king­dome of Christ, which being applied to your owne deuices, are not farre from blasphemie. These confident speeches considered, a man would think that you haue most euident, certaine, and vndeniable grounds for your Presbyteries. But when I come to examine your proofes, & to search the Scriptures, and records of antiquitie; I professe vnfainedly, & in the feare of God, that I cannot sufficiently wonder, that men of reading should approue, & men of sinceritie should vrge so confidently, and maintaine so resolutely, euen vnto silencing and depriuation, such not onely humane deuices, but meere nouelties, as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Sauiour; for which, after all the search which hath beene made, there cannot be produced any sound testimonie. But to come to the point: you say, (if you deny my aforesaid as­sumption,) that to Lay-Elders gouerning well double ho­nour is due by the word of God, for their worke sake. I say, the holie Ghost is so farre from assigning this double ho­nour to them, that neither their worke, or office it selfe, for which that honour should be due to them, nor their quali­ties whereby they should bee qualified for that office, nor themselues,§ Sect. 9 The office Lay-Elders n [...]t prescrib [...] in the scrip­tures. or their names, wherby they should be knowne are once mentioned, or intimated in the holy scriptures.

For first, as touching their office: it is by them assigned, either to their Elders seuerally, or to the Elder-ship iointly Their duty seuerally, is to be watchmē in y^e Church, hauing [Page 130] their seuerall Wards or precincts appointed to them, where­in they are to obserue the manners of men for auoiding of­fences, and other occurrents for peruerting disorders.

The manners of men they are to enquire into, and to prie into their faults, that if they be secret or small, they may admonish the offenders priu [...]ly: if opē or great, they may in­forme the Consistory therof. And for other occurrēts, they are to looke that good orders be kept, especially respecting the sacraments. As they are to informe their pastor if there be any childe in their Warde to be baptized, if there be any in their precinct, lately come into the parish, to acquaint the Minister before the Communion, and at the Communion to keepe backe those whose religion and honestie is not knowne, and whom the Ministers haue not dealt withall be­fore. Wherfore, as in respect of manners, they are by them cōpared to the Censors of the Romanes, so in respect of good orders, they are as the [...], of the Athenians.

The ioynt-office of the Elders, is the office of the whole Presbyterie, or Eldership, Consistorie, or sacred Senate, which in the Assemblie of the Elders of the Church, who by com­mon counsell and authoritie, do rule and gouerne the same.

For as Lacedemon had her Seignorie, Athens her high court of the Areopagi [...]s, Rome, her Senate, and euery king­dome their counsell, so euery Church, (that is, euery parish according, to the new disciplinarians) must haue her Presby­terie, or sacred Senate, vnto which Christ hath giuen the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, whereby is meant all Ec­clesiasticall power and authoritie.

This authoritie respecteth either the Officers of the Church, or the offenders. Officers, as Pastors, Doctors, El­ders, Deacons. Concerning whome the Eldership hath au­thoritie to elect, ordaine, depriue, or depose them.

As touching offenders, the Eldership hath authoritie to censure them, either by reproofe, suspension, or excom­munication.

Belieue mee, if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders, then haue they an office of great consequence indeed.Eccl. dis. fo. 5 But if you remember their own [Page 131] positions,T.C. l. pag: 16 Demons [...] pag: 1: [...] that the Word of God doth perfectly describe all the lawfull offices of the Church; and that no office or cal­ling in the Church is lawfull, but that which is directly war­ranted out of the Word: yet it was the sinne for which Co­reh, Dathan, and Abiram were punished, in that they presu­med, though they were Leuites, to take in hād that for which they had no warrant: then can you not but expect most ma­nifest & pregnant proofes out of the Scripture, directly war­ranting this whole office, and all the branches thereof. Or if you faile of your expectation, you cannot but wonder at the extreme boldnes of them, who holding these positions, im­pose vpon the Church, an office of such authority, not as an humane pollicie, but as the holie ordinance of Christ, ha­uing no warrant in the Scriptures.

But what one pregnant testimonie of Scripture can they produce,The parts the Elders [...]ice, not p [...]scribed in Scripture. pursuing any one part of their Lay-Elders office? Vpon my credite not one. For first a peculiar office, either of spirituall watch-men, the scriptures acknowledge none.

Besides, Prophets, and Priests, or Ministers, or of Censors of mens manners, besides ministers and Magistrates: and much lesse doe the scriptures appoint a peculiar officer to be the accuser of the bretheren.

Indeed it is the dutie of all good Christians, mutuallie to exercise the duties of the Communion of Saints, by instru­cting, exhorting, admonishing, rebuking, comforting one another. And as the Apostle s [...]ith, to consider or obserue on [...] another, to prouoke vnto loue, and to good workes.

We may not be of Cains minde,Heb: 1▪ who said, Am I my bro­thers keeper? We are so farre to be keepers and obseruers of our brethren, as by all good meanes to further and aduance the saluation one of another.

The Lord hath charged thee in the Law,Leu. 19. freely to rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sinne to rest upon him. And likewise in the Gospell,Matt: 18 15, 16, 17▪ If thy brother sinne against thee (either commit­ting an iniurie against thee, or giuing thee offence, by some sinne committed in thy knowledge, laying by his euill ex­ample, a scandall or stumbling blocke in thy way,) goe and reprous him, privately betweene thee & him alone, If he heare thee [Page 132] thou hast wonne thy brother. But if he heare thee not, take yet with thee one or two; if he will not heare them, tell the assemblie, &c. But a speciall Church-officer to prye into o­ther mens faults, such as S. Peter calleth [...], the scriptures do not appoynt, and much lesse to informe against, or to accuse priuate offenders, such as we call Pro­m [...]ters, and the Grecians, Sycophants.

As for their diuiding of Parishes into Wardes, and awar­ding them to seuerall Elders, as also all the rest of the offices and duties assigned to their Elders, of acquainting the mi­nisters who is to bee Baptized, what new parishioners are come, of helping at the Communion, and repelling some there from, they must and doe confesse they haue no scrip­ture for them: and yet all these duties must bee thought to be prescribed in Gods word.

Eccl. discipl. 122To which purpose, the arguments which some of their chiefe writers do vse, are these. First, that although all these things be not specially expressed in scripture,T.C. Beza Arguments prouing the office of El­ders out of the Scripture, an­swered. yet forasmuch as offences must bee auoided, and those duties of Charitie, and Communion of Saintes must bee performed, as also those things which appertaine to good order prouided for: and forasmuch as there are no other officers or Elders to whom the charge of these things should belong; therefore satis vt opinor apparet, haec ad Presbyterorum officium ex verbo Dei referenda esse; I thinke it sufficiētly appeareth, that these things by the word of God, are to be referred to the office of Elders. Their argument standeth thus.

All necessary duties which the Scripture hath not assig­ned to other officers or Elders, it hath appointed to these Elders.

But the duties before spoken of, are necessarie duties, which the scripture hath not assigned to any other officers or Elders.

Therefore the duties before spoken of, the scripture hath assigned to these Elders.

It seemeth by the proposition, that the Lay-Elders haue begged a book of concealmēts, that they may be authorized to deale in all these causes, for which other men haue not [Page 133] expresse cōmission. But first I denie that the Scipture hath graunted them any such concealements. Nay, I most con­fidently auow, that they themselues are concealed in the Scriptures, which doe not once mention them in anie place. And therefore, if there bee cases omitted, that the Scripture hath not assigned to other Elders or officers; We may thinke it hath referred them to the wisedome of the Church, and authoritie of the Soueraigne, r [...]er then to them, whom it neuer mentioneth. Secondly I answere, that there are many necessarie duties, the performance whereof the holy Ghost hath not assigned to any publike Officers at all, as though there should bee speciall offices appointed for them; but are to be performed by euery Chri­stian; as the aforesaid duties which concerne the auoyding of scandales, the duties of Charitie and Communion of Saints. Likewise, there are duties respecting outward or­der and decencie, which the Scripture doth not prescribe in particular, and much lesse assigne to any peculiar office.

But the determination of these particulars, and the no­mination of the functions or persons wherevnto they shal­be assigned, is left to the discretion of the Church, and au­thoritie of the Soueraigne.

And to such purposes, other Churches may appoint Lay-Elders, as well as ours doth Churchwardens, so they doe not vrge them as the ordinance of Christ, nor giue them com­mission to intermeddle with things aboue their reach, as being peculiar either to the Ministers of the Word, or the Ciuil Magistrate.

Their second Argument.

[Page 134]This discourse containeth 2. Syllogismes: the

But the Antecedent is true. 1. Tim. 5.17.

Therefore the consequent.

To the assumption of the former Syllogisme, I an­swere, that Lay-Elders are no wheres said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters, or [...]: to gouerne or ouersee, but all those places, which be alleadged to this purpose, are to bee vnderstood of Ministers onely.

Besides, the same Author hath confessed; that Lay Elders are not Byshops, neither will he say, that they be Pastors.

But the places which he quoteth, are to be vnderstood of Bishops & Pastors. Of Act. 20.28. & 1. Pet. 5. I haue already spoken, as also of 1. Thess. 5.12. Why Heb. 13.17. should be applpyed to Lay-Elders, there is no reason; vnlesse whatso­euer is spoken of Spirituall gouernors, is to be vnderstood of them. The Writers, both olde and new, expound it of Bishops and Pastors.

The assumption also of the second syllogisme is vntrue, neither hath it any thing to support it, but their owne ex­position of 1. Tim. 5.17. which I haue proued to be false. Neither is that true, which is presupposed in both syllo­gismes: [Page] that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of ouersight. For both the parts of [...], or ouersight, belong to those which be [...], ouerseers, that is Bishops and Pastors, whose dutie is, both to teach and to gouerne.

Their third Argument is taken from the practise of the primitiue Church next succeeding the Apostles. Which of all their Arguments is most friuolous, there being not anie testimonie of any writer, or example of any Church to bee alledged, that euer there was such an office in the Church.

But howsoeuer these duties to be performed by the El­ders seuerally, might be borne with, so they were not obtru­ded as the ordinances of Christ: yet the ioynt office of their Lay-presbyteryes is intollerable. For what reason can they alledge for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors, & vsurping the keyes of the kingdome of hea­uen, which our Sauiour Christ committed to none, but to the Apostles, and their successors? That Lay-men should haue authoritie, and that by the ordinance of Christ, to or­daine Ministers by imposition of hands, to remit or re­taine sinnes, to excommunicate the obstinate, or to recon­cile the penitent, is an opinion too absurde to be confuted.

Thus therefore I reason, according to their owne prin­ciples. No office in the Church is lawfull, as themselues say, which hath not expresse warrant in the scriptures, which is all one, as if they had said, ‘All lawfull offices in the church, haue expresse warrant in Gods word.’

The office of the Lay-Elders seuerally, and of their El­derships yearely, hath not expresse warrant in Gods word: ‘Therfore it is vnlawfull.’

To their office wee will ioyne the consideration of their qualities:§ Sect. 12. The qualitie of Elders, not de­scribed in Gods word. for surely, if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures, an office of such importance, it is to bee thought, that he would also haue described what manner of men were to be chosen to it, and how qualified for the per­formance of an office of so high a nature. And although he omitted their qualities in other places, yet mee thinks if [Page 136] it be a function that is in dignitie vnder the Minister, but a­boue the Deacon, the Apostle could not haue forgotten them, in 1. Tim. 3: where he describeth the qualities, not only of Bishops and Ministers which be aboue them, but of the Deacons also, which are beneath them; directing Timo­ [...], and in him all Bishops, what manner of persons to or­ [...]a [...] Ministers, or Deacons. Forgotten? say they, why, are they not plainly expressed in that place? Yes no doubt, for that is agreed vpon among vs: For some will needs com­prise them vnder the Bishop or Minister, and feare not to [...]ay, [...]. that they also must be su [...] modo, [...], that is, able [...] preach after their fashion. Others acknowledge, that they are neuer comprehended vnder the name Bishop, and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone, to be [...], able to preach, especially, in that sense that the Apo­stle meaneth, as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit: 1.9: yet resolued to finde a roome for them in that place, and not to suffer them to be excluded, are faine to s [...]row [...]e them vnder the name of Deacons: [...] Pag 44 though the name of Deacon, neither in scriptures, nor Fathers, was euer attributed to them. How they will compound these contrarieties I know not. For if they be comprised vnder the name Bishop, then are they not to be shrowded vnder Deacons and if they be contained vnder Deacons, then are they not comprised vnder Bishops.

It shall [...] me to alledge, that forsomuch as the El­dership is in their conceit a different office, both from the Minister and Deacon, that it is comprehended in neither. For who cannot conceiue this reason?

‘ [...] The refu [...] hath solemnely proclaimed before, and required all men to take notice of it, that their Elders [Page 137] ought to be men religious, of great grauitie and pietie, and of good yeares also, if it may be, as the name importeth, called with due examination, chosen with consent of the congregation ouer which they are set, with prayer and imposition of hands put a part to that Ecclesiasticall office.’ All which I will not denie to haue beene politickely deuised, so it may be acknowled­ged an humane deuise, and not a diuine ordinance. But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proofe of these things? The truth is, there is not one testimonie of scripture to be alledged, prescribing the office, or descri­bing the qualities of Lay-Elders.

But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling, though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God. Nor that neither: as shall appeare, when I come to answere the refuters allegations for them. In the meane time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge, if they can pro­duce any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures, whereby it may necessarily be concluded, that either there were at any time, or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speake of, that then I will yeeld to them in the whole controuersie betwixt vs. But vntill such proofe be produced for them, which will neuer be: they shall giue me leaue to esteeme their doc­trine of Lay-Elders, to be, as it is, a meere fiction, how vehe­mently soeuer it be vrged and obtruded vpon vs, as the ho­ly discipline of Christ.

And now had wee done with this place of the Epistle to Timothie, § Sect. 13. His 3. ca­u [...]les against pag. 10. an­swered. sauing that the refuter looking backe to the [...]enth page of my Sermon, as being loath thus to leaue wrangling with my exposition of that text, noted three things to be cauilled at, in this one speech, where I say, that Ministers are especially to be honoured for their paines in preaching of the word, that being, in Pauls estimation, the chiefe worke of the ministerie. For first, he would ‘faine know of me why [...]adde in Pauls esti­mation’. I answere, because it was necessarie to be added: for in such comparatiue sentences, where one part seemeh to be preferred before all the rest, we are not alwaies to vn­derstand [Page 138] that part simply to be the chiefe, but in the estimation of the speaker, who in some respect preferreth it to the rest. As for example, if that you should say, all good Ministers or Preachers are greatly to be honoured, especially they, who goe before their people in the example of a godly life: I would expound your meaning (as I did the Apostles) to be this, that whereas double honour is due to all Ministers or Preachers, for the performance of their dutie in generall, [...] they are especially to be honoured for their godly life, that being in your estimation the chiefe commendation of a Minister. Or to vse the refuters owne example, which be­fore I explaned: all logicians that reason well, are to be well accounted of, especially they that iudge well, or are iudici­ous. In this speech are to be noted, not two sorts, but two duties of logicians; the one generall, to reason well, the o­ther, speciall to iudge well, disposed in a comparatiue sen­tence, wherein the duties of a logician are thus compared, that whereas logicians are to be esteemed for the perfor­mance of their dutie in generall; yet especially they are to be honoured for iudging well, that being in the estimation of him that shall so speake, the chiefe worke of a Logician: I say in the estim [...]i [...] of him that shall so speake; for another perhaps would say thus; All logicians that reason well are to be well esteemed, especially those that analise well: another perhaps thus. All good Logicians are to be honoured, especially those that are methodicall; another thus, especially those that inuent well. In like manner I explane the Apostles speech, as hath beene shewed before. ‘I but saith he, if this be true that those Mini­sters are especially worthy of double honour, that labour in the word and doctrine; then some poore Ministers that continually preach or would doe, if they might be suffered, are more especi­ally to be honoured then some great prelates, that seldome or ne­uer preach: and it was the enuy of this illation, which by saying in Pauls estimation, you would deriue from your selfe to the [...]stle.’ Answ. The Apostles comparison is to be vn­derstood of them which be of the same degree, being Pres­byters and no more. Neither was it Pauls meaning, writing to Timothie the Bishop, that any of the Presbyters should [Page 139] haue more maintenance then he, (for that is the honour whereof hee speaketh) though perhaps they were more painefull in preaching, as hauing better opportunitie. It is well knowne that in the primitiue Church, when the reue­newes of [...]ach Church were diuided into Vid [...] confess. [...] s. 30. Syn [...] Rom. sub syluest. c. 12. q. 2. [...].27.28.2.30. foure parts, the Bishop alone had one fourth part, and that was as much as all the Presbyters and all the rest of the clergie (though perhaps there were an hundred of them) had amongst them: For all of them had but another fourth part, a third fourth part went to the buildings and reparations, and the fourth to the poore.

His second cauill,§ Sect. 1 [...] Ad pag. 3 [...] His 2. ca [...] ‘that in other places, viz. pag. 42.45.53. I haue through flatterie contradicted this assertion, making gouerning a labour of greater honour then preaching.’ Answ. In none of those places doe I compare preaching with go­uerning, but Bishops with Presbyters, saying and prouing that Bishops are superiour to Presbyters in the power of or­dination and iurisdiction, and that the Bishops are the Apo­stles successors in the gouernement of the Church. But doth it follow because Bishops are superiour to Presbyters, that therefore preaching is a worke inferiour to gouerne­ment? I trust Bishops are equall at the least with Presbyters in the power of order, as it respecteth the ministerie of the word and sacraments, so that what can be said in commen­dation of the order of Presbyters in respect of the ministe­rie, belongeth also to Bishops. If therefore BB. being at the least equall with Presbyters in the power of order, respec­ting the ministerie of the word and sacraments, be aboue them not onely in the exercise of that power, but also in the power of ordination and iurisdiction; they may, with­out disparagement to the ministerie of the word, be said to be superiour to other Ministers.

To your third cauill I might answere as to the first,His 3. cauill that the Apostle speaketh to the Bishop of Presbyters, not to a Presbyter; as you doe, of Bishops. But indeed our Bishops, as they ought all, so the most of them (as I trust) doe thinke themselues bound to preach, when they haue opportuni­tie and leysure in respect of their other weightie imploy­ments; [Page 140] in regard whereof I haue alwaies thought, that one good Bishop, though hee haue not opportunitie to preach very oft, may doe more good in the Church of God, then a dozen good Preachers. So that in these three cauilles the refuter hath gained nothing, but the manifesta­tion of his owne malice, which I pray God to forgiue him.

CHAP. VII. [...] Ambros [...] in 1. Tim. 5. [...]. doth not giue testimonie to the Lay- [...] that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue.

IN this allegation the disciplinarians haue great confi­dēce: For this testimonie of Ambrose saith T.C. is so cleare and open, Li. 2. part. [...] Pag. 44. that he which doth not giue place vnto it, must needs be thought as a Bat, or an Owle, or some other night-bird to delight in darkenesse. And it is a world to see how the refuter thin­king that his cause wilbe aduantaged by this testimonie of Ambrose, taketh on like a beggar on horsebacke, or a coward when he hath gotten his aduersarie at a supposed aduan­tage. See you not how he braggeth and vanteth, how he crakes and crowes, and all for want as of a good spirit, so of a sound iudgement, presuming of aduantage, where he hath none, as the euent will proue.

Concerning this testimonie of Ambrose, he findeth fault as well with my maner of alleaging, as of discussing it. At the allegation he hath three cauills. First he repeateth his friuolous cauillation concerning the consequence of an argument which he bestoweth vpon me: that, if in this place of Ambrose there be no mention of Lay-Elders, then there is none to be found in the fathers writings.Chap. 3. § 9 & 10. Which cauill I haue so clearely refuted before, that I thinke I shall neuer heare of it more.

The second,Ad pag. 33▪ that I alleage this place not out of Ambrose himselfe (which is a base slander, for I had Ambrose lying before me) but out of D. Bils. because forsooth I cited the first words (which are not so pertinent, shewing the slender occasion whereupon Ambrose vttered this sentence) in english, as D. B. doth: And yet his blind malice would not let him see that I cited the latter sentence in latine, out of [Page 142] the Authour, which D. B. alleageth in English. Quod qua negligentia obsolouerit, &c. Which words if I had cited as a chiefe man of your side doth, you would haue charged me, either to haue alleaged a place which I had neuer seene, or else notoriously depriued it.T▪ [...]. 1. pag. 183. Ambrose speaking of this office of the [...]lders (although, saith he, not vpon so good occasion,) thus [...] saith, whereupon the Synagogue, and after the Church had El­ders without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which Elders I know not by what negligence they are worne out, &c: and againe,Ioh. 2. [...]. 2. pag. 44. his saying is that the Elders fell away by the ambition of the doctors. Which allegation the rest, which were but glea­ners after him, taking vpon his word, haue vrged, as if the Seniors themselues, of whom Ambrose speaketh, were ceas­sed before his time, inferring thereupon that he meaneth Lay-Elders, because the learned Presbyters still remained in the Church. When Ambrose doth not say, that the Seni­ors themselues were growne out of vse, (for he doth not say, qui qua negligentia ob [...]oleuerint) but that (themselues re­mayning) their counsell was neglected. If it be demanded; why then doth he say habuit ecclesia, the Church had; I an­swere because the verbe was to haue reference both to the Church which had beene before his time, and also to the Synagouge, not because the Church had not Seniors still. For Ierome, Augustine, and Gregorie are alleaged by the dis­ciplinarians themselues, that there were Seniors in the Church long after Ambrose his time.

§ Sect. 2. Concerning the ma [...]ation of the [...] Do [...]rum.Thirdly, he cauilleth at the translation of the word docterum, which I rendred learned or Teachers. For which rea­ding, if he had a sound iudgement, he would rather haue gi­uen me thankes. In that translation, as also in the exposition, I intended to giue them satisfaction, who (as I thought) were not satisfied with the iudgement of our learned men, who by the word doctorum vnderstand Bishops onely. For indeed if it be read Doctors or teachers (a title in these times appropriated to Bishops) the allegation out of Ambrose is as easily answered, as alledged, Ambrose his meaning be­ing plainely this; that whereas the Bishops in former times were wont to doe nothing of importance without the [Page 143] counsell and aduise of certaine ancient Ministers, who were his assistants; this was now growne out of vse, either through the negligence, or pride of the Bishops. But because I thought it might be obiected, that the word may signifie the learned as well as Teachers; and so an opposition might be conceiued as well of the learned to the vnlearned Seni­ors, as of the Doctors that is Bishops to the Presbyters (who though they were learned were not called Doctors, neither did vsually preach) I therefore endeuoured so to expound it, as that they, who should so vnderstand this place, might be satisfied, shewing that although the word doctorum should signifie learned, and although they would gather from thence, that the Seniors which were excluded from con­sultation were vnlearned. And consequently lay men: yet notwithstanding that the speech of Ambrose needeth not to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders. But seeing my aduersarie, in the profundnesse of his iudgement, reiecteth that reading as vnlearned and without example, (of which notwithstan­ding doctorum esto iudicium let the learned iudge) I wil cleaue to that interpretation, which by Doctorum vnderstandeth Doctors or Teachers, as the best, and keepe the other in store as a secondary exposition to satisfie them, who by doctorum shall vnderstand the Learned, and thereof inferre seeing the learned are blamed for excluding the Seniors, that therefore the Seniors who were excluded, were vnlear­ned. And although my antagonist fighting Andabatarum more and as cowards vse to doe, winking, smote he saw not what, nor cared what, so as he might deale his blowes apace, condemning me in that for which he had cause to thanke me: notwithstanding I will acknowledge my thankefulnes to him, for handling this matter so well, that in this point he hath left our cause better then he found it. For whereas there being two expositions of this place according to the two significations of the word doctorum, the sentence hath almost no shew of probabilitie for Lay-Elders, if doctorum be translated Doctors, but seemeth very fauourable to them if doctorum signifie the Learned: my aduersarie, I thanke him, hath freed me from the difficultie of the latter, (if his [Page 144] exceptions against it be good) and hath permitted me to rest securely in the former. The reader therefore is not to expect from me an ample defence of that latter sense against his exceptions, which make for vs. For if his exceptions be good, and that sense vntrue (as he saith, ‘it is certaine and plaine that it is’) then will there be no difficultie at all in answering this testimonie of Ambrose, that translation which seemed most to fauour Lay-Elders, being reiected.

§ Sect. 3. [...] discussing [...] testimonie [...]. Amb [...]se 17. pages [...].In discussing this testimonie of Ambrose, because it see­meth to make for him, he is content to spend 17. pages: who if it were against him would scarce vouchsafe one line by way of answere.

I haue knowne, when aboue a dozen testimonies of an­cient writers directly testifying that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus (in which number Ambrose was one) the chiefe pa­trone of the pretended discipline among vs, hath refused so much as to examine the allegations,T. C. h. 2. part. 1. pag. [...] 14. [...]. 528. Luk. 1. pag. 41. as a thing vnworthy the turning of a leafe, and in another place he shaketh off Am­brose thus: As for Ambrose, a child may see how violently he forceth the text, &c. And againe, the errours and corrupt expoun­ding of scriptures, which are found in his workes, declare, that it had beene more safe for the Church, if by studie of the scriptures, he had first beene a 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, [...] 1. Tim. 3.16. 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.

[Page 145]In my handling this testimonie,§ Sect. Three [...] noted in handling this tes [...] ­nie of Am­brose. the refuter obserueth three things. My re [...] their cap­tion, as [...]ging Am­brose, [...]red as [...]dest. 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.Ad pag. 3 & 35. 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,In prefat. 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:§ Sect▪ 5. The reason why their ex­position was to be reiected. 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, [Page 146] 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.

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.Ad Pag. 36. The rest of his words are meere babbling. The latter I prooue, by this Reason:

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 complaine of the want of such Elderships.

[Page 146]Now that Ambrose was such a one as I affirme in the as­sumption, I will manifestly proue in answering the refuters cauills. For hee (as being ledde with a spirit of contradi­ction) after his vsuall manner, graunteth neither propositi­on nor assumption, nor any one braunch of them to bee true. Which course (mee thinks) should discredit him with all indifferent Readers, who may discerne him to write, not out of conscience, but out of a resolution to cauill and con­tradict: especallie, if they consider that hitherto (though he would scarcely graunt any thing to be true that I had saide: yea, in his preface auowed, that I haue scarce vttered one true word) yet he hath not bene able to proue any one thing which I deliuered to be false. And such will his successe be in the rest.

§ Sect. 9. His answere to the Reason.That hee might fit this Argument to his owne strength, he hath cast it (as his manner is) into a connexiue syllogisme: For it is an easy thing to frame a connexion, & when he hath done to denie the consequence. But yet belike this conse­quence was too strong for him to deale with, whiles the Me­dium consisting of 3. branches, was bound together: therfore he dissolueth it, taking euery branch by it selfe, indeuouring like a grosse headed Sophister, to perswade the Reader, that because hee can bow euery twigge seuerally: therefore the whole bundle or fagot is weake. For the 3. branches being ioyned together, as they are in the proposition, the consci­ence of the Reader will I (doubt not) giue testimony to the manifest truth of the proposition, vnderstood as I explaned it. But though it be to no purpose, if he can bend & breake the branches seuerally, yet we will trie his dealing that way: and what he weakneth by dissoluing, I will strēgthen by vni­ting. And first,The [...] Con­ [...]ce. he saith, this consequence is naught: ‘If Am­brose were a Diocesan Bishop’ (vnderstand who magnified his own calling, and could not abide that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to the censures of Lay-men) ‘then would he not giue testimony to Lay-Elders’, (he should haue said, then would he not haue complained of the want of Lay-Elders, who were neuer thought to be wanting, where Bishops were thought to be lawfull.

[Page 149]And why? because D. Whitgift was a Bishop, yea an Arch­bishop; and D. K. would be a Bishop, and yet both giue testimonie to Lay-Elders. Because D. Whitgifts graunt is oft laid in our dish,Pag: 62 [...] the Reader is to know, First, that he denieth Lay-El­ders could be proued out of the scriptures. Secondly, he graunteth they had bene in vse as Caluin & others had testi­fied, taking it vpon their credit, being loth either to con­tradict those famous learned men, or to impeach the cre­dit of those Churches where the Presbyteries were erected. Which course of not contradicting them had still bin held, if the Elders had not bene obtruded as Christs ordinance, to extrude those, who (in respect of their first institution), were ordained of God. Thirdly, B. Whitgift was so farre from complaining of the want of Lay [...]Elders, that he was a chiefe instrument of God vnder the Prince to keepe them out.

The testimony, which D. K. giueth to your Lay-Elders, appeareth by his Sermon: where, for confuting your Pres­byteries, you say hee spitteth out much poyson against these El­ders, and spendeth much gall vpon them. God grant the poyson of Aspes be not vnder your lippes, and that your selfe be not in the gall of bitternes, who so virulently & bitterly vse to raile on men of so good note in Gods Church. But his testi­monie concerning your Elders, is so farre from complai­ning of the want of them, as that he doth not onely say, but also proue at large, that there neuer were, nor yet do need to be such. Only you catch hold of his exposition of Ambrose his speech, which as he saith, may well be vnderstood of El­ders in yeares, experience, and grauitie, hauing some tempo­rary cōmission to assist in ordering the Church, but not such as your Lay-Elders. It is very true, that although Seniores or Presbyteri, bee a name of order, signifying Ministers and Priestes; yet according to the originall signification therof, it is vsed by Tertullian, and heere by Ambrose, (as appeareth by the occasion of his words) as opposed to the Iuniores of the Clergy.Apolog: c. 3▪ And so not only Luther vnderstandeth the word as you heard before,De offic. li. c. 20. but Ambrose so speaketh else-where: shewing that it was not needfull that the Iuniores, the youn­ger men of the Clergie should goe to the houses of Wi­dowes, [Page 150] and Virgins but onely to visit them, & hoc cum senioribus and that with the Seniors or elder sort of the Cler­gie, that is with the Bishop or with the Presbyters,§ Sect. 7. if there be great cause.

The second consequence. Secondly, he reiecteth this consequence: if Ambrose did labour to magnifie the calling of Bishops, then was it not his meaning, &c: for saith he ‘Su [...]tonius or Tacitus might magnifie the excellencie of the Monarchy, and yet confesse that the state of Rome had beene democraticall, or might they not complaine that the aduise of the Senators was not now regar­ded, without whose counsell Tiberius in his fiue first yeares would doe little or nothing?Ad pag. 37. Yea did not Samuel magnifie the monarchicall gouernement vnder Saul, and [...]et testifie that they had beene otherwise gouerned, yea and complaine that the forme was altered▪’ These examples, vnlesse they had beene better fitted, are to little purpose. If he could haue said, A Monarch labouring not onely to iustifie but to mag­nifie the royall calling, and not enduring that Monarches and Princes should be subiected, either to the Senate or people, would notwithstanding complaine that the state is not either Aristocraticall or popular, he had fitted the example, though he had spoken vntruely; For if Suetonius and Tacitus had beene Emperours and such as did magnifie the Monarchicall gouernement and could not abide either that the cōmon-wealth should be ruled by the multitude, or themselues ouer-ruled of the greater part of the senate, then would they not complaine that the gouernement was not Democratical, or Aristocratical. But thus he might haue said both fitly and truely. As a good king mislyking that some of his predecessors had managed all things without the aduise of their senatours, might cōplaine, that through their pride or temeritie the aduise of the senators was neg­lected: so Ambrose a good Bishop, seeing the Bishops not to regard the aduise of their ancient Presbyters, that is Mini­sters, as it were their senatours, without whose aduise no­thing of importance was wont to be done in the Church, might also complaine that their counsell and assistance was growne out of vse through the slouthfulnes or pride of the [Page] Bishops. As for Samuel, if either the state before was Monar­chicall, or if he had magnified the Monarchicall gouerne­ment of the Iewes when Saul was set ouer them, he had had little reason to complaine for the altering of that gouerne­ment into a Monarchy. But the state before had beene Mo­narchicall, neither did Samuel magnifie the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them. For vntill Saul, God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes,1. Sam. 12.12. retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands, chief­ly in prescribing them lawes, and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours,Deut. 33.5 Iud. 17.6. & 19.1. & 21.21. 1. Sam. 8.7. especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time. But when the people would needs haue a king, after the manner of other nations; the Lord saith to Samuel, they haue not reiected thee, but me haue they reiected, that I should not reign [...] ouer them. And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the ear [...]hly King, in comparison of the Celestiall; that descri­bing vnto them the fashion of their future king,1. Sam. 8 11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18. The .3. conse­quence. he telleth them, that whereas before, God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onely, they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure, which would not proue very plea­sant to them, as he sheweth by many particulars.

§ Sect. 8. As touching the third branch, he saith the ‘consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former’. If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons, then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse. ‘It followeth not saith he, there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them.’ But say I, where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men, as alwaies it hath done according to the prac­tise of Geneua, and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline, it cannot be auoided, but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders; especially, if they (according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians) may be perpetuall. But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no, it is not materiall, seeing they were ioyntly propounded, and seeing from them vnited a [Page 152] necessary consequence dependeth. Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence, and to breede matter of cauil, was a sophisticall, if not a leaud trick. The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare, if we consider his dealing with the assumption: for he, that hauing seuered the bran­ches of the proposition, exacted from euery one seuerally a necessary consequence: in the assumption, he will haue them all taken together. For before he taketh the assump­tion in pieces, meaning to cauill with euery part seuerally, he vseth this Caution: Prouided alwaies, and be it remembred of the Reader, that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false, though the other two be neuer so true, the whole assumption is in law of true reason, vtterly void and of none effect: But if in the pro­position I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally, the assuming of any one part will con­clude the question. As thus: If I must be forced to main­taine this consequence, If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop, then would hee no [...] complaine of the want of Lay-Elders: it wil be sufficient to assume thus, but he was a Diocesan Bishop, to cō ­clude, that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders. It is true, that it is required in my assumption, as I propound it, that euery branch must be true: but the reasō hereof is, because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence. For if they be seuerally pro­pounded in the proposition, they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption. Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence, himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience.

§ Sect. 9. The [...] branch of the assump­tion [...] Am­brose [...] a Diocesan B.But come we to the assumption, with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus. Ambrose saith M. D. was a Dioces [...]n Bishop. Was he so indeed? Had he not onely supreme, but [...] authoritie (as our BB: haue) ouer (I know not how) many hundreds of Ministers, in causes Ecclesiasticall? Was he an absolute Pop lin [...] indeed? ‘What a shame is this? that he who euē now char­ged so m [...]ny learned men to haue done Ambrose wrong, should now be found the man [...]uilty of that trespas? Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop, then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling, to preach the word, & administer the sacramēts in his owne Church, &c.’

[Page 153]Can a man of a sincere conscience professing (as them­selues terme it) the cause of sinceritie, be so malepartly con­fident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant? or rather can a man that taketh vpon him the defence of this controuersie, as a chiefe champion of the pretended disci­pline, and one (I doubt not) of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops, to dispute with them in these causes, be ignorant, that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop? doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least, and can he thus denie it, and keepe his conscience sincere? well, though the taske be all one, as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London, or rather the Archbishop of Yorke, is a Diocesan Bishop: yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it, and pre­tendeth some reason of his denyall: I will first proue, that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B: and for the greatnes of his authoritie, and largenes of his iurisdiction, compara­ble with ours; and in the second place, I will answere his reasons.

First therfore you are to be aduertised, that Mediolanum Millaine, whereof Ambrose was Bishop, not onely is a Metro­polis, or seate of a Metropolitan, but was both in and before Ambrose his time. Strabo Geo­graph. lib. 5. Insubres hac aetate sunt qui Medio­lanum Me­tropolin ha­buere. saith it was a Metropolis, where­in the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence. Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bi­shop of Millaine saith Epist. ad solita. [...] it also is a mother citie of Italy. It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza De grad. Min. c. 24. that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses & prouinces, was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnder the Romane Empire.

Ambrose himself Centur. 4 c. 10.11 [...]7. Ruffin. hist. li. 2 c. 11. Paulin. in vit. Ambr. was a man of consular dignitie in Rome, and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Ae­milia came to Millaine. Where keeping his residence, it fell out Theod. lib. 4. c. 5. that Auxentius the Bishop being dead, and the Em­perour Valentinian hauing assembled (as the manner) Balsam. in Conc. cost. in. c. 2. olim omnes pro. [...]ī ­ciarum me­tropolitani, a proprijs sy­nodis elige­bantur. Conc C. haelc. act. 11. ostē ­dat Bassia­nus si per synodum Re­Metropolis was for the choise of a Metropolitan) the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum & consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus.

[Page 160] The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison: if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates, you shall compare gold with lead. As for the people, the Episcopall function hath not onely obtained to be preferred before them, but also is enioyned by Euangelicall pre­cepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them: for they, as the sheepe of Christ, are committed to BB. as to rulers, who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them, &c. Againe, Cap. 3. these things I haue spoken saith he, to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops.

For his deeds, consider his repelling of Theodosius Theo­dor. li 5. c. 18. the Emperour from entring into the Church, vntill he had testified his repentance: his not permitting him to remaine within the Chācell, alledging Ibid. 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 Epist. 32. ad valen­tin. imp. tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deij­ciat sacerdotium, non tanti est vnius vita, quanti est dignit as om­nium sacerdotum: his refusall Orat. in Auxent. l. 5. Epist. inter Epist. 32. & 33. Epist. 33. 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:Cap. 11.157. or else that Ambrose [Page 161] 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.§ Sect. 13. The 3. branche of the assump­tion. 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.

[Page 162]Now, how farre Ambrose was from subiecting BB: or Mi­nisters in causes Ecclesiasticall, to the Consistories of Lay­men, may appeare, first, by his sentence giuen against Pal­ladius, the Arfian. Bishop, in the Councell of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answere,Cons. Aquil. 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. Epist. 32. 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 [Page 163] 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 minister should be iudged in causes Ecclesiasticall by the consistory of the Emperour, because it consisted of Lay-men; and would hee allow a B. or minister should be iudged, yea deposed and depriued by a parishionall consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men? doth he commend the good Emperour that said he was vnable to iudge among Bishops; and would hee allow of priuate men, vnlearned, and vnac­quainted with gouernement, as competent Iudges in cau­ses Ecclesiasticall?

And thus much of my denyall of their exposition of Am­brose, made good by sufficient proofe.

CHAP. VIII. The proofe of their Exposition of Ambrose, disproued, and the reas [...]os which I alleadged, why the Counsell of the Se­niors, was neglected, defended.

THeir Argument is heere such, as in this question of Lay-Elders, perpetuallie they vse in all their proofes, of Scrip­tures, and Fathers, that is, from the genus to the species: yea, to a fancied, or fained species, affirmatiuely. As if they should say, hee is a Magistrate, therefore a Con­stable, an ancient Cittizen, therefore an Alderman, or rather thus: It is a man, therefore the man in the moone. I see a shippe, therefore it is Argo. Like the wise man of Athens, who standing in Pyraeo on the key there, saide euery shippe he saw was his. Sauing that he was some­what wiser, because he had a shippe at the Sea: These mens shippe, doth swimme in their owne braines.

So strong is their fancie, as wee shall heare, that when ei­ther Christ saith, Matt. 18. Tell the Church, that is, as themselues ex­pound it, the rulers of the Church, they strongly conclude, therefore tell Lay-Elders: or Luke Act: 14.23. that Paul and Barnabas, ordayned Presbyters, ergo, Lay-Elders, or Iames, Iam: 5. is any sicke, let him send for the Presbyters, ergo, for Lay-Elders: or Paul Rom. 12.8 hee that ruleth, Marke how he speaketh of a ruler, therefore of [Page 165] a Lay-Elder: God hath appointed gouernements, therefore of Lay-Elders: or Ignatius Ad Tral­lian. be subiect to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Christ, ergò, to Lay-Elders: or Tertullianus, Apolo. 39 Cer­taine approued Seniors be presidents, &c: ergo, Lay Elders: or Ie­rome In Esa. 3 wee haue a Senate of Presbyters, Ergo, of Lay-Elders. And that no man should liue in feare of the great stroakes, which this great champion hath threatned, let him vnder­stand, that these be all the strokes that he will strike, when his turne of striking commeth.

To this argument, and all the rest, I answere by denying the consequence, which is so badde, as the refuter is loath to Father it; and yet neither in this, nor in any other of their testimonies, they haue or can make no better. ‘Well, saith he, Whatsoeuer the argument is, the answere is well worse.’ meaning, as it seemeth, the reason of the answere, which was this: for euen the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests, as well as of the people. My reason may thus be explained: ‘If not onely the Church had Seniors, that were ministers, whose aduise was neglected in Ambrose his time, but euen also the Sinagogue (meaning Israell, or the state of the Iewes) had Seniors of the Priests; then it followeth not, that the Seniors of whom Ambrose speaketh, were Lay-Elders.’ But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it:

Therefore the consequent:

The consequent of the proposition is necessarie: for an argument from the genus to the species, doth not hold affir­matiuely. Genus saith Fabius, Quintil. li: 5. c: 10. ad probandum speciem minimū valet, plurimum ad refellendum, the generall is of no force, to proue the speciall affirmatiuely, though it bee of great force to disproue it, if you argue from it negatiuely. As for exam­ple, it followeth no [...], because it is a tree, that therefore it is a plane tree. It is not necessary, saith y^e Philosopher Topic 2.2 that what is affirmed of the genus, should also be affirmed of the species.

As touching the assumption: the former part, viz: that the Church had seniors, which were ministers, I tooke for granted, because either all those places of Scriptures and Fa­thers as I say, or at least some, as my aduersarie will confesse, [Page 166] where Presbyters be named, Ministers are vnderstood.

The second part I proue out ofIer. 19.1. Ps. 37.2. Ierem: 19.1. where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some, not onely of the Seniors of the people, but also of the Seniors of the Priests, that is, men of authoritie as well of the Ecclesiasti­call state as of ciuill.

Which words, though the refuter vnderstand as I doe, as prouing, not that the Iewes had an Eccclesiasticall Senate, consisting partly of the Priests, and partly of the Elders of the people (for of such a presbyterie, though there be much talke, yet there is no proofe) but that in the Iewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests, as Seniors of the people: notwithstanding the seely Philosopher, would faine make the Reader belieue, that I confesse (which most confidently I doe denie) that in the Church of the Iewes, there was an Ecclesiasticall Eldership, consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people: and therevpon would inferre, that this testimonie maketh mee: ‘Because (forsooth) Ambrose acknowledgeth that there was such an Eldership in the Church, as had beene among the Iewes. But among the Iewes there was as hee saith, I confesse, an Ecclesiasticall Senate consi­sting of the Priests, and Elders of the people, therefore Ambrose acknowledgeth such a Presbyterie to haue bene in the Church, con­sisting of Ministers, and Lay-Elders.’

First for Ambrose: hee doth not speake of Eldership, either among Iewes or Christians; but sheweth, that because both the Iewes and Christians had Seniors, this is an Argument, that age is honorable, seeing that ancient men were of au­thoritie, both among the Iewes, who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiasticall as ciuil state, and also among Christians.

Now, to inferre from hence, that either the Iewes or Chri­stians had an Ecclesiasticall senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders, is a vaine collection. For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the Iewes (they might haue) as indeed they had) a Senate consisting of Priests and Leuites, and chiefe of the people; but that was not an Ecclesiasticall Senate, as here­after shall be shewed, but their chiefe Counsell of state▪ [...]f by Synagogue, you vnderstād only y^e ecclesiasticall state of the Iews; [Page 167] in that, ther were no other seniors, but of the Clergie of Israel.

And as for my confession, I protest, that I meant nothing lesse, then that the Church of the Iewes had an Ecclesiasti­call Senate consisting of the Seniors of the Priests and El­ders of the people. For I know it to be an idle conceit, ha­uing no other warrant, but the probabile est, of a new writer, a chiefe party in this cause. But hereof more in my answer to his allegation, out of Matth: 18.

Besides, can any man that doth not wilfully peruert my mea­ning, vnderstand me to speake of any, but the Seniors of the priests, saying, & of such Ambrose speaketh, when he saith, in the Church, § Sect. 2. Their argu­ment vrged, & refuted. Ad pag. 40. or Church-causes, nothing was don without their consent.

But it may be, that your former consequence may be con­firmed, if the testimonie of Ambrose be better pressed vpon vs, to which purpose I say in the Sermon: If it be saide that Ambrose speaketh, &c. ‘If it be said? saith the refuter, he know­eth it well enough, that it is said, and shalbe maintained, that Am­brose speaketh of such Seniors, whose aduise was neglected, through the default of the teachers, (not learned or teachers, as M. D. set­teth it downe) and therefore of such Seniors as were not teachers. Cunningly therefore and to weaken the force of our argument, doth hee here so produce and alledge it, as if it were rather conceiued for our helpe by himselfe then propounded and expressed by vs.’

Let him therefore, for his honestie and credits sake, shew the Reader where this testimonie of Ambrose is thus vrged. In the mean time, the Reader shal vnderstand these 2. things

First, that the disciplinarians, knowing that their proofes out of Scriptures and Fathers, will not necessarily con­clude for them, if they should seeme to inforce them by discourse: Therefore they vse this poore pollicie, to holde them out, (as it were Mineruaes shield, as if they were so preg­nant, that they need not to be vrged, but the very naming of them were sufficient to put vs to silence.—

They thinke it therfore, their best course, in all their wri­tings almost to take it for graunted, that their discipline is the very discipline and kingdome of Christ, their presby­terie, the very ordinance of Christ: and when they should proue it, as they would seeme most sufficiently to doe, they [Page 168] holde out a few places of the Scriptures and Fathers, bare­ly quoted, being so farre from vrging them, as that for the most part, they doe not so much as cite the words: (thus in the booke of H. I. dedicated to the King.Pag: 67. Pag: 26.29.31. 1604. vrging a reformation after the newe-cut. Thus in the protestati­on that came out of the North, made in the yeare 1606. and printed Anno 1608. Thus in this worthy worke of the refuter, as after you shall heare, when he commeth to deale his blowes) thinking belike that the very naming of such witnesses will sufficiently, if not daunt vs, yet satisfie their simple followers, who are too easily ledde with shewes.

The other thing is, that I haue vrged this testimony for them, and (to speake the trueth) haue inforced it better, and made it stronger for them, then euer they made it, or haue yet the witte to conceiue.

But to answere their argument, for now it is theirs, nei­ther must my wordes be retained, learned, or teachers, &c: The Reader therfore is to remember what before was saide, that the word Doctorum, being ambiguous, signifying either learned, or teachers, this place of Ambrose doth accordingly admit two interpretations.

The one, as it signifieth Learned, and is a com­mon title to the Bishops and Presbyters: the other, as it signifieth Doctors or Teachers, and was a title in those times peculiar to the BB. as shalbe proued. The former of these, which seemeth more to fauor the Lay-Elders, my ad­uersary doth reiect, & insisteth in the latter. But he doth not shew (as me thinkes he should) how this testimony then will conclude for Lay-Elders. It was sufficient for him, to con­tradict mee, though hee left his cause in w [...]rse case then he found it. For my part, I am so farre from this spirit of con­tradiction, that I doe agree with him in preferring the lat­ter exposition, which by Doctorum, vnderstandeth Doctors, before the other.

Let vs see then, how that sense being retained, this place doth conclude for Lay-Elders.

All Seniors that were not called Doctors, in those times, were Lay-Elders.

I denie the proposition: because in those times the title of Doctor or Teacher was peculiar to BB: we therefore may with more truth affirme that all Seniors or Presbyters that were not called Doctors in that time, were Ministers; and thereupon conclude, that therefore the Seniors, whose Counsell was neglected by the Doctors, were Ministers.

For the clearing of this matter,§ Sect. 3. Foure things declared. I will briefly shew these foure things.

• 1. That not Presbyters, but Bishops, were in those times called Doctors.
• 2. That the Presbyters, though they were not called Teachers, were notwithstanding Ministers.
• 3. That certaine ancient or principall Ministers called Seniores, in the primitiue Church, did so assist the Bishop, that nothing almost of importance was done without their counsell and aduise.
• 4. That their counsell and assistance was much neglec­ted, and themselues much debased in Ambrose his time.

For the first:First that BB. were called Doctores. After that Arrius, being a Presbyter, had poy­soned the Church with his heresie; the Presbyters or Mi­nisters, were in many Churches restrained from preaching. So that the Bishops, who before were the principall, in Am­brose his time, they were almost the onely Teachers; and for this cause the name of Doctors was appropriated vnto them. And this is so cleare a case, that the Bishops in those times were in a manner the onely Doctors; that li. 2. part. 2. pag. 42. & 43. there­fore thought the Presbyters, which are mentioned in the Fathers, to haue beene no Ministers, because he perceiued they were no Teachers, and for this cause commendeth the decree of the Church of Alexandria, that the Presbyters should no more teach, and preferreth the Affrican Churches before others, for that the same order was obserued therein. As touching Alexandria, Socrates Socr. lib. 5. c. 22. [...], reporteth that Presby­ters [Page 170] doe not preach there, & Sozomen Sozom. li 7. c. 19. that the Bishop a­lone of the citie doth preach. [...] saith he [...]. Both of them assigning the heresie of Arrius to haue beene the originall occasion of that custome.

Concerning the vse of the Affrican Churches saith T. C. vntill Augustines time, that one testimonie Possidon. in vita. Au­gustini. is more then sufficient, whereby is affirmed that Valerius B. of Hippo did contrarie to the custome of the Affrican Church, in that he committed the of­fice of teaching vnto Augustine who was an Elder of that Church, and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops, checked I say, notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared to haue done it for support of his infirmitie, because himselfe was not so apt to preach. To conclude, his conceit is, that not the Presby­ters mentioned in the Fathers and by him translated El­ders, but the Bishop onely had right to preach, the other but by indulgence or by commandement. In those times therefore the Bishops alone were called Doctores [...] at the least: for further proofe whereof, if you expect some other testimonie either of Ambrose, or of others in that time, you may haue recourse to his booke of offices, and to the Councell of Carthage. Ambrose De offic. li. 2. c. 24. 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 a [...] 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 Conc. Carth. graec. c. 54. Car­thag. 3. c. 42. Mat. 23.8.10. [...] 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.

§ Sect. 4. The 2. that Presbyters though not called doctores yet were Mi­nisters.But hereupon we may not inferre with T. C. that there­fore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councells Fathers [Page 171] 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,Conc. Aneyr. c. 1. &. 2. Can. Apost. 8.14.16.17.50. Conc. Nic. c. 3. Con. Carth. graec. c. 3. & 4. Carth. 2. c. 2. Antioch. c. 3. Chalced. c. 2. Sard. c. 10. &c. 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, Se­cōdly 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 Con. Carth. 2. c. 2. grae c. 3. continencie is committed to Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, as it becommeth holy Bishops, Priests and Leuits. Tertullian De pre­script. ad­uers. hers­tico. 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 Lib. 4. Epist. 10. speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presby­ter saith he was reser [...]ed that God might adde him to our Clergy, and that he might adorne the decayed store of certaine Presbyters with glorious Sacerdo­tibus. Priests. And more plainely in another place he saith Cum. Episcopo Presbyteri Sacerdotali honore con­iuncti. lib. 3. epist. 1. 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 Eccle­siast. hie­rarch. c. 5. the names [...] for the Bishop, [...] for Presbyters, and [...] for Deacons. Sozomen Soz. li. 7. c. 19. also calleth them [...] that is Priests, Isidorus, Isid. de eccles. offic. lib. 2. c. 7. 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 [Page 172] 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 Conc. Ancyr. c. 1. 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 In Mat. 25. homil. 53. 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 CouncellConc. Laod. c. 8. of Laodic [...]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,Tertull. de baptism. Hier. adu. Lucifer. the chiefe Priest which is the Bishop hath right to giue baptisme, then Pres­byters & Deacons, &c. In the Canons Can. A­post. 3. & 31. Conc. Ne­ocaesar. 13. C. Carth. graec. 4. Con [...]. Elib. c. 32. C. Const. in Trullo. c. 26. called the Apostles & in diuerse Councells it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the cōmunion In the Councell of Nice Conc. Nic. c. 18. 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,Cypr. li. 3. epist. 14. & 15. doth not Ierome Hier. ad Euagr. expressely testifie, that the [Page 173] Presbyters prayers, the body and blood of Christ are consecrated. For the Leiturgie or saying of diuine seruice, it is recko­ned Conc. Ancyr. c. 1. & 2. 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 Can. A­post. 15. Conc. Anti­och c. 3 & 4. 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 Con. An­cyr. c. 1. reckoneth preaching. The 58. Canon Can. A­post. 58. of the Apostles so called, requireth them to instruct not onely the laitie, but the Clergie also. Ignatius Ad An­tioch. requireth them to feede the flocke. Origen In Ps. 37. hom. 1. testifieth, that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos, do instruct vs, &c. Basil Ethic. [...]. 70. saith, that to them and to Deacons, in committed [...] the preaching of the Gospel. Caluin Instit. li. 4. c. 4. § 3. 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. Chry. in 1. Tim. 3. hauing affirmed that there is no great differēce 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 agre [...] also to Presbyters. In them therefore it is required that they should be [...] able to preach as most plainly appea­reth by comparing that place with Tit. 1.5 7.9. Socrates Lib. 5. c. 22. reporteth that in Caesarea of Cappadocia, and in Cyprus on the Saterdaies and Lords daies in the euening [...] the Presbyters and B B. expound the scriptures.

§ Sect. 5. As touching the custome of Alexandria, in re­straining the Presbyters from preaching, he Socrat. ibid. [...]. saith, that it began after Arrius troubled the Church: and Sozomen Sozom lib. 7. c. 19. likewise, that it was not the custome before Arrius being a Pres­byter by his preaching broached his new opinions. And this is [Page 174] most plainely testified by Epiphanius, Haeres. 68. who saith that Arrius was a Presbyter in Alexandria [...] who was Rector of the Church called Baucalis, for all the Catholicke Chur­ches, saith he in Alexandria are vnder one Archbishop, and to them seuerally are assigned Presbyters: whereof when he had named some, he saith in one of these was Colluthus, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, & Arrius in another. Now it is manifest, that euery one of these at their accustomed meetings [...] teaching the people committed to their charge in their Sermons, made diuision in the people, whereof some inclined to Arrius, othersto Colluthus, some to Carpones, others to Sarmatas. And as they taught diuersly in their seuerall Churches, some one thing, some another: so the people called themselues, some Arrians, some Colluthians, &c.

Neither was it the custome of the Churches of Affrica, as T.C. gathereth, that Presbyters should not preach at all; but that they might not preach, nor administer the communion in the presence of the Bishop.

And that was it which both Valerius granted to Au­gustine being a Presbyter Possidon. in vita. An­gust. c. 5. potestatem coram se in Ecclesia Euangelium predicandi power to preach the Gospell in the Church himselfe being present, contrarie to the vse and custome of the Affrican Churches, and also nonnulli Episcopi not all, but some Bishops found fault with. Whose repre­hension Valerius regarded not, because he knew it was the custome in the East Churches (as appeareth by Chrysos­tomes homilies at Antioch.) And some other Bishops, (euen Aurelius August. Epist. 77. himselfe the Bishop of Carthage,) were so farre from finding fault with Valerius, that they followed his example. Insomuch that some other Presbyters ha­uing receiued the like power, began to preach the word to the people Coram Episcopis in the presence of the Bi­shops. But that so learned a man as T. C. should be so trans­ported with preiudice as to thinke that Augustine was a Lay-presbyter I cannot sufficiently wonder, especially, considering that Valerius, when he had ordained him Pres­byter, [Page 175] reioyced and gaue thankes Possid. in v [...]t. August. c. 5. to God, who had heard his prayers in sending such a one, as might, verbo Dei & doctrina salubri Ecclesiam Dei aedeficare edifie the Church of God, with the word of God and wholesome doc­trine. Ierome De 7. or­din. Eccle. such another Lay-Presbyter no doubt) though hee grant that the Presbyters may not celebrate the Communion in the presence of the Bishop stan­ding at the Altar (for so his words are Nec ego dico presen­tibus Episcopis, &c: though in Gratian Dist. 95. c. 6. it be corruptly written. Ecce ego dico) yet he saith, Ad Ne­potian. pessi­mae consue­tudinis est in quibusdam ecclesijs tace­re Presby­teros & pre­sentib. episcopis non loqui. it was a very bad cu­stome in some Churches that Presbyters might not preach in the presence of Bishops. And such was the custome of the Church of Rome as appeareth by Leo Leo. epist. 88. in fine. who denieth it to be lawfull for Presbyters in the presence of the Bishop vnlesse he command them either to administer the Sa­crament of the body and bloud of Christ or to teach the people, &c.

The Councell of Vaux, Conc. vasens. 2. c. 2. tempore. Theodosij. 2. held not long after Ambrose his time, decreed for the edification of all Churches, and for the profite of the whole people, that not onely in cities, but also in pari­shes the Presbyters should haue power giuen them to preach. And if by any infirmitie the Presbyter were hindered, so that he could not preach by himselfe, that then the Deacon should read some ho­mily of the Fathers.

To conclude, it seemeth strange to me, that they, who out of the Ex Chrysost. in 1. Tim. 3. & Hieron. ad Euag. Fathers would proue the Presbyters to be equall to the BB. in power of order, as indeed they are, ex­cepting the power of ordination, (for as Ierome Adeua­gr. saith, excepting ordination, what doth a Bishop that a Pres­byter may not doe,) equall I say in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, should denie they were Ministers; or that to preach or to administer the Sacraments did not be­long to them by reason of their office. Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. saith of a Presbyter and Bishop there is one order, vterque enim sa­cerdos est, for either of them is a Priest.

There remaine the lawes and discipline peculiar to Pres­byters as being of the sacred ministerie: As for example, that Presbyters and Deacons should not be chosen ex plebe out [Page 176] of the people or laitie but Epist. Concil. Illy­rici. apud Theodor. li. 4. c. 9. [...] out of the sacred order or Clergie. That as in the Counsell of Nice it was attempted, Socrati. li. c. 11. so in some others concluded, Con. Const. in Trullo. c. 3. that Presbyters and Deacons should lead a single life; that he which had married a widow, or was the husband of a se­cond wife, might not be a Presbyter. That they might not take vpon them worldly busines, not so much as Cyprian. li. 1. Epist. 9. Gardi­anship; that they might not Conc. Antioch. c. 3. Nicen. c. 15. Arelat. 2. c. 15. Laodic. c. 24. remoue from citie to citie, or from one Church to another, without the leaue of the Bishop; that they might not goe into a Tauerne, and such like.

It is therefore most euident, that howsoeuer the Bishops were called the Doctors, yet the Presbyteri also were Mini­sters. Neither can any one instance be giuen of a Presbyter either in, or before or after Ambrose his time, who was not a Minister. For howsoeuer T. C. affirmeth, that this Elder­ship of theirs continued in the Church diuerse hundred yeares after Ambrose his time (which doth not well agree with his exposition or reading of Ambrose) yet being cha­lenged by D. Whitgift D. Whit. 653. to shew any one testimonie, and auouching that he could not produce any one, he T.C. l. 2. part. 2. pag. 68. in med. § Sect. 6. The 3. thatan­ciēt Ministers called Senio­res were wont to assist the B. an­swereth thus: The next I leaue to the Readers iudgement.

For the third: there was great necessitie that the Bishops in the primitiue Church, when they had neither the assistāce of the Magistrate, nor direction of Ecclesiasticall lawes, should vse the Councell and assistance of wise and learned men. For which cause, Cyprian, Lib. 2. Epist. 5. &. l. 3. Epist. 10. &. 19. & 22 to auoid both ouersights in himselfe and offence in others, resolued to doe nothing of moment without the common councell, and aduise of his Clergie, and for the same cause was Chrysostome Synod. contr. Chry­sost. iur. gra [...] ­corom. 556. accu­sed [...] that without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergie he made ordinations.

And that Presbyters were wont to heare causes, and to assist the B. it appeareth by the testimonies, first of Ignatius ad Trall. who calleth the Presbytery the [...], or consistorie of God, a band of Apostles, and the Presbyters the Councellers, and Coassessors of the Bishops. 2. of Tertullian, Apolog. c. 39. president probati [Page 177] qui (que) seniores the approued Seniors be praesident.Apolog. c. 39. Thirdly of Clement Clem: epist. 1: ad Iacob. in his epistle to Iames, translated by Rufinus, & ci­ted by Gratian, if any of the brethren haue Saints let them not be judged by secular Iudges, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur, de 7. ord: eccl: dist. 95 c. 8. but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided, & to their determination let the parties stand. Fourthly of Ierome, Presbyters, saith hee (meaning ministers whom he also calleth Preists, and attri­buteth to them the ministery of the worde and Sacraments) from the beginning were appointed Iudges of causes, &c.

And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries Centur. 4 7. pa. 490. § Sect. 7. The 4. that the Seniors aduise was growne out of vse in Ambrose his time. testifie, that the Presbyters besides that they taught the peo­ple, did also compound suites and controuersies.

Now that their aduise was much neglected, and them­selues but too much dejected by the Byshops in Ambrose his time, appeareth not onely by his, but also by Ieromes Hier. de 7. ordin. eccl: c. 7, & ad Nepotianum complaint.

Likewise, by diuers Canons in the fourth councell of Carthage, Conc. Carthag. 4. held about the yeare 401 wherein it was de­creed, Can: 22. that the Bishop without the assemblie of his clergie, should not ordaine clerkes: & that in the Can: 3. ordination of a presbyter, the Presbyters also, which be present, should with the Bishop impose their hands: that the B: Can. 23. should not determine any mans cause, but in the presence of his Clergy: that he C: 32. might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church, without the consent of his cler­gie: that the Bishop C: 34. & 35. though in the Church, and in the assembly of the presbyters, ought to sit in an higher place, yet priuatly he should vse the presbyters as his Colleagues, and sitting himselfe, should not suffer a presbyter to stand: that C: 37 & 39. the Deacons should acknowledge themselues to be Ministers to the presbyters, as well as to the Bishops; & that if the presbyters badde them, they might sit in their pre­sence, which otherwise they might not Con: Nic. c. 18. doe.

All these things considered, together with that which before hath bene alledged, to proue that there were neuer any Lay-Elders, doe necessarily euince, that there is no reason to imagine, if Doctorum signifie Doctors or Tea­chers, [Page 128] Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place.

And so much of the exposition of this place, according to the former sense of the word Doctorum, signifying Doc­tors: which, with my aduersaries consent, I doe much pre­ferre before the other, and therefore can be very well con­tent to giue in the latter.

§ Sect. 8. Though doc­torum should signifie lear­ned, yet this place maketh not for Lay-Elders.Notwithstanding, because some perhaps will vnder­stand the word Doctorum, as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters, signifying learned, and will there­fore imagine that the Elders whose counsell was neglected by them, were Idiotae or Lay-men: for their sakes therefore, I will briefly shew, that though this interpretation be ad­mitted, yet there is no necessitie that Seniors should sig­nifie Lay-Elders:Ad pag. 41. for Doctorum, being according to this in­terpretation, a common title both to Bishops and Presby­ters, Ambrose his meaning may be conceiued to be this, that the assistance and councell of ancient Ministers, meant by Seniors, who were wont to assist the Bishop, was growne out of vse, either by their owne negligēce, or the Bishops pride. Whereunto, after much froath of idle words, he replyeth, First,Ad pag. 42. ‘that the Councell of Ministers was not growne out of vse in Ambrose his time:’and this he indeuoureth to proue by fiue testimonies, First of Ierome Gen. in Tit. 1. saying that the Chur­ches at the first were gouerned communi presbyterorum con­silio, by the common Councell of Presbyters: Which testimonie maketh against him: for Ierome speaketh of such Presby­ters as Paul speaketh of, who were Ministers, and are there called Bishops. If therefore the Church was at the first go­uerned by common councell of Ministers, and if Ambrose complaine that their councell in his time was neglected, which at the first had beene vsed, and whereby the Church had beene gouerned: who seeth not, that it was the neglect of the Ministers aduise wherof Ambrose complaineth: 2. yea but Ierome Ierom. in Esa. 3. saith, we also in the Church haue senatum nostrum [...]tum Presbyterorum, our senate a company of Presby­ters: which testimonie is wont to be alleaged, to proue that in Ieromes time there was a Presbyterie of Lay-Elders. But here my aduersarie presupposing that Lay-Elders were [Page 179] growne out of vse, in Ambrose his time, (whom T: C: suppo­seth to haue continued diuers hundred yeares after Ambrose bringeth it to proue, that in Ieromes time, who was almost as ancient as Ambrose, there was a Senate of Ministers, which no man doubteth of. For else-where he saith Ad Rusticū 16. q. 1. c. 7. Ecclesia. the Church hath a Senate, a companie of Presbyters, without whose Coun­sell, the Monkes may doe nothing. And not only in Ieromes time the Church had, but in all Ages since, euen to this day, it hath such a Senate, which in latter times hath called Capi­tulum, the chapter. Howbeit, both in Ambrose his time, and since, the aduise, and assistance thereof, notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsell of Carthage, hath beene, though in some things euē to this day vsed, yet in the most things, and for the most part neglected.

His third testimony, (which hee saith is plaine enough) of the saide Ierome, Dist 95. c. 6. ex. lib. de 7. gradib. Eccl. cited in the canon Law, is also plaine a­gainst him. For hauing saide as euen now I alledged him, that the presbyters from the beginning had bene appoin­ted to heare and iudge causes, as the Bishops assistants, hee prooueth it, because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops, howsoeuer now the Bishops enuied them that dig­nitie, &c.Conc. Carth. 4. c. 23.

His 4. testimonie is, the 23. canon of the councell of Car­thage (which euen now I cited) which maketh against him, rather then for him. For seeing good lawes arise from bad manners, it is to bee imagined, that according to the com­plaint of Ambrose and Ierome, who were somewhat before this councell, the presence of the Clergie, and Though the Clergie were to be present, yet none but Presbyters were the Bi­shops coasses­sors: for Dea­cōs might not sit amōg Pres­byters, C. Nic. c. 18 Hier. ad Euagr. presby­teri sedeni, Dia­coni stant. assistance of the presbyters was neglected: and that this neglect gaue occasion to the making of that canon.

His. 5. testimonie is of D. Bilson, (though hee name also another learned mā, only to abuse him.) Howbeit Chap. 11.160. D. Bil­son vnderstandeth Ambrose, as cōplaining of the Bishops of his time, who whiles they would seeme to rule alone, had excluded, or neglected the aid & coūsell of their bretheren of the Clergie, who were wont to aduise and assist them, as well in Doctrine as in Discipline.

[Page]And whereas in the second place he replieth, that sloth­fulnesse and pride must needs be referred to the same per­sons, and not slothfulnes to presbyters,§ Sect. 9. Ad pag: 43. Whether slothfulnes & pride must necessa­rily be refer­red to the same subject Doctorum: signifying Learned: and being a com­mon title both to BB. and Presbyters. and pride to BB: I answeare, that if Doctorum be a common title to both (as it is, if it signifie learned) and if the slothfulnes of the pres­byters, rather then of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of vse, as the pride of the BB: then is there no necessitie that slothfulnesse and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops: but rather it is very likely, that slouthfulnes is imputed to presbyters, and pride to the Bishops.

But both the parts of the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequent.

But let vs heare his Reasons.

‘The first, If Ambrose had meant to ascribe slouthful­nes, to the Seniors, hee would haue saide, that their assistance grew out of vse, either by their owne slothfulnes, or rather by the pryde of the BB.’

The second: ‘he would haue said not Doctorum, but Ipfo­rum desidiâm’, which reason is the latine of the first, and the first the english of this: Such iudgment heere is shewed in distinguishing of arguments. But who knoweth not, that the same sentence may very manie wayes bee varied, in res­pect of the words, the same sence remaining? so that this exception might be made against any exposition almost. If I should say:

As in Christs Colledge, so in some others, Elections were wont to bee caryed by the voyces of the iuniors, as well as the Seniors, which thing is now grown out of vse, by what meanes I know not, vnlesse perhaps, by the remisse­nes of the fellowes, or rather arrogancie whiles they would rule alone, I might not vnfitly so speake, ascribing remiss­nes to the iunior fellowes, and arrogancie to the Seniors.

His third and fourth reasons are impertinent, vnderstan­ding the word Doctorum of Doctors, a title in those times, peculiar to Bishops, & not of learned, which is common to both. For though the speciall title of Doctors according to the former interpretation, which is [...] better, be opposed to [Page 181] of the Seniors or presbyters, who were not called Doctors; yet to a common title, neither of the specials, to which it is common, are to be opposed, but both to be subiected.

The 5. that Ambrose chargeth both slothfulnes and pride vpon the same persons, called Doctors, &c. But this should haue bene prooued and not begged: especially, seeing I disprooue it in the reason following.

For that which he pratteleth of amplifying the fault, by ri­sing from the lesse to the greater, hath not so much as a shew of a good reason, to dsproue my exposition; seeing of the 2. causes, Ambrose seemeth to make the slothfulnesse of the learned, that is, the Presbyters, not so principall as the pride of the learned, that is to say, the ‘BB. vnles perhaps saith he, by the slothfulnes of the presbyters, or rather pride of the BB.’

Lastly, saith he,‘If we make diuers sorts of teachers (he should haue said learned) Ambrose his speech were defectiue, and some­what must be added, as either by the slothfulnes of the teachers, or rather pride of the Bishops, or some of them.’

I answere, if the word Learned be vsed, being a title com­mon, both to the Seniors and the Doctors, there needs no ad­dition to make the sentence perfect; but a distinct applica­tion of the common title to the speciall sorts, according to their seuerall faultes, by which they are to be distinguished; Slothfulnesse beeing the fault of the one, and pride of the other, as before you heard, in the example of fellowes.

But why should I spend time in answering such slieght Objections?§ Sect. 10. The reasons why I reject their inferēce, first dissem­bled by the re­futer, and then depraued. the which notwithstanding, seeme of such weight with him, that hee wondereth, that all these worthie reasons considered, I would vnderstand Doctorum, signify­ing learned, as a common title, both to the Bishops and Seniors, and that saith hee, as if hee were another Pythagoras, vpon his bareword, I say his bare word; for as yet he hath not vouchsafed vs one piece of a Reason.

This is one of the refuters poore shifts, to make him­selfe wrangling worke: To take an Assertion of mine, and hauing seuered it from the Reasons wherewith it was guar­ded, to cauill with mee, as if without alledging a Reason, I would (like an other Pythagoras) bee belieued vppon my [Page 182] bare word. Whereas in truth, both heere and in other pla­ces, where I am the Answerer, I render more reasons then were needfull, were it not, that I sought to satisfie, in hope that men will at the length be satisfied with reason.

As for example, this place of Ambrose is objected, as gi­uing testimonie to Lay-Elders.

I answere there is no necessitie, this place should so bee vnderstood. Here might I haue rested, and put the oppo­nents to inforce this testimonie, which by them is barely propounded. But being desirous to giue satisfaction, I vrge it for them thus:

Ambrose saith, there were Seniors in the primitiue Church, whose councell was now neglected, therefore he giueth testimonie to Lay-Elders. I denie the consequence, giuing a reason, because those Seniors were of the Clergie and not of the Laitie.

Against this answere I make them replie thus; The Se­niors aduise was neglected by the learned: Therfore them­selues were such as were not learned, or of the Clergie.

To this I answere, that if the word Doctorum signifie lear­ned, Notwithstanding this place may be vnderstood of the Seniors of the clergie onely: If wee conceiue Doctorū signi­fying learned, as a common title, both to the BB: & Seniors, and of this answeare I giue a reason by explaning this testi­mony of Ambrose.

And whereas I did foresee that it would be objected that Doctorum was to be vnderstood either of pastors of parishes alone, according to the conceite of the new Disciplinari­ans, or of BB. a lone according to the rest: I therfore sought to preuent this obiection in those words, for if you expound Doctorum for pastors, &c. Wherein a sufficient reason is concluded, holding strongly against the parish B. & his El­ders. And not contented with all this, in desire to giue satis­faction, I rendred the true causes besides arrogancy of BB. which I knewe was presupposed, why the assistance of the ancient ministers, called Seniors, was growne out of vse: and yet forsooth, like another Pythagoras ▪ I looke that my bare word should be credited without reason.

[Page 283]Yea, but saith hee, ‘that which is added in steed of a Rea­son, hath no more reason in it, but his owne blindnes, saying, that I cannot see how, &c.’

But is it not strange, that hee, who is so sharpe sighted to finde out Syllogismes where none were intended, could see no reason heere?

Or shall we not thinke, that he chose rather like a shifting sophister, to take aduātage of that modest phrase, thē to en­coūter with the reason it selfe, which may thus be cōcluded.

One of these premisses should haue bene denyed,§ Sect. 11. His encoun­tring with the conclusion. and the denyall made good, if hee had bene able: but in steed hereof he encountereth with the conclusion, labouring, as we say, clauum, clauo pellere, and vndertaking to make me see, (if I will not shut mine eyes,) the contradictory of that con­clusion to be true, which notwithstanding cannot be false the premisses being true.

And first, he denyeth that Ambrose spake by guesse, as I say, but certaienly and vpon knowledge; when Ambrose his expresse words bee these, Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio, nisi forte, &c: which by what negligence it is growne out of vse I know not, Ad pag. 44. vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes, &c. 2. He saith, ‘it might be a matter of slothfulnes, in the BB: to suf­fer the seniors to neglect their duties. But not to their own so great trouble, will M, D. say, we might belieue him, if wee saw not pride driue men to vndertake, more then they either need to be charged with, or are able to weeld.’

[Page 184]Then is it not their slothfulnes belike, that caused them to take the whole burden vpon themselues, but their pride, which made them winke at the seniors slothfulnes, as giuing way to their owne ambition.

Thirdly, he saith, ‘the Bishops might prouide for their owne ease, by putting off the burthen to their Chancellors, Commissa­ries, Officialls,Whether the BB. did put off the burden to their Chancel­lours, &c. &c: & therefore it might be imputed to them as a matter of sloth or idlenesse, & pride to: and so the word Docto­rum, rightly expounded, for Pastors of Parishes alone, and not to Diocesan Bishops. As thogh their Parish-Bishops were more likely to haue had Chauncellours, &c: then Diocesan BB: But I answere, 1. the question is not what they might haue done, but what they did.’

Now it is euident, that in Ambrose his time, and a good while after, till the Presbyteries were in a manner whollie neglected, the Bishops had not ordinary vicars, or chancel­lors, or ordinary Commissaries, which were not of the Cler­gie; But what they did without the aduise of their Seniors, they performed ordinarily in their owne persons, or else ex­traordinarily delegated the same to some of speciall trust. In some cases, it is euident, that both then, and long after, they vsed the assistance of their Presbyterie, as in the iudge­ment of Heresie, or for deposing of a clergie man, &c.

Siricius the B. of Rome, in an Epistle Ambros: epist: 80. to Ambrose, de­nouncing Iouinian, Auxentius, &c. for heretickes, sheweth, that for their triall, his whole presbyterie had beene assem­bled; and saith, that by the common consent of his whole clergie, they were condemned for heretickes.

The 4. councell of Carthage, Cap. 23. as you heard, ordained that the Bishop should heare mens causes in the presence of his clergie. The 2. councel of Towers decreed Turon. 2. c. 7. that a Bishop might not depose an Archpresbyter, without the counsell of all his compresbyters: But whom negligence casteth out, let him with the counsell of the presbyters be remoued. The councell of Car­thage Cō. Cart. graec: c. 20. siue Carth: 3. c. 8. appointed, that in the cause of a Presbyter, sixe, and of a Deacon, three Bishops should be joyned with their own Bishop, because as the coūcell of Ciuill cō: hispal: 2. c. 6. determined, one Bi­shop may to Priests, and ministers, that is, Presbyters & Deacons. [Page 185] giue their honour, but one alone may not take it from them: but in the cause of inferiour Clergie men [...] the Bishop alone of the place shall heare and determine it, viz. in the presence of his Clergie, according to the aforesaid Conc. Carth. 4 c. 23. Ca­non of the fourth Councell of Carthage.

But as in some cases they vsed the counsell of the Pres­byteri; so in others they did for the most part vndergoe the whole burthen themselues. For the proofe whereof, the examples of Ambrose and Augustine may suffice. For Am­brose was so occupied in hearing and determining mens causes, that he had so little time left him for his corporall repast, or spirituall studies; that Augustine August. Confess. lib. 6. c. 3. could ne­uer finde him at leisure to breake his minde vnto him. And Augustine August. Epist. 110. Non permit­tor ad quod volo vacare ante meridi­em▪ post me­ridiem occu­pationibus hominum te­neor. was so encombred with hearing of causes, that scarcely he could haue the forenoone for his studies, the afternoone being wholly taken vp with other mens busi­nes: neither could he, when the Councels of Numidia and Carthage had imposed a taske vpon him, and when his peo­ple had promised to forbeare him for fiue dayes, obtaine so much breathing time from their affaires. But when hee was olde, and was desirous to spend the rest of his time in wri­ting, and in the studie of the scriptures, he nominated Era­dius to be his successor; in most earnest manner requiring, and charging the people, that they would suffer him to put off the burden of those imployments to him. Possidonius Possid. in vita August. c. 19. giueth him this testimonie, that he heard mens causes di­ligently, sometimes to the hower of repast, sometimes fasting the whole day: but alwaies himselfe had the cogni­sance of them, and determined them.

The Emperour Iustinian Constit. Nouell. 123. c. 21. prouided by law, that in Ec­clesiasticall causes ciuill iudges should haue nothing to doe: sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat, but let the holy Bishop according to the Sacred Canons determine the cause.

As for ordinarie Vicars, Chancellors or Commissaries which were Lay-men, in those times the Bishops had none: for not so much as the steward of the Church might be a Lay-man: whereupon Gregorie Lib. 7. Epist. 66. writing to Ianuarius a [Page 186] Bishop, chargeth him to take heed, that Ecclesiasticall mat­ters be not committed to secular men, but to some appro­ued of the Clergie. And the second Councell of Ciuil, pen­ned as it seemeth by Isidor who was president thereof, pro­nounceth Conc. hispal. 2. c. 9. it an vnseemely thing Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi, & seculares in ecclesia iudicare, that a Lay-mā should be the Bishops Vicar, & that secular men should iudge in the Church: for in one and the same officer there must not be different profession. Which hauing confirmed out of Deuteronomie, it infer­reth: wherefore it behoueth vs to obey Gods booke and the pre­ceps of the holy Fathers, ordaining that they who shalbe associated to Bishops in Church-gouernement, may not differ neither in pro­fession nor habit.

Notwithstanding that they extraordinarily committed to others or delegated causes to be heard appeareth by the aforesaid example of Augustine. But more clearely by the practise of Siluanus a godly Bishop of Troas, not long after Ambrose his time: who Socrat. lib. 7. c. 37. [...], &c. perceiuing that they of the Cler­gie made gaine of the contentions of them who came to be iudged, he would not at any time appoint a iudge of the Clergie, but himselfe receiuing the petitions of Suiters would make choise of some faithful man or other of the lai­tie, whom he knew to be a louer of iustice, and to him he would commit the hearing of the cause: and for this cause Socrates saith he was greatly renowmed. Out of which ex­amples we may note that causes were wont to be brought to the Bishop, that he heard them himselfe if he had leisure: otherwise, that he committed the hearing of the cause to some of his Clergie: but yet so, as if he saw cause, he might make choise of some other, whom he durst better trust.

Secondly, I answere, that the reason which I vsed, conclu­deth most strongly, against the refuters exposition, who by Doctorum will needs vnderstand parish Bishops. Who if they should take the whole burden vpon them of Church-go­uernement, and deciding causes Ecclesiasticall, without the aide or assistance of the Elders, could not therefore be ac­cused of idlenes: for I hope the refuter will not say, that they also had Chancellers or Comissaries vnder them to whom [Page 187] they might put off those cumbersome imployments.§ Sect. 12. Of Deanes and Chapters and Cathe­drall Chur­ches. That there were Cathe­drall Chur­ches in Am­brose his time.

It remaineth now, that I should proceed to the causes, which I rendred why the Councell of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was so much neglected by Bishops. But that my aduersary, after his accustomed maner, will needs take oc­casion to shew his owne ignorance, by taking vp a speech which as he saith, I let drop by the way, concerning Deanes and Chapters of our Cathedrall Churches, as being a resemblance or remainder of the Presbyteries which were in the Primi­tiue Church. For such is his reading, that he doubteth not to deny, that in Ambrose his times there were any Cathedrall Churches, or that our Deanes and Chapters are so much as resemblances of the Presbyteries of those times.

For Cathedrall Churches, you are to vnderstand, that although in euery Diocesse there were many parish chur­ches, both in country and citie, yet there was one chiefe church in the citie, which was the Bishops Cathedra or seat, wherein the Bishop most vsually performed the duties of the Episcopall and pastorall function, whereunto a peculiar Clergie belonged, consisting of Presbyters, Deacons, and other inferiour orders, and whereto Episcopium the Bishops house was neare adioyning. This church in those times was called sometimes Cathedra sc. Episcopi, as Concil. Carthag. Conc. Carth. 5. c. 5.where it was decreed that no Bishop, relicta cathedra, lea­uing his Cathedrall Church, should remoue his seate or See, to any church in his Diocesse, the Greeke Car­thag. graec. c. 72. hath [...]. And likewise BB: are forbidden Car­thag. c. 122. siue Affric. c. 88. Item. Car­thag. graec. c. 54. siue Af­fric. c. 20. Conc. Mile­uit. c. 24. & 25. to neglect any of those places which belōg [...] sometimes [...] or Matrix, & Matrix Cathedra Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Carth. gr. c. 124. Affric. c. 90. as Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Episcopus qui matricom tenet. Conc. Carth. graec. c. 24 siue Affric. c. 90. [...]. If in the mother Churches, that is to say the Cathedrall the Bishop shalbe negli­gent, &c: sometimes Conc. Aurelian. 3. c. 18. Conc. Neo­caesar. c. 13. Ciuitatensis ecclesia, sometimes [...] as in the Councell of Neocaessaria.

Such a Church was that in Millaine, whereunto Ambrose his house adioyned: for that Theodo­ret. l. 5 c. 18. [...] that house of salutation where Ambrose sate, when Theodosius came to [Page 188] him to be absolued, was not, as T. C. imagined, Ambrose his owne house before he was Bishop: for it was intra septa Ecclesiae within the bounds of the Church, & Paulinus Paulin. in vita Am­br. nihil sibi quod hic su­um diceret, derelinque­ns. testi­fieth, that Ambrose gaue away all when he was made Bishop, and left himselfe nothing which here he might call his owne. In that Church Ambrose vsually preached, to that Church the Emperour himselfe resorted, In the chancell whereof, when Theodosius the Emperour would haue re­mained to receiue the communion, Ambrose Theod. lib. 5 c 18. sent him word by his Archdeacon, that that place was peculiar to the clergie, which belonged to this Church, consisting of the Arch-Presbyter and the other Presbyters, of the Arch­deacon and other Deacons, and other inferior orders of the Clergie. For albeit the name Decanus was not perhaps as yet in vse, yet the office was, and the Deane signified by o­ther names. For sometimes he was called [...] the chiefe or ruler of the Presbyters, euen as Am­brose his Archdeacon, in the place euen now cited, is called [...] Such a one was Chrysostome, Theo­dor. l. 3. c. 19. [...]. in Antioch a long time. Lib. 4. c. 18. Eulogius at Edessa: sometimes [...] so Peter [...]. was the Protopresbyter in the Church at Alexandria. And Arsacius, Socrat. lib. 6. c. 9. Iure gaeco­rum. in synod. Contr. Chry­sost. pag. 557. who succeeded Chrysostome in the Bishopricke of Constantinople, the Proto­presbyter there. In latine most vsually Archipresbyter; as Hist. tri­part. li. 10. c. 10. histor. tripat. lib. 10. c. 10. and in the fourth Councell of Carthage: Conc. Carth. 4. c. 17 where it was decreed that the Bishop should take care of widowes, Orphans & strangers, not by himselfe but by his Archpresbyter, or by his Archdeacon. Ierome Ad Rustic. Monach. tom. 1. pag. 46. shewing that in each societie there is some one ruler, saith, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopi, singuli Archipresbyteri, singuli Archdiaconi the Churches haue each of them one Bishop, one Archpresbyter, on Archdeacon. In processe of time they were called decani. Archipresbyteri Decret. Gregor. li. 1. tit. 23. deoffic Arch. c. 7. a pluribus decani nuncupantur, Archpresbyters of the most are called Deanes. Nei­ther were there onely Archpresbyters and Deanes of Cathe­drall Churches which were called Duaren. de sacr. Eccles. minist. & be­nef. lib. 1 c. 8. Archipresbyteri vrbani, [Page 189] & ciuitatenses, of whom all these former testimonies are to be vnderstood; but also rurall Deanes, called sometimes Archipresbyteri decani, as in the Councell Con [...]. Turonens. 2. c. 20. of Towers, and sometimes decani firsti. Archipresbyteri parochiarum in the Councell of Concil. Agath. c. 15.12. q 2. c. 32. [...]ist. 50. c. 64. Agatha.

The chapter was wont to be called Presbyterium. Pla­cuit Presbyterium contrahi we thought good the Presbyterie should be gathered together saith Cornelius Cypr. lib. 3. Epist. 11. to Cyprian. And Syricius Ambros. Epist 80. the Bishop of R [...]me in an Epistle to Ambrose, facto Presbyterio, the Presbyterie being assembled, somtimes Hier. in Esai. 3. se [...]atus, caetus Presbyterorum, the senate, or assembly of Presbyters.

The Presbyters or Seniors themselues were called some­times Conc. Neocaesar. c. 13. [...], Conc. Agath. c. 22. ciuitatenses Presbyteri the Presbyters of the citie, seniores Tertull. Apol. c. 39. by Tertullian and Am­brose, Ambr. in 1. Tim. 5.1. in the place alleaged. The ancient Councell of Ancyra hauing pronounced it vnlawfull for the Chorepiscopi or countrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons, ad­deth Conc. Ancyr. c. 13. [...], neither yet is it lawfull for the Presbyters of the citie: whereby it may in part appeare, what was the estimation of the Presbyters of the citie in comparison of the countrie Bishops.

But as the Archipresbyteri in latter times were called de­cani, so these Presbyters of the citie were in processe of time called Canonici & prebendarij and the company of them which had beene called Presbyterium, was termed capitulum in english Chapter. Caluin Instit. li. 4. c. 5. saith Presbyteri vrbani versi sunt in canonicos the Presbyters of the citie are turned into Canons or prebendaries. And it is to be noted saith Duarenus, that in euery citie there was a certaine College De sacr. Eccle. mi­nist. ac. be­nef. li. 1. c. 7. of these Presby­ters which the Bishop gouerned,§ 16. such as is at this day canoni­corum collegium the college of Canons who seeme to haue succeeded into their place: and this companie of Presby­ters Ierome calleth the senate of the church.

By all which it is more then euident, that as in the anci­ent times they had Cathedrall churches as well as we, and those endowed with great reuenewes, as it is easie to proue: so the Deanes and chapters of our Cathedrall Churches are [Page 190] the remainder of their Presbyteries, our Deanes being those who were called Archpresbyters, our Prebendaries, those which were called Presbyteri vrbani, our chapters those which they called Presbyteries.

Neither doth that hinder which our refuter obiecteth, that our BB: haue not the like assistance of the Deane and chapter that the ancient BB: had of their Presbyteries. For Ambrose complaineth, that euen in his time their counsell was neglected. And yet in these times, as the Bishop may vse their aduise if he please, so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required, the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent. Besides sede vacante, in the vacancy of the See, the custodie of the Bishopricke & Episcopall rights, as also the election of the new Bishop, is after a sort refer­red to them.Ad pag. 46. And as in times past, so now, the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the citie, whom we call Pre­bendaries, appertaineth to the BB: a few Churches onely a­mong vs excepted. And to conclude, as Deanes and Chap­ters with vs are in a maner peculiar to Cathedrall Churches, the seats of Bishops (some collegiate Churches excepted:) so were the Presbyteries in the primitiue Church. Inso­much that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say, there was in old time, & now should be, a Deane & chapter, as a Presbyterie in euery parish. If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitiue Churches, let them seeke and sue, that the Bishops may vse the counsell and assistance of the Presbyterie of the citie, which we call the Deane and Chapter, and they may hope to preuaile, if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborne be sufficient, which now come to be examined.

[Page 191]These reasons I added by way of surplusage or aduantage, [...]. to giue satisfaction if it might be. But nothing will satisfie them, who set themselues to cauill: for whereas I said, I doubt not but the true causes &c: the refuter depraueth my speech, as if the word I, had beene vttered with an immodest Em­phasis: when as I meant no more by that speech, then when we say, proculdubio, or dubium non est: which kind of speech my aduersarie (me thinkes) should not so greatly mislike, sithens their Lay-Elders, which haue beene vrged with such heat, haue no better warrant then dubium non est, satis opinor, constat, probabile est, as you shall heare, when we come to their proofes. They may say confidently, there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles, yea from the time of Moses vntill Christ, and that after the example of the Iewes (who indeed neuer had such Presbyteries) they are to be erected in euery parish: and yet haue no better warrant for these things, then their owne coniectures. They may take vpon them to auow without reason, that to haue beene done in the Apostles times, whereunto neither scripture nor Father giueth testimonie: and in me it is great immodestie to affirme that, which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of, though I alleage suffi­cient reason of my affirmation. For in the first three hun­dred yeares after Christ, when Christians neither had fre­quent Synodes to determine doubts, nor Synodall con­stitutions to direct the Bishops, nor the authoritie of the Christian Magistrate to rectifie what was amisse in the go­uernement of the Church, there was great necessitie that the Bishop should vse the aduise and counsell of other wise and learned men: otherwise, his will would haue seemed to stand for a law, and his gouernement would haue beene subiect to ouersight in himselfe, to remedilesse wrong towards the clergie and people, and to the obloquy and scandall of all. But when as prouinciall Synodes were frequently viz: Twice a yeare. Conc. Nic. c. 5. Antioch. c. 20. Chal. ced. c. 19. assembled to determine doubts, to right the causes of them that were wronged, to prescribe so many Ca­ [...]ons and constitutions, as to the BB: assembling in Coun­cell seemed sufficient for their direction, whē the authoritie [Page 192] of the christian Magistrate was helpefull to the Church; then we may easily conceiue, that as the Councell and assi­stance of the Presbyterie was not so needfull, so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholasticall quietnesse, and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone, it would seeme needlesse: which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equall balance of the Readers iudgement, against the cauills of the refuter,Pag. 46.47.48. wherewith he hath blotted more then a whole leafe. It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the prouinciall Synodes. For when by experience it was foūd to be very troublesome & chargeable to the BB: hurt­full to their churches, tedious to suiters by reason of multi­tude of causes referred to Synodal audience, that al the BB: in euery coūtry should twice euery yeare for a long time be absent from their churches, to be present at Synodes; it was decreed, both by the Emperours and BB, that those causes wherewith prouinciall Synodes had vsually bene troubled, should be referred to the audience and decisiō of the Arch­bishop or Metropolitan. Euen so, when it was found trou­blesome and tedious to the Presbyters, and hurtfull to the Church, that their time which might better be spent in stu­die of Diuinitie, to furnish them for the publike Ministery, should be taken vp in hearing brabbles and quarrels, and also their assistance seemed not needfull to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid; it is not to be maruelled, that their assi­stance grew out of vse. For whereas the refuter obiecteth, and is the onely thing worth the mentioning which he ob­iecteth, that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time, and long after: I answere, that they continue to this day. But as their assistance now in matters of gouernement is not much vsed, so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected.

And thus much concerning the testimonie of Ambrose: which hauing cleared as well as that, 1. Tim. 5.17. being the onely places of moment, which vse to be produced in this cause, I might safely conclude from all the premisses, that therfore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church: From whence, besides the maine conclusion, that there­fore [Page 193] the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bi­shops,Two conclu­sions inferred vpon the dis­p [...]oofe of Lay-Elders. the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow. The first, that therefore there were no parishionall Presbyteries: the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were sub­iect to the Diocesan Bishops.

Against the former,Chap. 10.155. he obiecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that euery Church in the Apostles times had many Prophets Pastors and Teachers, which, as the refu­ter saith,Ad pag. 49. might make a Presbyterie. But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of, were not in seuerall parishes, but as he saith in populous cities, such as that of Ephesus Act. 20: and those prouided, not for any one parish, but for the whole citie and countrey adioyning, that is to say, the Diocesse. For when my aduersarie shall produce any one pregnant testimonie that in such congregations, as we call parishes, there was a Presbyterie of Ministers, I will also grant, 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 w [...]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 [Page 194] Bishop’, which I haue answered before. For this is the se­cond place where he laboureth out of my word [...] to proue our Diocesan Bishops to be popes, vsing this insultation in the margent. ‘Sic tu beas ami [...]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.

[Page 195]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, [...]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,Ad pag. 50. 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.§ Sect 2. The first alle­gation. Matt. 18.17. 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 [Page 196] 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,Chrys. in Mat. 18. presulibus S [...]eta [...] presi­dentibus. [...]. &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 say to the prelate of the Church, whom he vnderstood by Church, bind him with bands or cords, &c.

[Page 167] Theophylact explaineth the words thus:Theoph. in Mat. 18. If before two or three witnesses hee being reprooued shall not bee ashamed, [...] which Oecolampadius translateth thus,For of [...], the genitiue plurall is [...], according to the rule, in d [...]abus primis de­clinationibus ge [...]i [...] plu­rales cir­cumflectun­tur. Ne graueris tunc in Ecclesiae suggestu invulgare peccatum, sticke not then to pub­lish his fault in the pulpit of the Church or iudgement seate. But the accēt sheweth that by [...] we are to vnderstād An tistites or presides, the Prelates of the Church. And those words, what you shall bind, &c: he expoundeth thus, If thou who art wronged shall hold the offender as a Publican or Ethnicke, euen such a one he shalbe in heauen, but if thou loose him, that is, forgiue him, he shalbe pardoned in heauen, [...] for not onely what the Priests loose are loo­sed, but also what we who are wronged doe bind or loose, the same shalbe bound or loosed: where, by Priests, he meaneth those, whom before he called the Prelates of the Church.

Erasmus maketh this Paraphrase:Paraphra. in Mat. 18. If the offender be so vn­tractable, that he will be moued neither with shame nor feare of iudgement, bring the matter to the congregation, that either he maybe reformed by the content of the multitude, or by authoritie of them which be rulers ou [...] the multitude. But if he be so farre past cure, that he will not be corrected neither by secret and bro­therly monition, neither by the knowledge and consent of two or three, neither by the shame of his fault vttered and disclosed, nei­ther by the authoritie of the [...]hiefe rulers, leaue him to his dis­ease.

My aduersarie therefore, to salue his credit, had need to bring those, from whom he had these testimonies at the second or third hand, to depose, that Chrysostome, Theophy­lact, and Erasmus doe say, that Christ speaketh of Lay-El­ders. Otherwise he will hardly escape the censure of im­posture, and seeking to seduce the people with glorious shewes.

To the rest of his witnesses I answere, that what new writers, being parties in the cause, doe testifie without war­rant of scripture, euidence of reason, or testimonie of anti­quitie, it deserueth no credit.

[Page 198] Sect. 3. The 2. allega­tion. Act. 14.23.The second testimonie, Act. 14.23. that Paul and Barna­bas ordained Presbyters in euery Church, therefore Lay-Elders. How is this consequence proued? because the greeke Scho­liast and a few new writers say so.

But here the disputer, for his credite sake, must plead, that he (for his part) neuer saw the Greeke Scholiast, but re­ceiued this allegation from T. C. else he must be accused either of grosse ignorance, or notorious falsification. I see not saith T. C. why it may not be referred to Elders (meaning Lay-Elders) as well as too Bishops, Lib. 2. part. 2. pag. 36. (meaning Ministers) seeing S. Paul there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church. And of that iudgement is the greeke Scholiast, which affirmeth, that those which followed S. Paul and Barnabas, were worthy to be Bishops, and that they created of them Elders and Deacons: Vnderstanding Oecumenius, as if by Bishops he meant ordi­narie Ministers, and Elders and Deacons, their Lay-Elders and Lay-Deacons: which were a notable deprauing of Oecumenius his meaning, if he were so to be translated. But his words being these [...], those who haue but small skill in greeke doe know, that the article of the plu­rall number with the preposition [...] or [...], doth most vsually signifie no more then the proper name alone, so that [...] is all in one with [...] and so is vsed by Oecumenius in the very next sentence following, as you shall heare. Besides, [...] doth not signifie they were worthy, but they had the dignitie or honour: or if they had beene worthy to haue beene Bishops, Paul and Barnabas had small reason, in that want of sufficient Ministers, to make them lay ei­ther Elders or Deacons. So that Oecumenius his words are thus to be translated, it is to be noted, that Paul and Barnabas had the dignitie of Bishops, for that they ordained by imposition of hands, not onely Deacons but also Presbyters.

Note also saith hee that in Miletum [...] Barnabas and Paul were by im­position of hands ordained, but I found another coppie which for [Page 199] Miletum hath Antioch,In verse. 26. from thence they sailed to Antioch, the coppie wheron Oecum, wri­teth, hath M [...] ­letum. and that is more probable. His mea­ning is that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas were ordained Bi­shops. Act. 13.2.

And that Oecumenius by Presbyters vnderstood Mini­sters or Teachers, it is apparant by his words going before: for demanding, why the Apostles made not Presbyters in Cyprus and Samaria, but in these places mentioned▪ Act. 14. he answereth, those were neare to Ierusalem and the apostles, and in Antioch the word preuailed, [...], but in these places they needed much exhortation, chiefly those of the gentiles needed much teach­ing.

The third testimonie,The 3. allega­tion. Iam. 5.14. Iam. 5.14. Is any man sicke among you? let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray ouer him, annointing him with oile in the name of the Lord. Therefore there were Lay-Elders in S. Iames time.

This consequence is proued because Caluin and foure other new writers say so.

The fourth:The 4. allega­tion. Rom. 12.8. Ambrose in Rom. 12. Rom. 12.8. [...], he that ruleth, in diligence, this Ruler must needs be the Lay-Elder. For besides certaine new writers, Ambrose saith so. But Ambrose vnderstandeth the words generally of any Ruler, expounding him that ruleth to be eum qui curam vt praesit fratribus suscipit him that vndertaketh the care to rule his brethren.

The fifth 1. Cor. 12.28.The 5. allega­tion. 1. Cor. 12.28. God hath appointed in the Church [...] gouernements: these gouernements must needs be of Lay-Elders, for besides some new writers, Ambrose, Ierome, Theodoret, doe testifie so much.

Ambrose his words be these,In 1. Cor. 12.28. sunt & gubernatores gui spiri­tualib. retinaculis hominibus documento sunt, there are also go­uernours who with spirituall reines doe nurture men.

Ierome, qui sciunt singulos prout apti sunt gubernare, who know to gouerne euery one according as they are apt. Theodo­ret, hereby he signified the administrations or gouernements of the Church.

These be all the places of scripture which this great stri­ker§ Sect. 4. [Page 200] durst make shew of.A common exception a­gainst these allegations. Whereof not any one can be said with any shew of probabilitie to speake one word for Lay-Elders. If Lay-Elders were first proued by other arguments or presupposed, the best argument that could out of these places be raised, were from the Genus to the species affirma­tiue; as if they should say, the scriptures speake of gouernours, therefore of Lay-Elders; of Presbyters, therefore of onely gouer­ning Presbyters.

But seeing they neuer were, nor euer will be proued by other arguments; the reason taken from these places, is from the Genus, to a fancied and platonicall Idea, or poeti­call species, and that affirmatiuè. If I should say, it is a bird, therefore a Swanne, it were but a simple argument: but if thus, it is a Bird, therefore a blacke Swanne, it were too ridi­culous. Such are the arguments of this disputer: for if he should say, the holy Ghost speaketh in three of these pla­ces of gouernours, therefore of Presbyters, it were a weake argument; but when he inferreth therefore Lay-presbyters, who were more rare then blacke Swannes, it is very ridicu­lous. If the worst argument in my Sermon, euen when he made the worst of it, had concluded no better then the best of these, he would neuer haue done insulting and trium­phing. But I cannot blame him, they be the best proofes his cause can afford; they are the testimonies, which the prin­cipall patrones of the Presbyterie doe vse to alledge.

But you will say, this is a strange kind of arguing to pro­ceed from men, who allow no office in the Church but what hath expresse and direct warrant in the scriptures: this is the meaning of the scriptures, because some new diuines doe thinke so. We are wont to hold, that scripture is to be expoū ­ded by scripture, as by conference of other paralell scrip­tures, or by inference out of the context it selfe, diduced by some artificiall argument; or if these faile, especially, in such places as concerne matters of storie or fact, as for exam­ple, whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitiue Church, we fly to the expositions of the Fathers, & testimo­nie of antiquitie. But what would you haue a man doe, these proofes and testimonies fayling, the best glosse they can set [Page 201] vpon their cause, and the fairest excuse for themselues is, that some other new writers, in matters of substance for the most part Orthodoxall, haue beene partly of their minde, and yet if we consider, that two or three principall men, ha­uing vpon necessitie deuised the Presbyterie, to supply the roome of the Bishop before eiected, and afterwards (being growne into liking with their owne deuise, because a few places of the scriptures and Fathers especially, 1. Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1. seemed to fauour the same) com­mended it to others, as warranted by scriptures and Fa­thers; others, taking it vpon their word without sufficient tryall, haue yeelded their consent, and by their writings commended the same to posteritie: I say, if these things be considered, we haue no great reason, much to esteeme the testimonies either of the principall Authors, or of the peda­rie fautors of the Presbyterian discipline, being all parties in the cause.

But now if I should proue vnto you,§ Sect 5. New writers falsified by the refuter. that as this disputer abused the names of so many of the Fathers, as he hath na­med: so also hath wronged some of the new writers: assu­redly, if he be not as shamelesse, as he is namelesse, his face which now he hideth,De concil. qu. 5. cap. 3. he will neuer dare to shew. For first, where he produceth D. Whitakers as a witnesse, that Christ when he said tell the Church meant Lay-Elders: it is eui­dent to any that readeth him, that by Ecclesia in that place, he vnderstandeth the Church represented in a Councell, whether prouinciall, which he sheweth to be aboue a Bi­shop; or generall, which he proueth to be aboue the Pope. For if a Bishop or the Pope should offend, the course which our Sauiour prescribeth to Peter himselfe and the rest of his Apostles should be taken; First, by priuate admonition, Se­condly, before two or three witnesses, and thirdly, if these faile, by telling the Church.

For the second place he alleageth D. Fulke, In Act. 14.23. who doth not once mention Lay-Elders, nor meane them in that place. But our translation being accused by the Rhemists, for that where we should say Priests, In Act. 14. we say Elders: D. Fulke doth not deny, but that Priests or Ministers are there meant [Page 202] by Elders, whom he could be content should be called Priests, as Priests is the English of Presbyters, and wisheth that the sacrificers of the law had neuer beene called by that name, but that it had beene reserued (if I vnderstand him) to sig­nifie the Ministers of the Gospell. There is no question therefore betweene them, whether Lay-Elders be there meant; but whether the Ministers, who are there meant by the name Presbyteri, whom the Papists would haue transla­ted Priests, may not also be called Elders.

In act. 14.23. Aretius, though he holdeth the distinction of Elders, and so is a partie in the cause, notwithstanding by Presby­ters, Act. 14 23. he vnderstandeth Ministers onely. Ministr [...]s ordinat per singulas Ecclesias, expende hic quid sint Presbyteri, nimirum ministri certis Ecclesiis deputati, vnde duplex fuit pri­mitiuae Ecclesiae genus Presbyterorum, vnum quod Ecclesiae pra­er at docendo, quales isti hic sunt, &c.

In Iam. 5.14.For the third, he abuseth againe the testimonie of D. Fulke, who, as in the former place, by Presbyteros, vnder­standeth Priests or Ministers. And as the Rhemists blamed, after the same manner, our translation, for saying Elders and not Priests, he answereth as before. And whereas they ob­iect, that our Elders be not such as the Apostle Iames requi­reth to be sent for, as being not deputed specially to publike praying or administration of the Sacraments; he answe­reth, that although in some Churches there be some Elders ap­pointed only to gouerne, yet is there no Church, in which there be no Elders appointed specially to publicke prayers and administration of Sacraments. But admitting, that the Ministers of our Church be such as the Apostle speaketh of, you demaund why we translate them not Ministers▪ I answere (saith he) because the word signi­fieth Elders, & not Ministers, & yet we contend not for the terme, nor refuse the name Priest, when it signifieth the same whom the Apostle calleth Presbyterum, but when by abuse of Papists it is ta­ken to signifie a sacrificer.

Act. 14.23.15.4.6.22.24. &. 20.17 28. Tit. 1.5.In the second and fift, he quoteth D. N [...]well, who indeed speaketh of certaine Seniors which with the Pastor, that is the Bishop, were to exercise the discipline of the Church, but whether they were chosen out of the Clergie, or laitie, [Page 203] he sheweth not: by the places which he quoteth for the proofe of them, diuerse whereof, euen in the iudgement of Caluin, are to be vnderstood of Ministers, he may seeme to meane Seniors of the Clergie.

In the fourth and fifth he abuseth the testimonie of Th. Morton (not the learned and iudicious Deane of Winchester, Th. Morton. in 1. Cor. 12.28. but another old acquaintance of mine) who in Rom. 12.8. & 1. Cor. 12.28. by gouernours, vnderstandeth those, who haue the gouernement of the Church.

These may suffice for a taste of his good dealing with new writers, especially our owne countrey men: the rest, let examine them who either haue the bookes, or thinke it worth their paines.

CHAP. X. Containing an answere to the same testimonies, and some other proofes, as they are vrged by other disciplinarians.

THus much might suffice to haue an­swered his allegations out of the scrip­tures; were it not, that some perhaps will imagine, that these places might be better vrged. For their satisfaction therefore, I will take vpon me, briefly, yet fully to answere these and some o­ther of the best proofes, as they are vr­ged by T. C. M. Caluin, Beza and Dudley Fenner.

First therefore concerning,Mat. 18.17. vrged by T.C.l. 1. pag. 176. Mat. 18.17. T. C. argueth thus. By Church is meant either all the people, or the Pastor a­lone, or the Pastor with the ancients and Elders; but neither the people, nor Pastor alone, therefore the Pastor with the ancients and Elders.

The disiunction is grounded vpon a supposition of the newfound parish discipline, that there were no other Ecclesi­asticall gouernours but parishionall, which I shall hereafter by Gods helpe proue to be absurd. In the meane time, for the confutation of this disiunction, it shall suffice to note [Page 204] that, which all disciplinarians confesse, that our Sauiour Christ speaketh according to the manner of those times either bidding them tell the assembly, that is the Synedrion; of the Iewes; or at least, that the partie offending is to be delated to the like assembly, authorized for hearing of cau­ses, in the Church of Christ. Wherefore T. C. and our new disciplinarians, must first proue these two things, first, that there was an Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie in euery Synagogue, and secondly, that what they had in euery Synagogue we ought to haue in euery parish, before they may vrge the like, in imita­tion of them, to be erected in euery parish among vs. But they are so farre from prouing the latter of these assertions, that they faile in the former. T. C. professeth,T. C. lib. 2. part 2 pag. 46. he cannot proue it out of the old testament; but that it may be concluded out of the new, he hopeth the Reader will iudge; considering that the policie of the Church now, was in this point taken from the Iewes Church. As if he should say: forasmuch as the Church, which imitated the Iewes, had in euery parish a Presbyterie (which indeed is most notoriously false) it is to be suppo­sed, that the Church of the Iewes had in euery Synagogue the like. Where, by a circular disputation, the question which we denie, is brought to proue his argument, whereby notwithstanding he would seeme to proue the question. For aide therefore he bringeth the custome of the moderne Iewes, who, if they had any such custome, were no fit prese­dents for vs to follow. But indeed they, though they haue their Rabbi in euery Snagogue, yet an Ecclesiasticall Pres­byterie they neuer had for ought that I can find. And where­as he, and after him the author of the Counterpoison, al­leage Ierome, Ad Al [...]gasi­am. qu. 10. to proue, that they had their Elders in Euery Sy­nagogue, which should aswell admonish the polluted to abstaine from the assemblies, as to reproue the Sabbath-breakers; I cannot suf­ficiently wonder at the allegation: for Ierome mentioneth that custome of the Iewes, which he speaketh of, as one of the worst of the Pharisaicall traditions which he calleth [...], which one (saith he) I will mētion to the shame of the whole nation, and which I will not mention for modestie sake; & therfore we may be sure, neither Christ transmitted, [Page 205] nor Ierome commended it to the Church. Secondly, the go­uernours of their Synogogues, which Ierome speaketh of, were such as were to iudge of cleane and vncleane, a dutie peculiar to the Priests.Leuit. 10.10. Neither doth he speake of admoni­shing the polluted from comming to the assemblie, but onely of iudging betweene cleane and vncleane. And third­ly that which T. C. addeth concerning the Sabbath, is by Ierome mentioned as another tradition of the Pharisies ha­uing no affinitie with the former.

Yea but the new testament speaketh of them in diuerse places,§ Sect. 2. T. C ibid. pag. 47. Matt. 23.2. de Rep. He­br. l. 2. cap. 8. De polit Iu­daic. c. 18. Sigon li. 5. c. 10. Act. 13.15. & 18.8.17. calling them [...] the chiefe of the Sy­nagogues. The archisynagogi were such as now they call their Rabbies as being the Scribes and Pharisies who were their Teachers sitting in the chaire of Moses, as Sigonius witnes­seth. Bertram likewise saith, those who at the first were cal­led Prophets and afterwards Scribes and Doctors of the law, at the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, (for those who were in the Temple were called scribae tem­pli) and of these in the greater Synagogues there were more then one. Beza also seemeth to haue beene of the same minde. Howbeit, both he and Bertram (who dedicateth his booke vnto him) doe thinke, that in the Synagogue of the cities, these Rulers had Elders ioyned with them. But it may be you expect their proofes. Heare therefore the very foundation of the Presbyterie: to wit, that what was the order of the Church of the Iewes, Christ translated and recommended to his Church. But in the Church of the Iewes there were Elders ioyned to the Teachers to make vp an Ecclesiasticall Senate. How the proposition will be made good, I know not: The assump­tion is proued thus. There were Leuites in the Synagogues, saith Beza,Bez. de pres­byt. & excō ­mun. 102. in whose hands the spirituall administration was, there be­ing ioyned to them ‘vt probabile est’ as it is probable, some Citi­zens of note. Hence is mention of the Archisynagogi, who ruled the assemblies. Bertr. de po­lit. Iudaic. c. 18. Those saith Bertram who had beene called Pro­phets and after Scribes, as the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, vnde verisimile est whence it is likely that those Archisynagogi, did moderate the order of Seniors, who were to enquire into mēs māners: for the Synagogues also had their Mini­sters, [Page 206] Luc. 4.20. So that (belike) the Minister or attendant, to whom Christ gaue the book, was one of these Seniors, or ex illustrib. ciuibus, as Beza speaketh. Well, & what was their of­fice? Horum proculdubio partes fuerunt, their office no doubt was, not to admit to the Synagogue them, whom the Synedrion of Ieru­salem had excluded from the Synagogues. Bez: vbisup: And what their of­fice hath bene since in the Church, you heard it proued be­fore, by Satis opinor constat: I thinke it is euident enough. So that the very foundation,Eccl: disc. whereon the presbyterie of Lay-Elders, (which with such vehemencie and violence hath bene vrged as the vndoubted ordinance of Christ) is groun­ded, is no better then the probable conjectures of some new writers, who are parties in the cause: probable (I say) in their owne conceipts: For else there is not so much as probabili­tie in their Assertions. And so much of M. Cartwrights col­lection out of Matth: 18.17. and what else is said of others, in fauour of the presbyters in the Synagogues of the cities.

§ Sect. 3. Calu: in Matth: 18.17. Bez: de pres­byt, & excō: p. 106. ne (que) ambigimus quin Chrūs ad verāistā institutionem ecclesiastici Synedrij re­spexerit Counterpois. 4. Reason for Elderships.Now let vs see what Caluin, Beza, and others, collect out of that place of Mathew. When Christ biddeth them tell the Church: Forasmuch as there was no Christian church established, wherevnto they might repaire, it were absurde to vnderstand Christ as propounding the iudgement of the Church, which yet was not. Therefore dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that Christ spake of such an assembly as was then in vse alluding to the order of the olde Church, wherein, after their returne from Baby­lon, a select Councell was established, which they called Sinhe­drim, in Greek Synedrion, whervnto the censure of Doctrine and manners was committed. Which Synedrion, besides some Priests and Leuites, consisted of the Elders of the people. And although the discipline was corrupted amongst the Iewes in our Sauiour Christs time, and therefore it is not likely that our Sauiour would send his Disciples to their Assemblies to haue their causes heard; yet dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that forme of dis­cipline which had beene vnder the Law, was by Christ transmit­ted to vs: and that the forme of discipline, which was in vse in the Church of Christ succeeded in the roome thereof.

The summe is.

The proposition hath no other proofe but their owne te­stimonie, signified in those asseuerations, dubium non est, ne (que) ambigimus: for that which is added by Beza & the author of the counterpoison, that the wordes which Christ vsed, Let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican ▪ to proue that he spake according to their custome, doe in no sort prooue, that hee translated their forme of gouernement into his church. For if Christ did translate from the state of the Iewes, any Con­sistories into his church, then hee transmitted such, as were either ordained of God, or deuised by men.

If the former, then such as God ordained for the gouern­ment of the people, either in the Wildernes, or in the Land of promise. In the Wildernes, by the aduise of Iethro. and approbation of God,Exod: 18.21.22. Deut: 1.15.17. Num: 11.16.17. there were Rulers set ouer thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, to iudge the people: the deciding of more difficult causes beeing reserued to Moses. But the multitude of these difficult causes increasing, and Moses wax­ing weary of them, the Lord ioyned to him a Senate of 70. Numb: 11.

Answereable to these, the Lorde appointed Consi­stories or Senates, for the gouernement of the people in the Land of promise.

To the former, Deuteron: 16.18.Deut: 16.18. Iudges and Of­ficers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, throughout all thy Tribes, and they shall iudge the people with righteous iudgement. To the latter, Deut: 17.Deut: 17.8. If there arise a matter too harde for thee in Iudgement betweene blood & blood, betweene plea & plea, betweene plague and plague, in the matters of controuersies, within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise, and goe vp into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come vnto the Priests and Leuites and the iudge (that is, Iudges saith Caluin) that shall [Page 208] be in those dayes, and aske, and they shall shewe thee the sentence of iudgement.

Verse. 5.This prescript the godly king Iosaphat followed exactly 2. Chron. 19. both in respect of the inferiour consistories in the cities, placing iudges in the land throughout all the strong cities,Verse. 8. citie by citie: and in Ierusalem did he set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord, saying to them; In euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in the cities, betweene blood and blood, betweene law and pre­cept, statutes and iudgements, you shall admonish them, &c. Be­sides these, the Lord ordained no consistories, or senates. But none of these did Christ translate into his Church, for none of them was Ecclesiasticall. Neither did he translate those which were deuised by men; whether by the Iewes, as their Synedrion or Sanedri [...]n, Ioseph. an­tiq. lib. 14. c. 11. Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7. which was their chiefe counsell of state, which Caluin saith after their returne from Babylon they did institute, or by P. Gainius the Proconsul of Syria, who ordained foure more Synedria of the like nature: which some suppose to haue beene the cause, why our Sauiour speaketh in the plurall number Matt. 10.17. Mar. 13.9. But of the counsell renewed by Iosaphat, and the Synedrion ordained of the Iewes,§ Sect. 4. The proposi­tion confuted. I shall haue occasion to say more in answere to the assumption.

But how little credit is to be giuen to that proposition, may appeare by this dilemma: for by Church, Christ doth signifie either the consistories and assemblies of the Iewes, or assemblies in the Church of Christ.

If the former, then was the direction, which Christ gi­ueth, peculiar to those times, and pertaineth not to the Church of Christ,Perpet. go­uern. chap. 4. as D. Bilson sheweth in the fourth chapter of his booke, whereunto I doe referre you. If the latter, then had he not so much as respect or reference to the Consi­stories of the Iewes, so farre was he from translating them into his Church,Matt. 18.6.7 10. as shall appeare by this most plaine expli­cation of the text according to the latter sense.

Our Sauiour Christ intreating of scandales and offences, first teacheth vs that we be carefull to auoid offences, and [Page 209] that we doe not in that respect seeme to disregard any of his little ones. 2. Hee directeth vs what course wee are to take when wee are offended. If thy brother (that is, one professing the same religion) shall sinne against thee (that is, priuately,) either by injurie,Vers: 15. doing thee wrong, or if ye will also, by euill exāple scandalizing or giuing thee offence, by his sin com­mitted in thy knowledge, laying as it were a stūbling blocke in thy way,Leuit: 19.17 thou must as the Lorde hath commaunded not suffer sinne to rest vpon him, but in a desire to reclaim him, thou must 1. vse priuate admonition, & brotherly reproofe; goe, [...], a [...]gue and redargue, conuince & reproue him, between thee & him alone. If he harken to thee acknowled­ging his fault,Iam: 5.20. Vers: 16. and testifying his repentance, then hast thou wonne or gained thy brother, and saued a soule from death. But if he heare thee not, suffer not sinne so to rest vpō him, but take with thee yet 1. or 2. witnesses, & set vpō him ioint­ly, that either by y^e presēce & authority of so many together hee may be reclamed, or at least a way be prepared to pub­licke triall; that howsoeuer thy testimonie alone would bee reiected, yet in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses, the matter may be sufficiently testified. And if hee will not heare them, but remaine obstinate,Vers. 17. then tell the Church, that is, the assembly of them who in the church haue spirituall authoritie to cen­sure offenders, whether it be the Consistorie of one Citie, or particular church, or the Synode of a Prouince or Nation, or an vniuersall Counsell, according to the nature of the offence, and the qualitie & degree of the offender. And if he will not heare the assembly, but remaining obstinat, draw vpon him their censure of excōmunication, wherby they shall bind the offender, & after a sort deliuer him to Satan; then shalt thou hold him no more as a brother, or thinke thy selfe bound to exercise the duties appertaining to the cōmunion of Saints, but withdraw thy selfe from him, abandon him, and haue no more to doe with him, then a Iew of this time would haue to doe with an heathen or publican, that by these meanes seeing himselfe auoided & shunned, hee may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance. And least any man should light­ly esteeme the iudgement of the Church,Vers. 18. that is, of such spi­rituall [Page 210] gouernors as haue authoritie in the church to cēsure offenders, Verily I say vnto you, saith our Sauiour, speaking to his Apostles, and in them to all their successors, to whom the keyes of heauen are committed,Matt: 16.19 Iohn. 20.23. Whatsoeuer you (for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synode, are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly) whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen: and whatsoeuer you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heauen. Neither thinke, when I mentio­ned the church, I meant a great assembly only, or the whole congregation; for I say vnto you, that where 2. or 3. are gathe­red together in my name, Vers: 19.20. I am there in the middes of them, & ther­fore, if but 2. of you shal cōsent in asking any thing of God (as name­ly pardon for the penitent sinner) it shall be graunted vnto you.

If against this exposition it shalbe obiected, that the Chur­ches hearing and censuring of offences would be prejudici­all to Magistrates: I answere, offences and offenders admitte diuers distinctions. Of offences, some are open & notorious, some are secrete & priuate. Some againe are grieuous and ca­pital crimes, which may not be cōcealed or left vnpunished, other be offēces not so hainous or enormous, but they may be concealed and pardoned, where is hope of amendment: For notorious and enormous crimes our Sauiour doth not prescribe this course, but for the priuate and lesse offences. Againe, offenders are either (in the iudgment of charity) our brethren in Christ, or the sonnes of Belial: For the latter, we may take the ciuile course of Iustice, for the former we must take a spirituall course of Christian charitie, that wee may winne our brother vnto Christ, or recouer him beeing fal­len, which course our Sauiour heere prescribeth.

By Church therefore or assemblie, our Sauiour meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiasticall senate of the Iewes, nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable therto, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders. Not the former: for Christ spea­keth of such, as should meet in his name, to whō he promi­seth, what they bind vpon earth, shalbe bound in heauē: nei­ther are we to think, that our Sauior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the vnbelieuing Iewes, as Cal­uin also saith. It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza, not [Page 211] only to imagine,In Matt: 18 17. & in Marc: 5.22. that the name Church is here attributed to the Iews, but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place. Or if that were true, how should this direction belong to vs, seeing not only the imaginarie Ecclesiasticall Senate of the Iewes is vanished, but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished, and their whole policie abrogated. Not the latter, for our Sauiour, by Church vnderstandeth such as should haue power to bind & loose sinnes, as appeareth by the words following. Which power of the keyes of binding and loosing sinners,Matth: 16.19. Ioh: 20.23, of retai­ning and remitting sinnes, our Sauiour Christ hath so pecu­liarly appropriated to the Apostles, & their successors in the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, as nothing more.

Neither had the Iewes indeed such an ecclesiasticall Senate, as they speake of,§ Sect. 5. The assump­tion confuted mixed of the Priests and Leuites, with the Elders of the people: as I am now to shew in answering the assumption. For if this be true, that the Iewes had no such Presbyterie, then what shew of trueth or probabilitie is in their argument taken from Matth: 18.17▪

Caluin saith, that the Iewes after their returne from capti­uitie,in Math: 18.17. had a chosen counsell, to which was cōmitted the cen­sure of doctrine & manners, which they called Sinhedrin, or Sanedrin, in Greek Synedrion. T.C. holdeth, that the Synedrion was not then first instituted,Lib: 2. part: 2 pag: 41. but restored: which seemeth to be the truth: Howbeit his reason (as almost all the rest) is but a meere colour. For it would follow (saith he) that the Priests, & other Leuiticall teachers who were a part of that Bench, had then their first institution: when it is plaine, that the Priests and Le­uiticall teachers were instituted before the Synedrion, Exod: 28. Numb: 11. De presbyt: & excomm: pag 103. Lib: 2. part: 2. pag: 40. and so might haue cōtinued their functiō, though the Sanedrin had neuer bin. Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Mo­ses, & the instauratiō therof, whē it was decayed frō Iosaphat. T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod: 4.

With his Elders therefore, as being the eldest in conceit, I will beginne. This order of Eldership (saith hee,) was taken from the gouernement of the people of God, before, and vnder the Law. Before the Law, the Elders which Moses assembled, Exod: 4.Exod: 4.29. were Ecclesiasticall officers: for it is not likely, that [Page 212] vnder such a Tyrant, they should haue Magistrates of their owne.

I answere briefly: the state of the Hebrews, if you respect the whole people, was neither a settled Church, nor establi­shed common-wealth. But if you respect the seuerall kinreds and Families, they were ruled by the Elders of the people, which were the heads of the Families;See Beza, de Presbyt: & excomm: pag: 101. who, as alwayes from the beginning, so at that time, & vntill the separation of the Tribe of Leui, to the priestly function, were both priests and magistrates, to their seuerall kinreds and Families. Where­fore let them, who will needes haue these to be Lay-Elders, tell vs, who were then the priests, whome these Elders did assist.

Vnder the Law, he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house, 2. King: 6. and in Ezekiels house, Ezek: 2 King: 6.32 Ezek: 8.1. 8. because it is vnlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could haue the ciuill Gouer­nors to consult with: & is it not more vnlike, that there should be approued Elders of an ecclesiasticall Senate, either in the Apostoticall Church of Israell, vnder Achab and Iehoram, or in Mesopotamia, whether Ezekiell, and those Elders of Iuda were transported, who could neuer be found vnder the most godly Kings at Ierusalem?

Againe, hee findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra, and on the left, Nehem: Nehem: 8.2. 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Leuites, and from the people: From the people, because they stood by Ezra. From the teaching Leuites, because he speaketh of them after. Therefore they must needs bee Lay-Elders: as though, either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra, or that these might not haue beene priests, or that all the Leuites were teachers, or that there were no more teaching Priests or Leuites but those, which are mentioned then, and there to haue taught the people. Hee that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause, must needs thinke this cause to be very badde, which he was not able to make good by better arguments, then those most vnlikely likely-hoods.

§ Sect: 6. Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councels or consistories were ordained by Moses, which should be held both in Ierusalem, the place which God did choose, & in other cities; whereof [Page 213] the one, was ciuill, the other ecclesiasticall, consisting of the priests, Leuits, & scribes, or teachers, & also the seniors of the people. But the reader shal easily vnderstand this latter to be a meere fiction, if he consider that the Synedrion at Ierusalem, which was the highest court & chief councel of state, hauing power of life & death, & authority to deale in causes both ci­uill & ecclesiasticall, cōsisted of the high priest, & other priests and Leuites,2. Chron: 19.8, 10, 11. Num: 11.16 Ezek: 8.11. Sigon: li. 6. c. 7, ex Tal­mud: Lib. 6, c, 4, ex Ier: 19, 1, together with the Princes & Seniors of the peo­ple, being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number: Of which, that in Deut: 17.8.9. is to bee vnderstood. These were called Sanedrin, and did sit in Gazith: In which num­ber, those which were priests, were called Seniores Sacerdotū, and those which were Princes, were called Seniores populi, as Sigondus saith. And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consisto­ries in other cities, consisted as well of the learned Leuits as of the seniors of the people. Iosephus saith, that to euery cō ­sistory in the cities belonged 2. Leuites. The reason heereof was,Lib, 4, An­tiq, 8. because the lawes wherby that church & cōmon-wealth were gouerned, were the lawes of God; wherein the Priests, Leuites, & Scribes were most skilfull, and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law. And ther­fore another sort, which should consist of Priests, Leuits, and elders of the people,De presbyt: & excom: pag: 104- Leuit: 10, 10 & which should respōdere de iure (as Beza imagineth this shuld) was altogether needles. But his proofs are as weake, as his imagination was strong. His only proofe for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiasticall senat, is Leuit: 10.10. where they were ordained saith he, to shew the difference betweene holy & profane, betweene cleane & vncleane, & to teach the law of God. But no such thing can, with any shew of probabilitie be gathered out of the text, where the Lord speaking to Aaron, cōmandeth him, & his sonnes the priests, by a perpetual law, that they should not drink wine nor strong drink, whē they were to enter into the sanctuary, whereby they might be hin­dered from exercising their function discreetly & soberlie, either in iudging betweene holie & profane, between cleane and vncleane, or in teaching the people; which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary, by the priests, as well seue­rally as ioyntly, & no ecclesiasticall senate at all here instituted: [Page 214] or if there were,Cap. 11. it should (according to Bertrams conceit) consist wholy of the Priests, to whom alone this speech is directed. As for Elders of the people, they were not to in­termeddle with these things. The high Priest indeed, if it pleased him, might consult with other Priests, and vse their assistance, as Azariah did vse the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26.2. Chron. 26.17 But that there was a setled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiasticall ordained by God, we doe not read: and that it should consist in part of Lay-men, there is not the least semblance of like­lihood.

Pag. 103.104.His proofes, that there were two diuerse Synedria institu­ted, are these First, because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left vncertaine. Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former. I answere, there is neither number set downe, nor time, of that which neuer was.

§ Sect. 7.His proofe for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Iosaphat ordained two Sy­nedria or counsells, the one Ecclesiasticall for the causes of God, ouer which the high Priest was chiefe; the other ciuill, for the causes of the King, ouer which Zabadiah a Prince of Iuda was chiefe. But it is euident by the text, that it was one and the same high counsell of state, which afterwards was called Sanedrin, or Synedrion Hierosolymita [...]ū, cōsisting of the Leuites and Priests, and of the heads of the chiefe fami­lies in Israel, ordained for the iudgements of God and con­trouersies of men, which was to heare and determine all manner of causes that were brought vnto them from the iudgements or consistories of the inferior cities, & were to iudge betweene blood and blood, that is slaughter and slaughter, betweene the law and the precept, betweene sta­tutes and iudgements, hauing among them in the causes of God, Amarias the high Priest; and in the causes of the King, Zebadiah a Prince of Iuda, as chiefe, and that the Maisters or gouernours the Leuits were with them to instruct them in the law.Shoterim. See 1. Chron 234. For whereas he would proue, that Iosaphat ordai­ned two distinct counsels at Ierusalem, by these reasons, be­cause the dutie of the one was to deale in the causes of God, [Page 215] the other of the King: the one should determine de iure, the other de facto: the one, had for the president the high Priest, the other a Prince of Iuda: none of these reasons doe proue, that Iosaphat ordained any thing but that, which be­fore had beene appointed by God;Deut. 17.9.10. namely, that the diffi­cult controuersies which the iudges in the cities could not determine betweene blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, should be brought to the Syned [...]ion or coun­sell of the place which God shoul [...] choose, the which is there noted to consist of the Priests,In Penta­teuch. in deut. 17 9. Also see Deu. 19 17. Leuites and [...]udge, that is iudges, saith Caluin, as appeareth by the holy historie, where it is declared that Iosaphat besides the P [...]i [...]sts and Leuites chose the Princes of the families of Israel: for the godly King would de­cline n [...]uer a whit from the rule of Gods law. To this counsell the difficult causes afore said as we [...]l ciuill as Ecclesiasticall, as well de facto, Sigō de rep. Hebr. lib. 6. c. 7. as de iure, were to be brought from other ciuill courts, as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8. and also 2 Chron. 19.20.

Besides, it is ridiculous to imagine, that the ciuill senate should determine onely de facto, and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiasticall; the rather because that counsell, which was appointed by God, Deut. 17. and renewed by Iosaphat did consist of the Priests and Leuits and Elders of the people, and was to determine and to de­cide all questions of doubt and difficultie: or if they were to seeke to an Ecclesiasticall senate, it is absurd to imagine, that Lay-Elders should be ioyned to the Priests and Leuits to answere de iure.

As for the causes of God, which verse 8 are termed the iudgement and cause of the Lord and are particularized, verse. 10. and Deut. 17.8. (betweene blood and blood be­tweene law and precept, &c.) we are to vnderstand them to be not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill, so farre as either they were to be decided b [...] the lawes of God, or concer­ned the obseruation or transgression of Gods law, whereby that land was gou [...]rned, in iudging, whereof, they also ex­ercised Gods iudgement.

[Page 216]The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house, or his eschequer. And it is fond to imagine, that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and mor [...]ll lawes of God, were not the causes of God, as well as those which concerned the ceremoniall law.

Neither do I therefore reiect the exposition of Beza and some others, who by the causes of God, vnderstand Eccle­siasticall causes, and by the causes of the king, ciuill causes, because it is preiudiciall to my defence; but because it is re­pugnant to the truth: for though their interpretation were admitted, it would no more proue, that there were two dis­tinct Syn [...]dria, Antiq. lib. 9. c. 1. then that which I doe embrace. For though Zebadiah the prince of Iuda was the chiefe in the causes of the King, as Amariah the high priest was the chiefe in the causes of God, yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsell, [...]. as Iosephus also doth witnesse. For spea­king of this act of Iosaphat, he saith, that he being returned to Ierusalem appointed iudges there [...] of the Priests and Leuits, and of the chiefe or principall men of the people: Synedrion fuisse. 71. cui precrat Sacerdos Summus. The high Priest had au­tho [...]itie to call or assemble the counsell, till the time of Antipater He­rods Father, but after wards not without the Lieuetenants leaue. Sigon. li. 6. c. 7. Iosep. l. 20. Cal. in Mat. 18. requiring them to exercise iust iudgement, but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferiour iudgement seats: but the chiefe or presidents of them, as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest, and Zabadiah of the tribe of Iuda: and relating the law, Deu. 17.8. Li. 4. c. 8. he saith, if the iudges (in the cities) be not able to determine any cause, it is entirely to be sent to the holy citie, [...] Li. 6. c. 7. and let the high Priest and the Prophet (that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Luk. 22.66. Sigonius) and the senate assembling together, pronounce what seemeth right.

Besides, it is manifest, that the counsell at Ierusalem, after the captiuitie, which consisted of priests and Leuits, besides the Seniors of the people, and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth, hauing authoritie to assem­ble it, &c. Act. 5.21. Matt. 26.57.59. was the high councell of state called the Sanedrin or Synedrion, or cōsistorium Gazith [Page 217] which dealt in causes not onely Ecclesiasticall, but also ciuil, and in causes criminall and capitall. Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests, but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution, Deut. 17. and instauration by Iosaphat. 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation, as Caluin witnesseth, in respect of the erection of it after the captiuity. For as the Lord promised by Esay to restore their iudges and counsellers after the captiuitie,Esa. 1.26. Ezek 44.24. as before; so Ezekiell prophecieth, that the Priests, after the captiuitie, should not onely teach the people, and iudge betweene holy and pro­phane, betweene cleane and vncleane; but also that they should stand vp to iudge controuersies, iudging according to Gods iudgement. Iosephus also testifieth, that the Priests were ordained by Moses [...],Contr. Ap­pion. lib. 2. ouerseers of all, iudges of controuersies, and punishers of such as are by the law condemned.

And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsell at Ierusalem, vntill I come to answere Caluins o­pinion.§ Sect. 8. Exod. 18. Deut. 1. &. 16. 2. Chron. 19. De presb. & excom. pag. 102. In Marc. 5.22. de pres­byt. 112. Pag. 103.

As touching Ecclesiasticall Presbyters in other cities, Beza hath nothing but his owne coniectures: For the courts of iudgement, which both Moses instituted, and Iosaphat renewed, though they had Leuites among them, were to deale not onely in Ecclesiasticall, but also in ciuill and cri­minall causes. The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiasticall senates are three. First, because the Archisyna­gogi had, as it is probable, Seniors of the people ioyned with them. Secondly, because the name of Church in this place of Mathew is giuen to them, which could not be, vnlesse they did consist of the laitie, as wel as the clergie. Thirdly, because as the ciuill consistories assembled in the gates, so the Ecclesiasticall, in the Synagogues. To the first I answere, that a probabilitie (if this were such, as in­deed it is not) is no proofe: to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not giuen to the Archisynagogi, but to the Rulers of Christs Church assembling in his name, with whom he pro­mised his presence, and to whom he committed the power of the keyes, to whom also the name Ecclesia, which may be gi­uen [Page 218] to any company of Christians, be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ, doth fitly agree. Thirdly, he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall consistories ordained by Moses, and renewed by Iosaphat, sitting in Synagogues; when there is not once mention in the old testament, either of Eccle­siasticall consistories, or yet of Synagogues. And in the new, such iudges are mentioned in Synagogues,Mat. 10.17. & 23 34. Act. 22 19. Cap. 13. as punished by stripes. Bertram also witnesseth, that in the Synagogues of the cities, iudgements were exercised by ordinarie iudges; the greater and weightier causes, as also the appeales of the lesse being referred to the counsell [...]t Ierusalem. And againe, that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer, § Sect. 9. Cap. 18. to heare the law and the Prophets, and to heare the iudgement of Moses law, as well ciuill as Ecclesiasti­call And so much of Beza.

Calui [...] by Ecclesia vnderstandeth the Synedrion or Sane­drin of the Iewes instituted by them after their returne from Babylon:In Mat 18.17. In Num. 11.16. which he conceiueth to haue beene an Eccle­siasticall senate, to which belonged the censure of doctrine & maners, hauing the power o [...] excōmunication &c. What this Synedrion was, Caluin himselfe shall tell vs, It is certaine saith he that the Iewes, when they were returned from the Baby­lonian banishment, because they might not make a King, did imi­tate this example (of appointing 70. Elders. Num. 11) in or­daining the Synedrion. Onely so much honour was granted to the memorie of Dauid and the Kings, that out of their stocke they would choose 70. gouernours, in whom should be the chiefe power: And this course continued vntill Herod, &c. The Sanedrin in­deed was the high counsell of state, which was to iudge of causes, not only Ecclesiasticall, but also ciuill and criminal, yea capitall, hauing the authoritie of the sword and power of life and death. Whereby they adiudged malefactors con­uicted of capital crimes to one of these foure kinds of death, stoning,Sigon. lib. 6. c. 7. ex Talmud. & Petr. Galatin. burning, killing with the sword and strangling; ha­uing also authoritie to ordaine Sanedrioth, that is, the con­sistories of iudges in other cities; to whom alone it appertai­ned to iudge the cause of a tribe, of a false Prophet, of the high Priest, &c. And howsoeuer their power was much re­strained after Iewrie became a prouince subiect to the Ro­manes; [Page 219] notwithstanding the Romanes hauing granted the Iewes [...] libertie to liue according to their owne lawes, permitted them to exercise authoritie both in iud­ging not onely Ecclesiasticall but also ciuill and criminall causes,Act. 6. & 7. and 22.4.5.19.20. and 24.6. & 16.10.11. Deut. 17.12. and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment, and sometimes by death. Moreouer, by the law of God, he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsell, was not, as our Sauiour Christ heere saith, to be held as an heathen or Publi­can, but he was to die the death. Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Iewes by the appoint­ment of God, and that in the place which he should choose, either ordained by Moses, or restored by Iosaphat, or re­newed by the Iewes after their captiuitie. Wherefore our disciplinarians might as well desire to haue a parliament or high counsell of state in euery parish, as such a consistorie as this was.

To conclude this place: Though it were true, that the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Senate consisting of Priests and Elders of the people: yet it cannot be proued, that in this place of Mathew Christ alluded to it, and much lesse that he ordained the like in his Church. But now I haue shewed, that the Iewes had no such Ecclesiasticall senate: and there­fore out of this place nothing can with any shew of proba­bilitie be concluded for Lay-Elders.

The second testimonie T. C. vrgeth thus:§ Sect. 10. Act. 14.23. T. C. lib. 1.174.

The proposition he proueth, because it was not like that they had diuerse Ministers for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached vnto. I distinguish of the word congre­gation, which T. C. vseth ambiguously: for in the assumption it signifieth the Church of a whole citie: in which sense [...] and [...] is all one:Tit. 1.5. act. 14.23. and so it is true, that diuerse Presbyters were placed in euery Church, In the proposition, as appeareth by the prosyllogisme, it sig­nifieth euery particular congregation, which T. C. seemeth to acknowledge to haue beene diuerse in euery citie or [Page 220] Church, contrarie to our refuter, as we shall heare in the second booke. And in this sense it may be true, that not euery congregation had diuerse Presbyters: as with vs euery citie or Church hath diuerse Presbyters, yet euery congregation hath not.Tit. 1.5. I say then, what Paul required Titus to doe in Creet, the same he and Barnabas performed in these countries: that is, they ordained Presbyters [...] or [...] in euery citie or Church; which Presbyters were also such as the Apostle Tit. 1. calleth Bishops, and requireth in them abilitie to preach. And although in euery citie or Church there were diuerse of them, yet not di­uerse for euery meeting. There is no necessitie therefore, nor yet probabilitie, that by Presbyters in this place we should vnderstand any but Ministers, contrarie to the perpetuall vse of the word: Neither can any interpreter be alleaged old or new, that is not a partie, which doth vnder­stand the word of Lay-Elders.De relig. pag. 1 68. In Act. 14.23. In Act. 14.23. Zanchius, though a fauourer of the Presbyterie, reckoneth this place among those, wher­in Ministers of the word are called Presbyters. Aretius, though he acknowledgeth the distinction of Presbyters in­to two sorts, yet he confesseth this place is, as you heard be­fore, to be vnderstood of Ministers. Caluin himselfe the principall Patrone of the Eldership, vnderstandeth by Pres­byters in this place Ministers, and Preachers. Prebyteros his vocari int [...]rpretor, quibus iniunctum erat docendi munus: Presby­ters here I interprete those to be called, to whom the office of tea­ching was enioyned. Yea but saith T. C. though Caluin say Mi­nisters; here be called Presbyters, Lib. 2. part. 2.35. & 36. yet he doth not say that they one­ly: yea he must be vnderstood (as implying Lay-Elders vnder Presbyters) seeing he auoucheth the place of Titus, which to vs seemeth all one with Act. 14,) for the establishment of these Elders, and quoteth instit. lib. 4. c. 3. s. 8. where he writeth thus.Lib. 4. c. 3. § 8. Whereas I called those who gouerne the Churches indiffe­rently, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, Ministers, I did according to the vse of the scripture, which confoundeth these words: for who­soeuer exercise the ministerie of the word, it giueth the title of Bi­shops to them. So where Paul commandeth Titus to ordaine Pres­byters in euery citie, he straightwaies addeth, for a Bishop must be [Page 221] vnreproueable, Tit. 1.5.7. so Phil. 1.1. & Act. 20.17.28. here now it is to be obserued, that hitherto we haue reckoned those offi­cers onely, which consist in the ministerie of the word. You see then, how Caluin in his institutions, vrged this place in the Epistle to Titus for Lay-Elders. Wil you also heare his iudg­ment in his cōmentarie vpon the place?Caluin. in Tit. 1.5. although we gather saith he out of the 1. Tim: 5: that there were two sorts of Presby­ters, yet the context here will straightwaies shew, that no other then Doctors are here vnderstood, that is who were ordained to teach; becàuse by and by he will call them Bishops.

But for all this T.C. seeth not, why it may not be referred to Elders, meaning Lay-Elders, as well as too BB: meaning Mi­nisters. But say I, you must see that Lay-Elders not onely may, but must necessarily be vnderstood in this place, or else it is absurdly alleaged by you to proue them. Yes, he and the Author of the counter poison will proue, that they are meant here: for the word Elders is set downe generally signi­fying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers, therefore Paul and Bar­nabas ordained Lay-Elders as well as Ministers. To the con­sequence I first answere, that if Elders were a generall name comprising more sorts then one, and if Luke had said, that they ordained all sorts of Elders, this consequence would haue held: for from the Genus vniuersally taken, we may affirmatiuely conclude the speciall sorts. But Luke not spea­king so, it is sufficient for the truth of the historie, if they ordained any sort of Elders. Now it is confessed of all, that they ordained Ministers, therefore though Elders were the Genus, yet this were a very weake argument. Yea but saith T.C. S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church: Counterpois. arg. 6. for Elders. and his purpose was saith another to declare how the Apostles brought the Churches to a perfect and full order of Church gouernement, Whereunto I answere first, that the Church might haue a perfect and full order of gouerne­ment without them, And secondly that Lukes meaning was not to signifie that they brought those Churches to a full and perfect order of gouernement at their first conuersion, which was not to be expected; but that now they began to establish Churches, placing among them Presbyters or Mi­nisters, [Page 222] as being necessarie for the very being of visible Churches, without mention (I say not of Bishops, who not­withstanding were added before they were brought to the full and perfect order of gouernemēt, but euen) of Deacons.

The consequence therefore were naught, though the antecedent were true, that is, though Presbyter were the Genus, or generall word, signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers; for it were onely an argument from the Genus to the Species affirmatiuely. But the antecedent I haue be­fore proued to be most false: there being not any testimo­nie to be produced out of scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or histories of the Church where Presbyter signifieth an Ec­clesiasticall function in the Church of Christ, doth signifie any other but a Minister of the word. And therefore it is ab­surd to imagine, that Luke Act. 14. doth by Presbyters meane any other then Ministers.

§ Sect. 11. Iam. 5.14. Counterpois. argum. 5. for Lay-El­der. 1. Tim. 4. 1. Thess. 5.14.The third testimonie, I find not vrged any where, but in the counterpoison. Where it is said, that Iames willing them, when they be weake, to send for the Elders of the Church, thereby plainely declareth, that the Church ought not onely to haue a pa­stor and a doctor, whose chiefe attendance must be on reading ex­hortation and doctrine; but also many, who ought alwaies to be readie at an instant calling of diuerse and many at once, that none in that necessarie worke be neglected. It followeth thereby that be­sides them, there ought to be such other Elders as may admonish the vnruly, comfort the weake minded, and be patient towards all.

If all this were granted as it is propounded, it would not follow thereupon, that therefore there should be any Lay-Elders, but many Ministers in euery Church: for such were those in the place cited,1. Thessa. 5.12.14. and it is the duetie of those, whom Iames would haue sent for, to attend vnto reading, doctrine and exhortation.

But his meaning (no doubt) was this: There ought to be many Elders in euery Church, therefore some Lay-Elders. The consequence he taketh for granted: the antecedent he proueth thus. There were many Elders in euery Church in S. Iames time, therefore there ought to be many now.

For answere to his antecedent and proofe thereof, we are [Page 223] to distinguish of the word Church. For if thereby he meane the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning, there were, and are many Presbyters in euery Church: but if there­by he meane euery seuerall congregation, meeting, or as­sembly of Christians: there neither are, nor were many Presbyters appointed to euery such Church. In S. Iames time, though in each Church there were diuerse assemblies of Christians meeting as they could; yet were not parishes distinguished, nor Presbyters seuerally and certainely allot­ted to them; but to the Church of a whole citie and countrey adioyning, there was one Bishop, and many Presbyters pro­uided. But when parishes were distinguished, to each of them seuerally a Presbyter was assigned out of the Clergy or Pres­byterie of the citie; the residue of the Presbyters remaining with the Bishop, who (as before the diuision of parishes) re­tained still the charge of the whole Diocesse, as I will God willing shew in the next booke. Wherefore, though in S. Iames time, before the diuision of parishes, there were in eue­ry Church (that is Diocesse) many Presbyters; yet it doth not follow, that therefore in euery parish there should be diuerse Presbyters.

But his consequence is especially to be insisted vpon: for though there were in each Church many Presbyters, as at Ephesus Act. 20. and at Ierusalem where Iames himselfe was Bishop Act. 15. &. 21. of which number Iames would haue the weake to send for some; yet in that number there was not one, who was not a Minister. Neither can any sound rea­son be alleaged, why we should conceiue these Presbyters, of whom Iames speaketh, to haue beene any other then Mi­nisters. First the title which is giuen them, viz: Presbyters of the Church as Act. 20.17. is peculiar to Ministers, not one instance to be giuen to the contrarie. Secondly, the functi­on, for the performance wherof they were to visit the sicke, chiefely, if not onely pertaining to Ministers, and that was not onely to pray ouer the partie, and that (as it seemeth by the phrase [...]) with imposition of hands,Bez. in Iam. 5. but also to annoint him with the oile in the name of the Lord, that by the oile, as an outward, though temporarie Sacrament, an­nexed [Page 224] to the temporarie gift of healing, granted for a time not onely to the Apostles,Mar. 6.13. but also to their successors in the ministerie of the word, the sicke might be restored to health; and by prayer ioyned with imposition of hands, the sinnes of the partie might be remitted, and so the cause of the sicknes be remoued.

Wherefore I make no question, but the speach of Saint Iames is to be vnderstoode, according to the perpetuall vse of the word, the generall interpretation of all writers both old and new,Zanch. de relig pag. 168. (excepting not all that be parties in the cause,) and the generall and continuall practise of the Church, ex­pounding him, as if he had said, let him call for the Mini­sters, &c.

§ Sect. 12. Rom. 12.8. Counterpoi­son. arg. 2. for Elders.The fourth testimonie is thus vrged. If the Apostle setting downe the ordinary members of Christ his Church, which differ in their proper action, doe set downe the Elder to be ouer the people with diligence, and not to be occupied in the ministerie of the word either by exhortation or doctrine, but to admonish them and rule them; then the onely-gouerning Elders were ordained by the A­postles: but the first say they is manifest, Rom. 12.6.7.8. there­fore the second.

But the first, say I, is so farre from being manifest, that it cannot so much as obscurely be gathered out of the text. It is true, the Apostle speaketh of the members of the body of Christ, and of the diuerse gifts bestowed vpon them, which the Apostle exhorteth euery one knowing his pro­portion, or measure, in all humilitie and modestie to im­ploy to the common good of the whole body. But you must vnderstand, First, that the members of Christ are not onely officers in the state Ecclesiasticall, but all Christians whatsoeuer, as well in the body politicke, as Ecclesiasticke, whether publicke or priuate. Secondly, that the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offices which are not coincident to the same persons, but of the diuerse gifts, and graces of Gods spirit:Rom: 12.6. for so he saith [...], &c: hauing diuerse gifts according to the grace which is giuen vnto vs, of which all or most may concurre in the same subiect. As for example, a good and faithfull Minister, hath as a Mini­ster: [Page 225] First, [...], the gift of expounding the scrip­tures and of prayer, Secondly, [...], a function to Mi­nister and serue God in the edification of the church, Third­ly, [...], the gift of Teaching. 4. [...], the gift of Exhortation: 5. [...], the gift of gouernment: and as a good Christian. 6. [...]: and 7. [...]: the grace to distribute, and to communicate to to the necessities of his bretheren, in simplicitie and cheere­fulnes. 3. That these gifts are not proper to Ecclesiasticall persons,See D. B [...]lson, Pag. 137, 138. but common to others.

But if the Apostle had here propounded distinct offices, then might 7. be distinguished, and those [...], or in-compatible in the same person. But neither are there ac­cording to these branches. 7. distinct offices; And besides, they are, or may be all, or diuers of them, coincident to the same person. As for Lay-Elders, they are neither particular, lie expressed, nor in the generall implyed. The speech is generall, hee that gouerneth, in diligence, appartaining to all, that haue authoritie, not onely in the church, but also in the family or common-wealth. Indeed, if it were presupposed, (which will neuer be proued by them, nor graunted by vs) that among gouernours, Lay-Elders had a place in the pri­mitiue church; then this generall might particularly be ap­plyed to them, after this manner; all gouernours ought to be diligent, therfore they. But seeing there were none such, for men to argue from the generall, to a fained speciall, and that affirmatiuè, in this manner; the Apostle speaketh of gouer­nours, therefore of Lay-Elders: It is an argument like all the rest, not worth the answering.

Yea, but the disputer alleageth Caluin, who in his instituti­ons affirmeth that this place cannot bee otherwise vnderstood. Lib. 4. c. 4. Sect. 8. I would be loath to contest with Caluin, whose name is reue­rend, and whose memorie is blessed. Neuertheles, it is eui­dent by that which hath bene said, that it may and ought o­therwise to be expounded.

Yea Caluin himselfe confesseth else-where, that howsoe­uer this place doe seeme especially to be vnderstood of Ec­clesiasticall Gouernours or Seniors;Inst. li. 4. c. [...] § Sect. 4. tamen dubium non est, [Page 226] quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet; Yet it is not to bee doubted but that the Apostle doth commend vnto vs all kindes of iust gouernement.

In Rom: 12.8.And againe, although properly he call the Church-Gouernors, and namely the Seniors, [...], notwithstanding what he saith of them, may vniuersally be extended to gouernements of all sorts. By Caluins owne confession therfore, the words may generally be vnderstood. And if they may, then also they must. For who shall dare without good warrant, to restraine the generall sence of the holy Ghost to one onely particu­lar; Especially, that being but a counterfeit; as if the Apo­stle when he saith, hee that gouerneth, in diligence, had said, let the Lay, or only gouerning Elders be diligēt in their office.

The count­terpois. Beza de presbyt: & excōm. 113. Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Gouernour, as might nei­ther teach nor exhort: and therefore beeing neither Pastor nor Doctor, it must needes be the only gouerning Elder. Of this Enthy­m [...]me both the antecedent is false, and the consequence vn­sound. For if the Apostle speake of such a Gouernour, as might not teach, nor exhort, then neither distribute, nor shew mercie; and by the same reason, the teacher, and ex­horter, of whome hee spake before, may not gouerne.

But as I said, the Apostle doth not speake of distinct offi­ces, but of diuerse gifts, which manie times concurre in the same person. So that, as hee that teacheth and exhorteth, may also gouerne, and distribute: so hee that gouerneth, as the Pastor, may teach and exhort, and not onely hee, but the Father is to teach and exhort his children, the maister his fa­milie; yea,Coll. 3.16. Heb. 3.13. priuate Christians are to instruct and exhort one another. Neither doth it follow, if he which gouerneth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor, that straightwaies he should be an onely gouerning Elder. For husbands, parents, maisters, and magistrates, maisters of Colleges and hospitalls, are go­uernors, though neither Doctors nor Pastors,In Tit. 1. sect: 2. contra Rhem. § Sect. 13. 1 Cor. 12.28. and yet are they no Ecclesiasticall Lay-Elders. To conclude, D. Fulke vnderstādeth this place chiefly of Bishops, whom he suppo­seth here to be called [...], as Heb: 13.17. [...].

The fifth and last testimonie, is thus inforced by them. If God hath set in his Church Gouernours distinct from the [Page 227] Ministers of the Word, then hath he ordained Lay or onely gouer­ning Elders. Bez. de pres­byt: & ex: cōm: 113. T. C. lib. 2. part. 2.38. Counterpois: Argum: 3. for Elders. Vers: 27. But the first is testified by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. therefore God hath ordained lay or onely gouerning Elders.

In this Syllogisme no part is sound: for first the conse­quence of the proposition is naught: for by Church as it is taken in the assumption, citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ, and by the members of his body, all Christi­ans; among whom God hath established degrees of superi­ors to gouerne, and inferiors to obey in all societies, as well in the family & cōmonwealth, as in the Ecclesiasticall state.

Secondly, the assumption is false: for, although it be true that in Christs body there are gouernours Occonomi­call & politicall distinct from the Ministers; yet Paul doth not in this place testifie, that Christ hath set in his Church gouernours distinct from the Ministers; and much lesse doth he testifie, that in the Church, that is the state Eccle­siasticall, he hath ordained gouernours which are not Mi­nisters. Nay, which is more, the Apostle doth not once mention gouernours in this text: for it is the fault of the translation, for [...] & [...] that is helpes and go­uernements, to read helpers and gouernours: it being the pur­pose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13. and 14. chapters, to discourse of the diuerse gifts wherewith God doth adorne the membes of his Church: & in this context, in the midsts of other gifts, which are expressed in the abstract, he placeth these two, for so he saith, powers, gifts of healing, helpes, go­uernemēts, kindes of tongues. Now it is no better reasō to make two distinct offices of helpers and gouernours out of these words, then to raise three others out of the other three, pow­ers, gifts of healing and kinds of tongues. But it were ridi­culous to make three distinct offices of these three; so is it of the other. And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts, and not as offices; why should we not so conceiue of helpings and gouernings, that is to say, the gift of helping and gouerning? Yea I say further, that although in the be­ginning of the verse, the Apostle doth reckon three offices, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers: yet his purpose was not ex­actly to distinguish Ecclesiasticall functions, but to enume­rate [Page 228] the diuerse gifts of Gods spirit,Eph. 4.11. wherwith the members of Christs bodie are adorned, [...], for the common good of the bodie: Some being honou­red with the gift of the Apostleship, some with the gift of Prophecie, some with the gift of teaching; some with the gift of working miracles,Chrysost. 1. Cor. 12. [...] Acts. 20.35. [...] some with the gift of healing dis­eases; some with the gift of helping and relieuing those that be distressed, as Chrysostome expoundeth it, and as the word is vsed, Act: 20. some with the gift of gouerning, some with the gift of tongues.

For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distin­guish the Functions and Offices of the Church: then from this Text should eight distinct offices bee collected; nei­ther should these gifts haue bene coincident into the same persons; so that teachers might not gouerne, and gouer­nours might not teach,Oecum [...]. &c. whereas contrariwise, it is eui­dent, that the Apostles had all these gifts, as Chrysostome also saith: [...], Prophets and Teachers had diuers of them, &c.

It is plaine therefore, that the Apostle did not distin­guish the offices of the Church, but orderlie recount the gifts and graces, wherewith the Lord doth beautifie diuers members of the Church.

And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues, [...] Chrysost: in 1. Cor: 12. 1. Cor: 12.31. & 14.1.3. In 1. Cor. 12. and despised others; the Apostle sheweth that a­mong all these gifts which hee reckoneth, that of tongues deserueth the last place: And therfore exhorteth thē to be zealous of 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 y^e gift of God, so also of the lat­ter, [Page 229] [...], 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,Ambros: in 1. Cor: 12. A-Apostolos] ip­si Episcopi sunt. Theodoretus Eccleesiarū administra­tiones per haec significa­uit. Anselm: Th: Aquin: Dyo­nisius, Car­thus: N. Ly­ranus. in 1. Cor: 12. 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. Ad pag: 5 [...] 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 y^e 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?

[Page 231]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,§ Sect. 2. The testimo­nies of Ignati­us answered. 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,Lib: 2. part: 2.45. H.I. pag: 67, Protestat. out of Sc. 41. Ad Trallian. Ad Trall. 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, [Page 232] 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 Bi­shops and Deacons, between whom they are vsually ranged by Ignatius, as the second degree of the Clergie, willing the Lay-men to bee subiect to the Deacons, the Deacons to the Pres­byters, the Presbyters to the Bishop, Ah Smyrn. and the Bishop to Christ: which by the way is H. I. third testimonie, and in effect the same with the second.Ad Tarsens: Ad Philadelp

And againe, let the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and the rest of the Cleargie, together with all the people, bee obedient to the Bi­shop.

By which it is plaine, they had not in those times, either Lay-Elders, or Lay-Deacons: For the very Deacons are by him called the ministers of Christ vnto the word of God, and mi­nisters of the mysteries of Christ.

Ad Smyrn. Ad Trall.As for the BB: they were not parish Byshops assisted, ac­cording to the new conceit, with Lay-Elders, but BB: of Ci­ties (such as Ignatius himselfe, who was Bishop of Antioch, the chiefe Citie of Syria,) hauing the assistance of diuerse Presbyters, who were Clergie men, or ministers; and so are in expresse termes reckoned by Ignatius, as one of the de­grees of the clergie, whom in the words before alleaged, and in other places, hee resembleth to the Apostles of Christ, and would haue them so obeyed:Ad Smyrn. [...]. ad Maguel. The Senate of the Apostles. Ad Antioch. exhorting them with the words which Saint Peter vseth to ministers, 1. Epist: 5.2. to feed the flocke, [...], &c.

This is also proued by the vniuersal consent of the most an­cient Councells, Canons, and Fathers, who in innumerable places, mētioning Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, neuer con­ceiue of them otherwise then of 3. degrees of the clergie, in that very sense wherin our church doth vse & retaine them.

And thus much concerning that most worthy martyr, and Bishop Ignatius: sauing, that I would commend a few sen [...]ences of his, to this disputer and his consorts. [...], [Page 233] be you vnited to the Bishop, submitting your selues to God by him in Chirist, [...] for whosoeuer are Christs, they are with the Bishop. And againe, doe not thinke that I speake this, as hauing vnderstood the separa­tion of some, Ad Phi­ladelph. he is witnesse to me, for whose sake I am bound, that I haue not learned this from the mouth of man, Ibid. § Sect. 3. but the spirit hath preached vnto me, saying these things, [...] without the Bishop doe nothing, loue vnitie, auoid diuisions.

The testimonie, which is vsually cited out of Tertullian, is in his Apologetico. Where, hauing said that Christians did vse to meet in assemblies and congregations to prayer, and to the hearing of the word, he addeth The testi­monie of Ter­tulli. apolog. Cap. 39. there are also exhortations, T. C. and after him the counter poi [...]. cite this testi­monie thus: If there be any that hath com­mitted such a fault that he is to be put away from the pertaking of the prayer of the Church, and from all holy matters or affaires: there d [...] beare rule or be pre­sidents, cer­taine of the most appro­ued ancients or Elders, which haue obtained this honour, not by money, but by good report. chastis [...]ments and diuine censure: iudgement is ex­ercised with great aduise, as among those who are certaine that God doth see them: and it is a great foreshewing of the iudgement to come, if any shall so offend as that he shalbe banished from the communion of prayer, and of the assembly, and of all holy fellowship. Praesident probati qui (que) seniores honorem istum non pre­tio sed testimonio adepti, the presidents of our meetings are ap­proued Seniors, hauing obtained this honour, not by reward, but by good report. By which testimonie it is apparant, that the same parties were the presidents of the assembly as well in prayer and in the ministerie of the word, as in the exercise of dis­cipline and censures. But Ministers and not Lay-Elde [...]s were presidents and Rulers of the meetings in publicke prayer and ministerie of the word, therefore also in the ex­ercise of discipline. Who these presidents were, Tertullian himselfe sheweth else where, testifying that the Christians receiued the Sacrament both in the time of their meales, and also in their meetings before day, nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus Neither doe we receiue it at the hands of any others then of our presidents. On which words Bea­tus Rhenanus writeth thus, Presidentes voc at presbyteros etiam alibi, the Presbyters he calleth presidents also in another place, and quoteth the place alleaged out of the Apologeticke. And whereas Tertullian imagined (though erroneously) that the husband of a second wife could not be a Bishop or Minister,Dc c [...] ­rona mili­tis. his opinion he vttere [...] ▪ in these words, how derogatorie [Page 234] from faith,Lib. 1. ad vxorem. and how opposite to pietie second mariages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescript of the Apo­stle doth declare, cum digamos non siuit presidere, when it doth not suffer twice maried men to be presidents that is Mini­sters. And whereas the Catholicks,De Mono­gamia: quem librum scrip­sit aduersus Ecclesiam. Hierom. in Catalog. whom he endeuoureth to refute, vnderstood that rule of the Apostle as peculiar to Bishops & Ministers, he chargeth them also with the breach thereof euen in that sense. Quot enim & ex digamiae president apud vos, insultantes vti (que) apostolo? for how many after their se­cond mariage are presidents among you, euen insulting ouer the Apostle and blush not when these things are read before them? It is plaine therefore, that the Seniors which were presidents in the assemblies of Christians, of whom Tertullian spea­keth, were Ministers, whatsoeuer some new writers whom he quoteth, doe say to the contrarie. For whereas among o­thers who were parties in the cause, he quoteth B. Iewell, who indeed is no partie, I answere, if he haue alleaged the rest no better then him, (as for my part I meane not to search, especially seeing the chiefe of his Authors are quo­ted at Random,) he will gaine the opinion of a notable falsi­fier of Authors.Pag. 649. Harding blamed the translator of the Apo­logie into English, for translating Presbyteri Elders and not Priests;Pag. 650. The translation Bishop Iewell defendeth, saying that Presbyter a Priest is nothing else but Senior, and that a Priest and Elder are both one thing. And whereas Harding affirmed, that Priests and Deacons waited onely vpon the Bishops but gaue no sentence in counsels (which in respect of pro­uinciall counsels, is euidently false) he disproueth that as­sertion. First by Act. 15.Pag. 651. Secondly, by Nicephorus. Thirdly, by this testimonie of Tertull [...]an, president probati qui (que) Seniores the iudges in such Ecclesiasticall assemblies be the best al­lowed Elders, that is according to Bishop Iewels interpre­tation, Priests, for to that end he citeth the testimonie, and before he had said that Senior and Priest is all one.

D. Whitgift conceiuing, as Bishop Iewell did, that these Seniors were Ministers; T. C. obiecteth, (and it is the one­ly thing he obiecteth) that it is incredible, Li. 2. part. 2 Pag. 41. that all the Chur­ches, whose defence Tertullian taketh vpon him, and whose vsage [Page 235] he doth describe, had such a college of Seniors that were Mini­sters. Whereunto the answere is easie, that Tertullian spea­keth of the Churches in cities, in which onely were Pres­byteries (vnto which the parishes of the countrey adioy­ning, so soone as there were any, were subiect) and those wholy consisting of Minist [...]rs. Neither can any testimo­nie or example be alleaged, either of Presbyters that were not Ministers, or of Presbyteries in villages or countrey parishes.

As touching Cyprian:§ Sect. 4. The testimo­nie of Cyprian answered. the disputer might haue cited some testimonie, or at least quoted some place in his writings, be­fore he had laboured to proue what was his meaning. But his concealing of the place it selfe, and his producing of witnesses (who are all parties) to depose that Cyprian spea­keth for Lay-Elders, is a plaine argument that he trusteth to his witnesses, more then to Cyprian himselfe. For my part, I know not what place he meaneth: if he will approue his sinceritie, let him name one place if he can, which euen in his owne conscience doth seeme indeed to make for Lay-Elders.Demonstr. c. 12. H. I. pag. 67. The Demonstrator of discipline and H. I. in his booke though they take together such testimonies of the Fathers as they thought fauoured Lay-Elders; yet they durst not mention Cyprian, as reposing any of their strength in his testimonie.

T. C. citeth Cyprian, as noting a piece of the office of these Elders by diuiding the communion bread into equall portions, Lib. 2. part. 2.42. Cypr. lib. 4. epist. 5. and cary­ing it for the assistance of the Bishop in little baskets or trayes, where by placing their office in this assisting the Minister, he doth manifestly shut thē out from the ministering of the Sacramēt, &c: whereof also it commeth that in another place he calleth them bre­thren which had care of the basket. Li. 1. epist. 9. Sportulantes fratres.

When I consider T. C. his learning and professed pietie, I cannot sufficiently wonder at his allegations out of the Fathers,Li. 4. epist. 5. and at this among the rest. Cyprian, being himselfe absent in time of persecution, writeth to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Carthage, signifying that he and some other Bishops (whom he calleth his collegues) [Page 236] had receiued Celerinus, and Aurelius, two notable young men into the Clergie, and ordained them Lectores Readers, with purpose, that when they should be of age, to ordaine them Presbyters. In the meane time, know ye saith he, that we haue alreadie designed to thē honorē Presbyterij, the honour of Priesthood, vt sportulis ijsdem cum. Presbyteris honorentur that they may be honoured with the wages (or as it was after­wards called canonicall portion) equall with Presbyters, sessu­ri nobiscum, being hereafter to fit with vs (namely as Presby­ters) when they shalbe growne in yeares. And that this was Cypri­ans meaning, the other place by him cited doth proue. For whereas one Geminius Victor had by his will named Fau­stinus a Presbyter to be a tutor or gardian;Li. 1. epist. 9. Cyprian doth re­proue it as contrarie, not only to the Canons of the Church, but also to the word of God, which would haue none that is a Souldiour to God to be entangled with worldly busines.2. Tim. 2.4. To which purpose he alleageth the example of the Leuits, who for the same cause had no possession like the other tribes. The which manner and forme saith he, is still retained in the Clergie, that they who in the Church of God are preferred to the order of Clerkes, should by no meanes be called away from the diuine administration, nor be tyed to worldly cumbers and imploy­ments, sed in honore sportulantium fratrum tanquam de­cimas ex fructibus accipientes, but that receiuing the honour of brethren, who haue wages of the Church, as it were tythes of fruits, they should not depart from the Altar and seruice of God. Those,Duaren. de sacr. eccl. mi­nist. & b [...]n. lib. 1. c. 18. C. de sacro. cccl. l. placet. &c. Lib. 3. epist. 14. & 15. whom he calleth sportulantes fratres, were afterwards called Canonici, a Canon, that is from the ordinarie and cer­taine pension or prebend which was allotted to them.

And where he saith the Presbyters were excluded from ministring the communion, it is apparant in the writings of Cyprian, that vsually they did administer that Sacrament, and in diuerse of his Epistles are reproued by him, for gi­uing the communion to some, which had fallen in time of persecution, without his consent.

The Author of the Counterpoyson citeth another testi­monie of Cyprian, Lib. 3. epist. 22. writing to the Presbyters and Deacons, signifying vnto them, that in the wāt of diuerse of the Cler­gie, [Page 237] he had ordained new.Clero proxi­mos. Know ye saith he that I haue made Saturus Reader, and Optatus subdeacon, whom we heretofore had made next the Clegie, when either to Saturus on Easter­day we granted once or twice leaue to read, or when with the Pres­byters Doctors Readers we appointed Optatus the Teacher of the hea [...]ers, Doctorem audientium. examining whether all things did agree to them, which ought to be in those who are prepared for the Clergie. Where, be­cause Presbyters are mentioned as distinct from Doctors, (which he supposeth to be Ministers) and Readers, he infer­reth they were Lay-Elders. To omit his mistakings, and not vnderstanding the place, it is euident that Doctores au­dientium were Catechists, Theod. Bal­sam. in Conc. Nēocaess. c. 5. & An­cyr. c. 20. Niceph li. 5. c. 4. (for audientes were the inferiour ranke of Catechumeni) who were so farre from being chiefe in the Clergie next to the Bishop as Presbyters, that Cyprian signifieth, when he and the rest had appointed Optatus docto­rem audientium, they had made him next to the Clergie, that is at the next election to be chosen into the Clergie, exami­ning whether all things did agree to him which ought to be in them who are prepared for the Clergie. Neither should this seeme strange, seeing Origen was Catechist at Alexan­dria, when he was but eighteene yeare old: Who afterwards comming into Palaestina, was permitted by the Bishops there, publickly to expound the scriptures. Which when Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria vnderstood, by letters he reproued those Bishops;Euseb. lib. 6. c. 20. Niceph. l. 5. c. 14. asking them, if euer it were heard, that Lay-men, such as Origen then was, should preach in the presence of Bishops. Therefore the distinction of Presbyters from such Teachers, doth not proue that them­selus were not Ministers.

Such Teachers in Alexandria after Origen, were Dionysius and Heraclas; whom notwithstanding, the Presbyters, who till then were wont to choose their Bishop out of their owne order,Hier. adeua­grium. elected Bishops, as hereafter we shall shew. But what manner of Seniors the Presbyters were, whom Cyprian so often mentioneth, may sufficiently appeare by this one te­stimonie, where he saith,Li. 3. epist. 1. cum episcopo Presbyteri sacerdotali honore coniuncti, the Presbyters were ioyned with the Bishop in the honour of Priesthood.

[Page 238]What other allegations they haue out of Cyprian worth the answering, I know not. But this I protest, that I haue read ouer Cyprian, hauing alwaies an eye to this present que­stion; but I neuer met with any one testimonie, that (in my poore iudgement) did seeme to sound for Lay-Elders.

Pag. 11.As for those other places, which are in a petition direc­ted to Q. Elizabeth, Pag. 41. and in a protestation which lately came out of the North, quoted out of Cyprian, and other ancient writers;Perpet. go­uern. Chap. 11. I find them all more then sufficiently answered by the learned and reuerend B. Bilson, to whom I referre the Reader, hauing my selfe insisted longer on this question then at the first I intended.

Ad pag. 52.Neither will I vouchsafe an answere to his new supply, ei­ther of testimonies of new writers (though I know some of them to be falsified) or examples of other reformed Chur­ches, whereby he seeketh to bleare the eyes of the simple. For if this cause were to be tryed by pluralitie of voices for witnesse to the truth, or of examples for practise of it, who knoweth 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,Lib. 4. c. ult. we are farre superiour, as hereafter shalbe shewed.

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 [Page 2] 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, Pag. 53. 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.

[Page 3]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,§. 2. How the word Ecclesia is taken in the Scriptures. 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 Act. 19.32.39.40. Psal. 22.23. & 26.5.12. & 149.1. Nehem. 5.7. in the Greeke translation., 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.

[Page 4]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 O [...]cumenicall Synode
• Particu­larly, & that ei­ther
  • Definite­ly, to sig­nifie the Church of a
    • Nation in the nūber
      • 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 cōgre­gated 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. [...]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. & [...]1 8.28. & 12.13. Phil. 4.15. 1. Thes. 2.14. 2. Thes. 1.4. [...]. Tim. 3.5.3. Iohn. 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29. & 3.6.13.22. & 22.16.

[Page 5]The significations of the word Church being so mani­fold in the Scriptures,§. 3. What is to be called a Church. it may bee demanded what is truly and properly a Church vpon earth. Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word, that euery company of men profes­sing the true faith of Christ, is both truly a Church, and also a true Church. So is the whole company of the faithfull vpon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ, the piller and ground of truth.

So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to bee termed by the name of a Church. For euen as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion, were one Church, though containing verie many particular Con­gregations or Synagogues, which also were so many Churches: euen so the whole people of England, profes­sing through Gods mercy, the true Catholike and Apo­stolicke faith, is to bee called the Church of England. For whereas some alleage, that the Church of the Iewes was one, because it was vnder one high Priest, who was a figure, and therefore ceased: it is euident that it was one Church, because it was one people or commonwealth, ru­led by the same lawes, professing the same religion, both before there was one high Priest, and after there were through corruption more then one. Neither was the high Priest in respect of his preeminence and gouernment ouer the priests and people a type of Christ (for then had he, as well as Melchisedeck, been a type of Christs gouernment and kingly office, as well as of his priesthood, and conse­quently Christ might haue bin a priest of the order of Aa­ron, as well as of Melchisedeck but in respect of his sacri­fice for the whole people, and intercession for them, and his entrance alone within the sanctuary, bearing the names of the twelue Tribes: for Christs gouernment appertaineth to his kingdome, and not to his priesthood.

Likewise the Christian people of any Citie and Coun­try adioyning, whether that which wee call a prouince or diocesse, though consisting of many particular congre­gations, is rightly termed a Church, as the Church of Ie­rusalem, [Page 6] Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardes, Philadel­phia, &c.

Jn like manner, the Christian people of one Towne or Village, containing but one congregation, which we call a parish, is truly called a church, as perhaps that of Cenchreae. And to conclude, the company of faithfull in one fami­lie doe deserue the name of a Church, as hath bin shewed. Indeed that any particular Chruch of a whole Nation, Citie and Country, Towne, Parish, or family, (family I say being alone, and not a part of a congregation, but as an entire Church or parish by itselfe) may bee accounted a true vi­sible Church, there is required besides the profession of the true faith, wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth, the ministery of the word and sacraments, and eutaxy, or some good order of gouernment. Not that all gouernours are to be placed in euery society or Church, but that the effect and benefit of the gouernment is to re­dound to euery particular. For as well might an high Coun­cell of State, or Parliament, such as was the synedrion of the Iewes, which was but one for the whole Nation, be re­quired in euery Citie, and a Maior and Aldermen (such as be in London and other chiefe Cities) in euery village, as a Bishop and Presbytery in euery parish.

§ 4. Visible Chur­ches not pa­rishes only, H. I. pag. 6.All which J haue the rather noted, because some hauing first strongly conceited, that there is no true visible Church but a parish, nor lawfull church-officers but parishionall, haue haled the places of Scripture, where Ecclesia is menti­oned, to the confirmation of their conceit: and thereupon, as their chiefe foundation, haue built their newfound pa­rish discipline.Of the Iewes there may, so oft as there is mention of their syna­gogues. Whereas in very truth, scarce any one testi­mony of such a congregation of Christians, as we call a pa­rish, can be alleaged out of the Scriptures. Indeed at the ve­ry first conuersion of Cities, the whole number of the people conuerted (being sometimes not much greater then the number of the Presbyters placed among them) were a­ble to make but a small congregation. But those Churches were in constituting, they were not fully constituted, vn­till their number being increased, they had their Bishoppe [Page 7] or Pastor, their Presbytery and Deacons; without which Ignatius saith, there was no Church: meaning no accom­plished or fully constituted Church. Neither was the Bi­shop and the Presbytery, which at the first was placed in a­ny Citie, prouided onely for that set number which was al­ready conuerted; but they were there placed for the con­uersion of the whole Citie and country thereto belonging: their ministery being like to the leuen put into three pecks of meale, which by degrees seasoneth the whole lumpe. Neither was it meant, that the whole number of Christians of each Citie and territory, being much increased, should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assem­bling in one place; but that vpon the multiplication of Christians, diuision should be made of the whole Church in­to diuers particular congregations, which after happened in all Churches accordingly. But vpon this diuision, there was not to euery seuerall congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery, but only seuerall Presbyters assigned, singuli sin­gulis, some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop. The Bishop himselfe remaining, as it was first intended, and as the Church of God euery where throughout the world expounded that intent, by their practise, the Pastor or Super­intendent of the whole Citie and country adioyning. Nei­ther are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to shew, that there were, or ought to haue been, after the diuision of parishes and assignement of seuerall Presbyters vnto them, any more then one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocesse. But of this more hereafter.

In the meane time,§ 5. The accepta­tion of the words, eccle­sia, &c. in the antient Wri­ters. hauing shewed that the vse of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not sauour their con­ceit, who imagine there is no true Church, but a parish, the word signifying (according to the vsuall phrase of the holy Ghost) any company of Christians, whether great or small; I am now to declare the vse of the word Ecclesia, paroecia, dioecesis, (which are commonly translated, Church, parish, diocesse,) in antient Writers. Where I am to note, that set­ting aside the general significatiō of the word Ecclesia, signi­fying either the whole Church in general, or the two maine [Page 8] parts of it in heauen and earth: in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not vsed, as also the largest signification of dioece­sis, containing the whole circuit of a patriarchall and archie­piscopall iurisdiction, (as the diocesse of the Patriarch of A­lexandria contained all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the diocesse of Antioch, the East Countries, &c.) In which sense, the word paroecia is not vsed, setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis: otherwise these three words, ecclesia, paroecia, and dioecesis, are for the most part vsed as words of the same signification. For as in the singular number, commonly each of them doth signifie a di­ocesse, excepting wherein the distribution of the diocesse paroecia is opposed to [...], for then onely it signifieth the citie and suburbs, and excepting where some addition re­straineth the word paroecia or ecclesia, to the signification of a parish, as ecclesia or paroecia cui presbyter praest: so in the plu­rall, if they be referred to one diocesse, they signifie pari­shes, or some parts of the diocesse (though with this diffe­rence, that dioceses doe note Parishes onely in the Coun­try, but ecclesia and paroecia, commonly, as well those in the Citie, as in the country) but referred to whole Nations, or larger parts of the world, they signifie dioceses.

But I will speake of them seuerally,The accepta­tions of the word [...], paroecia. beginning with [...] paroecia: the rather because our Refuter, and others of his feather, finding in Eusebius the Churches of Ierusa­lem, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. to bee termed paroeciae, straightwaies conclude, that they were such Churches as we call parishes. Which, if they write as they thinke, is a very vnlearned collection. For whereas the word [...], is diuersly vsed, sometimes with reference to a Bishoppe, some­times with relation to a Presbyter; in the signification of a parish, it is neuer vsed as the whole Church, subiect to the Bishoppe, but in that sense is either referred to one Pres­byter, as his proper charge: or if it be referred to the Bi­shoppe, it doth signifie but one parish among many belon­ging to his Bishopricke. But most vsually, and almost al­waies in antient Writers, yea and many times, both in those of the middle, and also of the latter age, it is taken either [Page 9] for the whole diocesse, or for the citie and suburbs; whereto as the Bishops see, the rest of the diocesse doth appertaine.

And because my aduersary shall not say I speake with­out booke,§. 6. Paroecia be [...]o­kening a Bi­shop's charge, doth signifie a diocesse. I will bring pregnant testimonies to make good my assertion. First therefore, whereas one Can. Apost. 14. of the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, forbiddeth a Bishop to leaue [...], his owne charge, and to leape into a­nother: and wh [...]reas Eusebius the author of the ecclesiasti­call history, being the Metropolitan Bishop of Caesarea, and much importuned to remoue to Antioch, which at that time was the seat of the third patriarch, refused that offer: Constantine Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Constanti­ni, pag. 146. the great doth greatly commend him for kee­ping [...], the Apostolik [...] canon. Which canon the Council of Nice hath reference vnto, when it saith Conc. Nic. c. 15. that Bishops remouing from one City to another, or as wee speake, from one See to another, did [...], con­trary to the Canon. The meaning therefore of the Ca­non forbidding a Bishop to remoue from one paroecia to another, was to forbidde him to remoue from one Diocesse to another. The councill of Antioch, speaking to the same purpose, retayneth the same words, forbidding a Bishop Conc. Antioc. c. 21. [...], to bee translated from one paroecia to another ▪ Where it were absurd to vnder­stand the councell as speaking of a parish, because this coun­cell being latter then the councell of Nice, it is euident that at that time, there were not onely Bishops of Dioceses, and Metropolitanes ouer Prouinces▪ but also patriarches diui­ding among them the Christian world. And to the same purpose, the councill of Sardica Epist. synod. Sardic. apud Theodor. l. 2. c. 8. noting the breach of these canons, among other vnlawfull practises of the Arians, ex­presseth it in these words, [...], translations from lesse Cities to greater paroe­cias, that is, dioceses, or Bishoprickes In the same Coun­cell it is decreed Con. Sard. c. 15., that if any Bishoppe will ordaine in any degree of the clergy, [...], out of another pa­roecia, [...], a Minister belonging to another Bishop, without the consent of his owne Bishop, the ordination shall be voide. The councels Conc. Ancyr. c. [...]8. Conc. Antioch. c. 18. Martin. Brac c [...]a [...], Capi [...]. sy­nod. gr. c. 10. e [...]. 12. of Ancyra and Antioch spea­king [Page 10] of Bishops, the one, not receiued [...], of the paroecia, or diocesse, the other, not accepting [...], the paroecia or bishopricke vnto which he was ordained, most plainely by paroecia vnderstand the charge of a Diocesan Bi­shop. Epiphanius Epiph. epist. ad Ioan. Hiero­sol. apud Hie­ronym. t. 2. excusing himself to Iohn the Bishop of Ie­rusalem, who was offended with him, for that he had, as was supposed, ordained a Presbyter in his diocesse, answereth a­mong other things, that diuers Bishops had ordained in his diocesse, without his offence. Yea, he had exhorted Philo & Theoprobus, two Bishops, that in the Churches of Cyprus, which were neer to them, ad mea autem paroeciae videbātur ec­clesiā pertinere, eo quod grandis esset et lat a prouincia, ordinarēt presbyteros, et Christs ecclesiae prouiderent, but seemed, faith he, to belong to the Church of my paroecia, that is, Bishopricke, they would, because it was a great and large prouince, ordaine Presbyters, and prouide for the Church of Christ. Where it is testified, that the Churches throughout a large Prouince, were but part of his paroecia, that is, diocesse.

§ 7. The like vse of the word in later times.But I will descend to latter times, wherein it was proui­ded, that a Bishop of another City Conc. Aruern tempore Pelag. c. 9., should not contrary to the canons, inuade parochiam cuiuslibet episcopi, the pa­roeciae, mening diocesse of any other Bishop. The third Coun­cell of Toledo Conc. Toletā. 3 tempore Pe­lag. c. 3. hath these words; Si quid episcopi ecclesiis ad suā parochiam pertinentibus dederint, &c. If Bishops shall giue any thing to Churches belonging to their paroecia, that is, Bi­shopricke. Gregory the Great when he would signifie, that the antient canons commanded that prouinciall synods should be held twice a yeere, saith Lib. 7. epist. 110., they had taken order, de habendis per parochias concilijs. The synod held in EnglandApud Bedā. in b [...]st. Angl. l. 4 c. 5. can. 2. &.6. An. 673. decreed, that no Bishop should inuade the paroecia of another: and that Bishops and other clergy men, being strangers, may not exercise any priestly function without the leaue of the Bishop, in cuius paroecia, in whose diocesse they are knowne to remaine. In the Councell of ArlesCon. Arelat. sub Carolo Mag c. 17., it was ordained, that once a yeere euery Bishop should goe about parochiam suam, that is, his diocesse. The Councell of Mentz Conc. Mo­gunt. c. 31. appoint, that euery Bishoppe in sua parochia, that is, in his owne diocesse, should make diligent inquirie, [Page 11] whether there were any Presbyters or Deacons therein, that belonged to another Bishop, that they might be retur­ned to him. In the Councell of RhoanConc. Rotho▪ mag. c. 6., the Bishop is for­bidden principalem cathedram s [...]ae parochia negligere, to neg­lect the Cathedrall Church or chiefe seat of his paroecia, that is, Bishoprick. To conclude, the Councel held at WormesVorm [...]tien [...]. c. 62., forbiddeth Bishops, qu [...] parochias non habent, which haue no charge of their owne, to exercise their function, or to or­daine in alterius parochia, in the paroecia of another Bishop, without the appointment of the Bishop in [...]uius parochia, in whose diocesse they be. Whereby it doth euidently ap­peare, that the word paroecia, being attributed to a Bishop, as his whole charge or circuit of his episcopall iurisdiction, doth signifie a diocesse, consisting of many parishes. And that in Eusebius it is so to bee vnderstood, it is most mani­fest, because hee calleth great Churches, after the diuisi­on of them into many parishes, not onely in the Coun­try, but euen in the Cities, by the name of Paroecia. To which purpose,That in Euse­bius [...] paroecia signi­fieth the Dio­cesse. let vs conferre a few places in Eusebius, concerning the Church of Alexandria: whereby his mea­ning, when he speaketh of this argument, wil easily appeare. For hauing said, lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of Alexādria & the rest of Aegypt, he addeth Euseb. l. 6. c. 1. [...], but the Bishoprick of the paroecia or Churches there (in Alexandria and Aegypt) Demetrius had lately re­ceiued. In the eight chapterL. 6. c. 8. he saith, that Demetrius was [...], the president or Bishop of the paroecia, that is, the Church there. For so he explaneth himself Lib. c. 26. chap. 26. calling him [...], the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans: and what he meaneth by that speech he sheweth L. 6. c. 3 [...]. chap. 35. Where speaking of Dio­nysius his next successor but one, hee vseth these words, [...], hee taketh vpon him the Bishopricke or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria. So that when he saith Bishop [...], of the paroecia, or church, his meaning is all one as if hee had said [...], or [...], that is, of such a Bishopricke as contained many Churches. And in [Page 13] the same sense he speaketh (though in the plurall number) when hee mentioneth [...] &c.Euseb li. 4. c. 15. & l. 5. c. 23 The 2. signifi­cation of Pa­roecia betoke­ning the city or chiefe seat of the Bishop the paroeciae or churches of Pontus, the churches of Asia, the paroecia of the holy catho­like church. Thus then wee see, that in antient writers the word [...] in Greeke, and paroecia (corruptly paro­chia) in Latine, is vsually taken for the whole diocesse consisting of many parishes, when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge.

§. 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishoprick, as whē the whole diocesse is diuided into [...] or [...], signifying the city or chiefe seate, or see of the Bi­shop: and [...] or [...] the rest of the diocesse in the coun­trie or countries thereto belonging. For manifestation whereof, those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient. The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles, in these words Can. apost. 34 [...], &c. The Bishops of euery nātion it behoueth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them, and to esteeme him [...] as their head or chief, and to do [...] nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their owne charge or iurisdiction, without his consent, and that euery one doe deale in those things alone, [...] which belong to his owne Pa­roecia, that is, see or Church & the coū [...]ries which be subiect on­to it. Neither may he (that is, the Metropolitan,) do any thing without the consent of all. So shall there bee concorde, and God shall bee glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost: Which canon is renued and explained in the councill of Antioch, the canons whereof were part of the ancient code In the Coūcel of Chalce­dō Act. 11. the 16. & 17. Canōs of the coū cell of Anti­och are out of the booke of the Canōs of Coūcels quo­ted as the 96. & 97. Canon, which shew­eth that the ancient book agreeth with the edition of Til [...]us, which recko­ning the A­postles Ca­no [...]s by thē ­selues allow­eth 20. Canōs to the Coun­cell of Nice, 25. to that of Ancyra, 15. to the Counc. of Neocesaria & 20. to the counc. of Gan­gra, all which arise to 80. Whereto if you adde the canons of the councill of Antioch the 16. of that councell will be the 96. & the 17. the 97. or book of canons receiued in the ancient church, recited some of them in the great councell of Chalcedon, and ratified all of them in the generall councell of Con­stantinople held in Trullo the Emperours Palace. The ca­non is this: It Conc. Antioch. c. 9. behooueth the BB, of euery Prouince to acknow­ledge the Metropolitane B. and that he taketh vpō him the cure of the whole Prouince because there is a concourse of all men [Page 13] who haue businesse from all places vnto the Metropolis on mother Citie. Wherefore it hath beene thought good or decreed, that he should excell in honour, and that without him the rest of the Bishops should doe [...], nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne charge, [...], accor­ding to the ancient receiued Canon of our Fathers, (meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles, which it reciteth, as you see, word for word) but those things alone which con­cerne his owne Pa [...]oecia, that is, his owne See or Citie, and the Countries which be vnder it. For euery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia, and doth [...], administer according to the feare (of God) wherewith he is endued, and hath a proui­dent care, [...], of the whole region (or countrey) which is vnder his Citie (vsing the word [...] and [...], that is, Paroecia and Citie, indifferently) so that hee may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with iudgement: [...], but beyond his bounds hee may doe nothing without the Bishop of the Mother Citie: neither may he without [...]he consent of the rest. Then which te­stimonies, nothing can bee alleged more pregnant, either for the signification of the word, or for the proofe of our assertion, that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes, but dioceses.

Sometimes indeede the word Paroecia doth signifie that which we call a parish:§ 9. The third sig­nification of paroecia. but then either it is vsed with such reference to a Bishop, as it is plainely noted to bee but one among many belonging to his charge, and is commonly vttered in the plurall number;C. Tolet. 3▪ c. 20. or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge. To which purpose consi­der these testimonies. The Councell of Carthage, Carth. 4. c. 102. which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians, speaketh, as of the Bishop of the diocesse, so of a Presbyter, qui Parochiae praeest, who is set ouer a parish. The Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 25. & 26. Councell of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs & per parochi­as. Innocentius Inn. [...]. ep. 8. ad Flor. the first writing to Florentius a Bishop, bla­meth him for vsurping a parish which belonged to the di­ocesse of Vrsus another Bishop. And elsewhere Epist. l. ad. Decent. c. 5, he speak­eth

[Page 16] §. 11. The significa­tions of Dioe­cesis.As for [...], or dioecesis, I hope I shall not neede to prooue, that it also signifieth a diocesse. Neither do I great­lie neede to shew, that in the signification of a diocesse, it is giuen to Bishops; seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the varietie of the persons to whom it is at­tributed; in the sense of a diocesse, as we tearme it, it is pro­perly ascribed to Bishops. The word indeede seemeth ge­nerally to signifie the circuit of any mans charge or admi­nistration, who hath gouernment in the Church. For as there is Ecclesia, a Church of a Patriarch, and of a Metro­politan, of a Bishop,Sozom l. 8. c. 3. Ius Graecorom p. 89. and of a Presbyter; so there is [...], or dioecesis, of a Patriarch, which we may call a Patriarchall diocesse; of an Archbishop, which we call a Prouince; of a Bishop, which we call a Diocesse; and of a Presbyter, which we call a Parish.

For the two first, these few examples may suffice. The Emperour Iustinian Cod. lit. tit. 4. de Episcopali audientia. appointeth,The Diocesse of a Patri­arch. that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the Patriarch of the Dio­cesse; but first, according to the sacred constitutions, be­fore the Bishop of the City, in which the Clergy man li­ueth: then, if he be suspected as partiall, let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitane Bishop. But if he also shall not allow of the accusation,§. 29. Sancimus, grae­ce [...], & No­uell. 123. c. 22. let him bring him before the Synode of that prouince but if still hee thinke himselfe wronged, let him appeale to the Patri­arch of the Diocesse, from whose sentence there lieth no ap­peale &c. Afterwards he addeth this exception; that wher­as there are two sorts of Patriarches, some, who in the Prouinces wherein they are, beare the office of Metropo­litanes, (their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Prouince, such were the Bishops of Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria,) others per totam Diocesin, throughout the whole Diocesse, doe ordaine the Metropolitanes and other Bishops who are vnder them, as the Bishop of Constan­tinople H [...]rcalea was the Me­tropolis of Thracia, vnto which Byzan­tium had beene subiect., and perhaps Ierusalem;Cesarea was the Me­tropolis of Palestina.) therefore the cau­ses, which happen in the Prouinces of the former sort, are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to Metropolitanes.

[Page 17]In the [...] Ins Graeco­r [...]m. p. 100., or disposition of the Churches, subiect to the Patriarch of Constantinople, made by the Em­perour Leo the Philosopher, it is noted, that seuen Metropolitane Churches, were withdrawn from [...] the Ro­mane Diocesse, with the Bishops vnder them, & one also, viz. Sele [...]cia in Pamphylia from [...] the Diocesse of the East, (meaning of the Bishop of Antioch, for he, as Theodoret Theod. l. 4. c. 23. saith, was [...], the ruler or chiefe of the Bishops in the East,) together with 26. Bishopricks subiect thereto. Epiphanius Epiph. haer. 68., as you heard before, te­stifieth this to haue beene the custome, that the Bishop of Alexandria should haue the Ecclesiastical [...] Diocesse, or Administration of all Egypt & Thebais, Mareot, Libya, Ammoniace, Maraeotis, and Pentapolis. It is said of Gre­gory the Great Ioan. Diac. in vit. Greg. l. 3. c. 13. The Diocesse of an Archbis­hop., that vnto the Bishopricks of his Diocesse, hee inuited Bishops of another Diocesse, vacantes, being voided of their Bishoprickes, as the Bishop of Smyrna, hee inuited to a Bishopricke in Sicilia.

The circuit also of an Archbishops iurisdiction is some­times called [...] and Dioecesis, and the Archbishop him­selfe Conc. Chalc­ [...]. 8. & 17., [...], as in the Councell of Chalcedon, where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree, be­tweene Metropolitanes and Patriarches; the name of Patriarch being also giuen sometimes vnto them. If any haue a controuersie with the Metropolitane of the Pro­uince, let him goe vnto, either [...], the Pri­mate of the Diocesse, or to the patriarch of Constantino­ple. The same Councell Chalc. c. 28. appointeth the Metropolitanes of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia to bee or­dained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the BB. of euery prouince in those Dioceses to bee, as they were wont, according to the Canons, to bee ordained of their Metropolitans. So that according to this sense a pro­uince is but part of a Diocesse. Socrates speaking of the first Councell of Constantinople, saith Socrat. l. 5. c. 8. that they establi­shed Patriarches, meaning Archbishops, diuiding vnto them prouinces. Thus of the Diocesse of Pontus, Helladi­us the Bishoppe of Cesarea, Gregorius the Bishoppe of [Page 18] Nyssa, Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship. The Patriarchship of the Diocesse of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory Lib. 3. Epist. 3. writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Millaine, mentioneth diuers BB. of his Diocesse, as you heard Li. 1. c. 7. §. 9 § 12. The Diocesse of a Bishop. before.

But we are briefly also to shew that a Bishops charge is called Dioecesis. The first Councell of Constantinople de­creeth Conc. Const. 1. c. 2., as it is commonly vnderstood, that BB. should not goe out of their Diocesse vnto Churches without their bounds, and that they should not [...]. confound the Churches. Where a Diocesse is attributed to a Bishop, as the circuit and bounds of his iurisdiction; and Churches, which the Councell forbiddeth to be confounded, are confounded with Dioceses. Againe, that BB. [...]. &c. being not called, may not goe without their Diocesse, to ordaine Ministers, or to exercise other ecclesiasticall administrations.

In the Councell of Africke Conc. Afric. c. 65. Carth. Graec. c. 101. it was decreed that those people which neuer had a Bishop of their owne, should not haue a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synode of the prouince, and the Primate, and by the consent of him in whose Diocesse the said Church is. Againe, that one Bishop Conc. Carth. 2 c. 11. Dioecesis ta­ken for the country, and parts of the Diocesse therein. doe not inuade the Diocesse of another. Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocesse. But where we find it opposed to the City, or to the Cathedral church, then doth it signifie the rest of the Diocesse; as in the A­fricane Councell Con. Afric. c. 84. Conc. Carth. grae. c. 118. it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocesse conuerted from Donatisme, should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholicke B. Againe, Con. Afric. c. 38. & Carth. graec. 72. Carth. 5. c. 5. the BB are forbidden to leaue their chiefe seat or See, & to remoue themselues to another church in their Diocesse.

Thus in the plural number, it signifieth sometimes al the churches in the Diocesse, meaning the coūtry, & somtimes any of thē seuerally. It was concluded vpon in the Councel of Carthage, Carth. grae. c. 14. that the BB. which liue in the vnity & cōmu­nion of the Church, [...], that hee should not onely iustly retaine his owne See, but also possesse such Dioeceses, that [Page 19] is parts of the Diocesse, as had gotten to themselues a a schismaticall Bishop of their owne. Againe, it was decreed Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5.that Dioceses (that is, parts of the Diocesse in the country) which neuer had a Bishop, should not haue any: and that Diocesse which sometimes had, should haue their owne B. And if in processe of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to haue a peculiar go­uernour, with the consent or liking of him, in whose power the Diocesse is, let them haue a Bishop. Wee haue heard it ordained Conc. Carth. graec. c. 57 siue Cart. 3. c. 46. Afric. c. 23. (saith Honoratus and Vrbanus in the 3. Councell of Carthage,) that Dioceses (meaning but parts of the Diocesse in the Country) should not obtaine a Bi­shop, but with the consent of him vnder whom they are placed. But perhaps some in our Prouince when they haue beene ordained Bishops in such a Diocesse, [...], by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses, haue challenged other Dioceses, this ought to be amended. Epigonius answered, that which is meet, is reserued to euery Bishoppe, [...], that out of the company or combination of Parishes iointly possessed, no part should bee taken to haue a Bishoppe of her owne, but by the con­sent of him, who hath authority, meaning the Bishoppe of the City, vnto which the Country belongeth. But if he shall grant that the Diocesse (meaning part of his owne Diocesse) permitted shall enioy a Bishop of their owne; hee that is so preferred may not encroch vpon other Dioceses, (that is, other parts of the Diocesse,) because that one being taken [...], out of the body of many was vouch­safed alone to receiue a Bishopricke of their owne. 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 Conc. Tolet. 4. c. 35. of To­ledo Bishops are required, per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque [Page 20] suas, to goe yearely through all their Dioceses and Parishes. And againe Ibid. c. 32., 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 Conc. Brac­car. 2. c. 2 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 Conc. Agat. c. 53. & 54. of Agatha, Dioecesin tenere. In the Councell of Orleans Aurelian. 3. c. 18. dioecesis & Basilica are vsed promiscuously, as Synonyma. To which purpose it is said Aurel. 4. c. 32., 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] when?Conc. Carth. gr. c. 54. & 101. 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.

§. 2. Decrees of the councils of Africke.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.

Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5.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.

Conc. Carth. 3. c. 42. et. 43. Carth. gr. 54.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 [Page 23] 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 Ibid. c. 46. Carth. gr. c. 57. 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 Bishoppe, by the consent of the an­tient Bishoppe, who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church, shall only retain that people vnto which he was or­dained. Finally, in another Councell Conc. Afr. c. 65. Carth. gr. c. 101 of Africke, it was de­creed, that such people as neuer had B. of their own, should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of euery prouince, and of the primate, and also by the consent of him vnder whose diocesse the said Church is placed.

Out of which canons, we may obserue these things. First, that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie.

Secondly, that euer from the beginning, they haue be­longed to the Bishop of the Citie.

Thirdly, that those parts of dioceses, which then had no Bishop of their owne, neuer had.

Fourthly, that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished, or the circuits of them inlarged, but con­trariwise, if there were cause, the number was increased, and the circuits or dioceses lessened.

Fifthly, that when a new Bishopricke was to be ere­cted, it was erected in some Bishops diocesse, but not with­out his leaue and liking, and also approbation of the Pri­mate and Prouinciall synod.

[Page 24]Sixthly, that when a new Bishopricke was erected, that part wherein it was erected, was taken, as before I no­ted Cart. gr. c. 54., [...], from all the parts iointly possessed, and as it were from the body of the rest.

Seuenthly, that hee which was preferred to such a Bi­shopricke was not a parish Bishoppe. For besides his owne Church, hee had a diocesse. Neither were they ap­pointed according to the new conceit to euery parish, but to such populous parts of dioceses, as might seeme worthy of a Bishop.

Eighthly, that when a new Bishopricke was erected, the Presbyter who obtained this honour, was anew or­dained thereto as Bishoppe, and so placed in a superi­our degree of the Ministerie, then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presby [...]er onely of a parish.

§ 3. Decrees of Fathers.To these canons wee might adde the decrees of Clem. ep. 1. ad Iacob. Cle­mens and Anaclet. ep. 3. c. 2. Anacletus, ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes, or small Cities, lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile: but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them. But I need not the testimonies of such as are sup­posed counterfet: and yet it is to bee confessed, that the E­pistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus; and that which in this point either of them decreed, agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church, from the Apostles time to our age. But to let them passe: the Epistle of Leo Leo ep. 87. ad episc. Afr. c. 2. the Great, is without suspicion, which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke, requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued, that not in any places or townes, Bishops should be consecrated, nor where heretofore they haue not been, seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are, the care of Presbyters may suffice. But episcopall gouernment is onely to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Ci­ties, lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God haue forbidden, the height of priesthood should be giuen to vil­lages and parishes, or obscure and solitary townes, and the epis­copall [Page 25] honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee com­mitted, it selfe should grow vile or contemptible, by the multi­tude thereof. The decrees of councels.

The canons whereof he speaketh (that I may also come to them) were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea. The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice, assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius, celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith, among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice, as Hosius and Athana­sius &c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice, at that time much oppugned by the Arians [...]this councell, I say, determined Conc. Sardic. c. 6. that it is simply [...]. vn­lawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small [...]. City, vnto which euen one onely Presbyter doth suffice. For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there, lest the name & authority of a Bishop grow into contempt. But the Bishops of the prouince (being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan) must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops. But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people, that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke, let it haue a Bi­shop.

For that of Laodicea, though it were but a prouinciall Synode, yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the an­cient Code of canons, and were confirmed by the generall councell Con. Con­stant. in Trull. c. 2. held in Trullo. In that councill Conc. Laodi­cen. c. 56. alids 57 [...] (for so Balsam and some manu­scripts and latin transla­tions, read) [...]. therefore it was decreed, that Bishops ought not to bee placed in vil­lages and countrey townes, but visitors: and that those which before that time had beene ordained, might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop, who is in the Citty: [...].

The same hath Photius, Phot. Nome­can. lit. 1. c. 19. Ne sit omnino in parua ciui­tate vel vice Episcopus.

To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo: which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned,Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4. yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares [Page 26] agoe, beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King: which I doe the rather mention, because whereas the Bishop of Merida Conc. Tolet. 12. c. 4. by the commandement of their late King Bamba, had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne, the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt, contrary to the canons of the coun­cels and practise of the Church, decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See, neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there. As for him, that was ordained not by his owne ambition, but by the Kings compulsion; they grant to him this fauour, to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing. And in the end they make this generall decree: If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places, where a Bishop neuer was, let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty: So Burchar­dus readeth decret. lib. 5. c. 32. and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order, because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onely the decrees of the ancient Fathers, but also the Apostolicall ordi­nances.

This therefore is my first argument against parish Bi­shops in the countrey:

§. 4. That Chorepis­copi or coun­try BB. vvere not parish BB.It may be, that my aduersary, who is ready to catch at e­uerie syllable, will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited, obiect, that before that time, there were Bishops placed in country townes: and thereupon [Page 27] conclude, that therefore there had beene, before that time, parishionall Bishoppes. To this obiection I an­swere, by denying the consequence, or the proposition which is vnderstood, viz. that the country Bishops (which had beene before ordained) were parish Bishops. For those Bishops, because they were placed [...] the Countries, were called [...], as you would say, Countrie-Bishops, to distinguish them from the other Bi­shops, whose See was in the Citie. Now these Chore­piscopi were not in all Dioceses, much lesse in all pa­rishes; nor assigned, where they were, to one parish (as they were Bishoppes) but where the Diocesse was large, were ordained in some places remote from the citie, to supply the absence of the Bishop, in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are, wherein diuers parishes were contained. These Chorepicsopi at the first, had Epis­copall ordination, by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops, insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice, there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes: For which fifteene, if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes, there might haue beene, I doubt not, fif­teene hundred, if not fifteene thousand: But when these Countrie-Bishoppes, beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes, and substitutes, placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome, and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Epis­copall function, began to encroach vpon the Bishoppes right, and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie, and jurisdicti­on beyond their commission; they were by little and little restrained; and when they would not be kept within their compasse, their order (at least as they were Bishops) bee­ing but an humane-ordinance, deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie, was in most places aboli­shed.

But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these [Page 28] countrie Bishops, doth giue great light to this present con­trouersie, it will not be vnprofitable, nor, I hope, vnplea­sing to the reader, if I acquaint him with that which is writ­ten concerning them.

First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria, wherunto a­mong other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed, we find this difference betweene country presbyters & country Bishops: [...] Conc. Neo­caes. c. 13. [...], Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer [...], in the cathedrall Church of the City, the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present, neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe: but if they bee absent, and one of them alone bee called to prayer, then hee may, because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse, as some note. [...] Ibid. c. 14., but coun­trey Bishops, who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers, they doe offer. Vpon which words Balsamo Theod. Bals. in Conc. Neo­caesar. noteth two things. First, where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie, it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons. Secondly, that among other vses, for which they were ap­pointed, they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore, which appertained to them. Besides, we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters, be­long to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city (which heere­after wil more clearely appeare) and that the countrey Bi­shop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Mini­stres, and yet inferiour to the Bishops.

The councel of Ancyra Conc. Ancyr. c. 13. which is more ancient thē the for­mer, and both of them elder then the councill of Nice, per­ceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vpon the Bishops right, determined [...] &c. it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to or­daine Presbyters or Deacons.

The councell of Antioch, Conc. Antio. c. 8. the Latins call them for matas literas. though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse, to send cano­nicall letters (as the manner of Bishops among them­selues, in those times was) which it denied to country presbyters: yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed [Page 29] to ordaine, alleging that they might lawfully doe it, be­cause they had beene ordained as Bishops. Jt therefore de­termined, Con. Antioc. c. 10. that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries, called Chorepiscopi, although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure, and gouerne the Churches subiect vnto them, and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof: and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists, should satisfie themselues with pre­ferring of them, and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Dea­cons, without [...]. the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect. But if any shall presume to trans­gresse this decree, hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath. And whereas they pretended that they had episco­pall ordination, and therefore as BB might ordaine Mini­sters; to take away that pretence, it determined also, that the Country B. should be ordained (not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops, as a Bishop, but as other Pres­byters or Ministers) of the Bishop of the City, vnto which he is subiect. So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops, afterwards (according to this decree) they were but Presbyters in deede, though they had the title of Bi­shops; neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times.

There is an Epistle which goeth vnder the name of Da­masus, Damas. epist. 4. de Chorepis­copis. the Author whereof supposeth, that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters, because they are found Conc. Neo­caesar. c. 14. to haue beene or­dained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore, and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe, therefore they are remooued from Episcopall of­fices. Wee know (saith hee) there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ, that is to say, of the 12. Apostles, and 70. Disciples: whence this third came, we know not; for neither are they Bishops, because they be not ordained of three Bishops, but only of one; neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes; neither may they be in the Citie, because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop. Neither will they bee called Presbyters, but will be accounted more then Presbyters. Whe­ther [Page 30] Damasus were Author of that Epistle, I know not; but this I am sure, that Leo Leo epist. 88. the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France, doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement, a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle, which beareth the name of Da­masus. And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill, C. Hispal. 2. c. 7. whereof Isidore was President, that it followeth the same almost word for word.

§. 5. The second argument ta­ken from Country Bi­shops.Now because my Aduersarie shall not say, that what I haue alleged concerning Country Bishops, is impertinent, hee shall vnderstand, that as the maine question concer­ning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued, as you shall heare in due place; so this present question which wee haue in hand concerning pa­rish Bishops. For surely if there were any parishionall Bi­shops in the Countrey, then the Countrey Bishops were such: but they were not such, for they were set ouer diuers parishes. Againe, if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie, and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie; then much more the Presbyters of parishes (who were inferiour, and in some things subiect to the Chorepis­copi, as the Bishops substitutes) were subiect to the Bishop; and their parishes, being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops, were but a part of the diocesse. So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops, or their parishes from being entire Chur­ches, endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouerne­ment. But the former is true, as hath beene proued, there­fore the latter.

That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them, it is ap­parant, because not onely they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes, but for a time had episcopall ordination, and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons, and to place Readers in parishes, as also they might send Formatas, or Canonicall Epistles, which the Presbyters might not doe. Likewise, when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie, Con. Nic. c. 8. though they were not permitted to be Bishops of [Page 31] the City, yet they were gratified with the name and autho­ritie of Chorepiscopi. In the time of Theodosius and Valenti­nian, a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only: but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium Conc. Rhegi­ens. c. 1.2.3.4. pro­nounced void, and censured the ordainers. As for the par­tie ordained, because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke, they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice, and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus; but so, as that hee should not ordaine, nor exercise any other episcopall function, but only confirme Nouices, and consecrate Virgins, and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop, and as su­periour to a Presbyter. And this was my second argu­ment, whereby I haue prooued, that Countrey parishes had no Bishops.

Neither had each of them a Presbyterie,§. 6. Parishes had not Presby­teries. but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them, as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of SardicaConc. Sardic. c. 6., and by the iudgement of Leo Leo epist. 87.. Yea not Presbyters only did seueral­lie gouerne parishes, as with vs, but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges. You heard be­fore diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes, as namely that Conc. Carth. 4. c. 102. of the Councel of Carthage, Presbyter qui Pa­roeciae praest, &c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish. The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Elibe­ris, Conc. Eliber. c. 77.which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice: If any Deacon ruling a people, shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any, &c.

Againe, if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery, then was it either of the Ministery, or of the Laitie. But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities, and Cathedrall Churches, and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country, no not to assist the Chorepiscopi, much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parish­es: and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age: Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Pres­byteries.

For the Assumption, let the Refuter consider with mee, what course was taken in Countrey parishes, when their Minister was departed. Among themselues they had or­dinarily none; or if by chance they had, they could not ordaine him, but were (as sometimes it happened in Ci­ties) to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained. Vniuersi­ties they had none from whence to fetch a learned Mini­ster: out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied, vnlesse first it did appeare, that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them. To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort, who out of the Cler­gie belonging to the Cathedrall Church, (wherein, as the Nurserie of the diocesse, diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie) did supply their want, assigning some one of his Clergie vnto them. But if there were none fit, (as sometimes their store was drawne drie, by supplying the wants of many) they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse, whom they called another Bishops Clerke, without his leaue and dimissorie letters: for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong; and such or­dinations were to be disanulled. If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne, nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse, with the consent of his neighbour Bishop, he sent to the Metropolitan, Conc. Carth. Gr. c. 54. siue Carth. 3. c. 42. who either out of his owne Clergie, or some other in the Pro­uince, was to supplie them. And this, as it is euident to them who haue read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches; so is it confessed by Caluin. Each City (saith he) Iustit. l. 4. c. 4. §. 2. had a College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers; for both did they all discharge the office of teaching, [Page 33] &c. to the people, and also that they might leaue seede behinde them, they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie. To euery Citie a certaine region was attri­buted, which should receiue their Ministers from thence, and be accounted of the body of that Church.

It is therefore euident, that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie, nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of.

And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities.§ 7. The parishes of the Cities had not seue­rall Bishops. For it was neuer almost heard of, that there were at any time more Bishops (so properly called) then one in a City, where notwithstanding were many Presbyters, when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third a­gainst the one only lawfull Bishop: excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene per­mitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie, or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first. And when there haue beene more then one by schisme or heresie, yet nei­ther the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop, nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop, was a parishionall Bi­shop, but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them, in the Citie and Countrey adioi­ning, there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onely more parishes then one, not onely of the true Christians, but also of the heretikes and schismatickes, as before was noted concerning Antioch.

I shall haue occasion to speake more of this point when I shall Lib. 3. cap. 3. intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which the Bishop in euery diocesse had for terme of life. A few te­stimonies therfore shal suffice in this place. In the Church of Rome there were many not onely Presbyters besides the one onely lawfull Bishop, but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times, whereunto Presby­ters were assigned seuerally, the Bishop being the Super­intendent ouer them all. About the yeere 250. Cornelius Euseb. lib. 6. c. 43. being chosen Bishop of Rome, Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election, by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke, [Page 34] not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians, or Catha­rists, but procure [...] three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie, to ordaine him B [...]shop of Rome: hauing also inueigled by his subtilties, certaine famous men, that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie, and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius. Of this fact, what was the iudgement of Cyprian, of Cornelius, and other B [...]shops, and finally of the Confessours themselues, you shall in few words heare. For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers, as to other chiefe B [...]shops, so to Car­thage, to procure the approbation of Cyprian, hee disswa­deth them from the schisme, telling them Cypr li. 2. epist. 11. that a B [...]shop being ordained, and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow B [...]shops, and of the people, ano­ther may not by any meanes be ordained. And writing to some of those Confessours, hee signifieth his great griefe, Li. 3. epist. 2. because he vnderstood that they, contrary to the order of the Church, contrary to the law of the Gospell, contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline, had thought it meet, that another B. should be made, that is to say, which is nei­ther right nor lawfull to bee done, that another Church should be erected, the members of Christ dismembred, &c.

Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie, deposed the Bishops who ordained No­uatianus: and writing of these matters to Fabius Euseb. l. 6. c. 43. the B. of Antioch, he saith, this Patron of the Gospell forsooth (mea­ning Nouatian) did not know that in a Catholike Church [...], there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant, but that there are 46. Presbyters, and 108. more of the Clergie.

The Confessors Epist. Cornel. ap [...]d Cypr. l. 3. epist. 11. afterwards acknowledging their fault, among other things in their submission confesse, that as there is but one God and one Lord, so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop.

Now whereas Cornelius testifieth, that there were be­sides the Bishop, who ought to be but one, 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome, and 108. others of the Clergie: if any man (notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers, [Page 35] that there were diuers Churches in Rome, whereunto se­uerall Presbyters were assigned) will needes hold, that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish, and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation; I cannot let him from being so absurd. Howbeit, this is certaine, that in the next age, in Optatus Contr. Par­men. l. 2.40. & quod excurrit basilicas, &c. his time, when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches, whereunto seuerall Presbyters were de­puted, there remained still but one only Bishop.

The like is to be said of Alexandria, wherein (as Epipha­nius Haeres. 69. testifieth) were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches, all which (at least so many as were Ca­tholike) were vnder one Archbishop, [...], and ouer them seuerally are Presby­ters placed, for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabi­tants, who might each of them bee neere vnto their owne Church, &c. Now (saith Epiphanius) besides the Church called Caesaria, which was burnt in Iulians time, and reedi­fied by Athanasius, there are many others, as the Church of Dionysius, of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persaea, of Dizya, of Mendidius, of Amianus, of Baucalis, and o­thers. In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, and Arius [...]. in another, namely, that which is called Baucalis.

The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates, L. 5. Orthod. fid. c. 1. affirming, that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches sub­iect to the B. of Alexandria, committed seuerally to Pres­byters, as that which is called Baucalis, and those which haue their names from S. Dionysius, Theonas, &c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria, was by Achilles the B. (the predecessour of Alexander) set ouer the Church called Baucalis. And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities im­mediately after the Apostles times; yet is it not to be doub­ted, but that in euery City when the number of Christians was much increased, the like diuision of parishes was made, vnto which, not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appoin­ted: there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop, as the [Page 36] practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue.

§ 8. The Chur­ches which had Bishops set ouer them were dioce­ses.But now suppose, that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish, which is most false; yet forsomuch as to euery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith, a certaine region allotted, which belonged to the Bishops charge, and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers; who seeth nor, that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish, but a diocesse? And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue.

The assumption is prooued by these reasons: first, The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts, the Citie with the suburbs, and Country sub­iect to it. For proofe whereof, you heard before two most plaine testimonies: The former, in one of the Canons of the Apostles Ca [...]. Apost. 34. (so called) charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia, and the Countries which be vnder it: The other in the Councell of Antioch, Conc. Anti­och. c. 9. which reciting the same words, addeth this reason: For euery Bishop hath autho­ritie ouer his owne Paroecia, and doth [...], that is, per­forme the dutie of a Diocesan, hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vn­der his Citie, so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Dea­cons, and order all things with iudgement. To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop, into the Church of the Citie called Cont. Carth. Gr. c. 54.72. [...], or N [...]trix Ec­clesia, and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called [...]. And hence ariseth the distinction of Pres­byters subiect to the same Bishop that others were Conc. Neo [...] ­sar. c. 13. [...], Presbyters of the citie, or as in some Latine [Page 37] Councels they are called Cont. Agat [...]. c. 22., Ciuitatenses, others [...], Countrey Ministers, or dioecesan [...], Ministers of the dio­cesse.

Secondly,The second reason. 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 Cont. Ephes. p [...]st. aduent. epist. Cyp., 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 vnui [...]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 Conc. Carth. gr. c. 54., that the people in the [Page 38] 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 beg [...]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 demandedIbid. c. 57., 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 ChalcedonConc. Chal­ced. c. 17., determined, that coun­trey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bi­shops which held them. Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople in T [...]lo. c. 25., with this addition, if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres.

§ 9. The third. reason.But nothing doth more euidently proue, that in the pri­mitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops, then the antient institution of country BishopsConfessed by Caluin. Inst. l. 4. c 4. § 2. & Bez [...] de grad. c. 24., called ch [...]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 chorepiscop [...] might doe Conc. Ancyr. c. 13. nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop,Conc. Antioch. c. 10. neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie, [...], vnto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect.

[Page 39]Fourthly,The fourth. reason. 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 Co [...]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 EphesusExempl. libelli syn. Ephes. oblati ab Euprepio & Cyrillo Episcopis., 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 [...]yze had also Arcadiopolis, the Bishop [Page 40] of C [...]la Callipolis, the Bishop of Sabsadia, A phrodi [...]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 Ignat. epist. ad Rom. Bishop of Syria, Liberius Socrat. l. 4. c. 12 of Italy, Cyprius Nazianz. encom. Cypr. Conc. Const. Trull. c. 2. of Africke, Diodorus Theodor. l. 5. c. 4. of Cili­cia, Basil Sozum. l. 5. c. 1 [...]. the Great of Cappadocia, &c.) but as hauing one onely Bishop: as the nation of the ScythyansSozum. lib. 6. c. 21. hauing many cities, townes, and castels, had all of them by antient cu­stome one only Bishop, which was the Bishop of their chiefe citie Tomis.

CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon, pro­uing that the seuen Churches of Asia, &c. were Dioceses.

THese testimonies and proofes hitherto produced, are so euident & demōstratiue for dioceses and diocesans, as that if no more could be said, they are sufficient, if not to perswade, yet at the least to con­uince the gainsaiers. But if besides these, the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase, shall be made to returne vpon him, and to driue him and his consorts like the men of Ai, vpon these new forces; and if the forces which hee bring­eth to maintaine his quarell, shall bee found to bee of no force, and altogether vnable to endure the least encounter; [Page 41] then doe I hope, that our Disciplinarians themselues will be perswaded to speake no more for the new found parish Discipline. But before I enter into this second conflict, I am to take a suruey of his forces, which I perceiue are diuided into 2. troopes, the one encountering with my forces, the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline.

In his encounter or refutations;Pag. 53. first he findeth fault, that I doe not conclude in this second part, what he would haue me to conclude according to his forced Analysis. For an­swere whereof let my words be considered.

The assertion which I indeuour to prooue in the foure first points of my Sermon, was this, that the Angels or go­uernors of the primitiue Church, were Diocesan Bishops, and for the substance of their calling, such as ours be. This assertion, after I had prooued it in the first point [...], by disproouing their Presbyteries: in the three next points I indeuour to prooue it [...], shewing that they were such as ours are, both in respect of the largenesse of their au­thoritie; to which end I shew that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point, and themselues Diocesans in the third: and in respect of the height of their authoritie and Preheminence, that they were superiour in degree to other ministers &c. which I prooue in the fourth. In this second [Page 42] point therefore, if I indeauour to prooue that the primi­tiue Churches, which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and were indued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment, were not parishes properly, but Dioceses; nothing could be more directly, and pertinently deliuered. But the onely thing, which I seeke to prooue and maintaine in this part, as euery man seeth, is, that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries, &c. were not parishes properly, but Dio­ceses. And this I first prooue by mine owne arguments, and secondly maintaine against theirs.

§. 2. That the 7. Churches were Dioce­ses.My arguments were two. The former grounded on the text, and is thus to be framed:

The proposition I did not expresse, but did presuppose it, and take it for granted. Likewise that part of the assumpti­on (inclosed in the parenthesis) affirming that to the 7. Chur­ches, all others which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and consequently were indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were like, I also presupposed: because it is not to be doubted but that the primitiue Churches indued with the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment, were of the like nature and constitution. And vpon this hypothesis, the onely argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause,Pag. 66. is grounded: affirming that‘it is clear by all learned (I know not what) that the constitution of the visible Churches, was at the first one & the same in al places.’

Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoyning, it is pro­ued; first, ioyntly. For if the 7. Churches within their cir­cuit comprised all the Churches in Asia, then all both in cities and countries: but the first is true; for our Sauiour [Page 43] Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all vnder these 7. as being the principall, and containing within their circuit all the rest.

Then, seuerally: The church of Ephesus, contained a great and ample citie (indeed a Metropolis or mother city) and the country subiect to it: the church of Smyrna a mo­ther city & the country belōging to it: the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adioyning: the church of Laoidcea, a mother city and the country vnder it: the Church of Pergamus, or Pergamū, a famous city, (which had beene the fear of the Kings of Asia) and the coun­trey belonging to it: the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories.

Now let vs see how our refu [...]er cauilleth with these ar­guments. The first he frameth thus:

‘Of this syllogisme (saith hee) the assumption is on the eighteenth page, and the conclusion on the seuenteenth. The proposition is of necessity so to be supplied.’To which I answere, that the consequence thereof is naught. Euen so in your conceit bee almost all that you make for me.Ad page. 54. His answer to the proposi­tion. But [...]s your necessity or need such, that you cānot frame a syllo­gisme with hope to answer it, vnlesse the propositiō haue cō ­sequence which you may deny? Let me intreat you, that the proposition may be simple as euen now I propounded it, & thē deny it if you can. Churches whose circuit contained not on the cities but also the co [...]ntries adioyning were Dioceses. This proposition will stand vnmooueable, when the fo [...]dati­on of your discipline wil be raced. And so wil the cōsequēce which your self propoūd, being groūded on this propositiō as the hypothesis therof. But why is the consequēce naught? for it will not be amisse to take a breef view how he playeth with it. 2. reasōs he rendreth 1. Because it presupposeth that al [Page 44] Churches in the world at that time were [...]mple and great Cities. Which as it appeareth to bee manifestly false to all that are of any vnderstanding; so it, and some o­ther places in his booke doe plainely bewray that hee doth not knowe,V [...]de infir. lib. 4. c. 4. § 3. What is the hypothesis of of a cōuexiue proposition. what is the hypothesis or thing pre­supposed in a connexiue proposition. The which that hee may know heere after, let him dispose his connexiue propo­sition in an enthymeme; and what part of the syllogisme is wanting, let him vnderstand that to be presupposed as the hypothesis whereon that consequence is grounded. And if that hypothesis bee false, let him know that the conse­quence is naught. But if it bee true (as alwaies it is in their argumentations who do not dispute sophistically, for they presuppose and take for granted nothing but that which in their opinion is certaine and manifest) then is the consequence necessary. As for example, let his con­nexiue proposition be disposed in this E [...]thymeme: The 7. churches contained within their circuit, not onely the Cities but the countries adioining:

Therefore the seuen Churches were dioceses.

That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogisme which is vnderstood: viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not onelie cities but the countries adioyning, were dioceses. Which being a certaine and manifest truth, the consequence was necessary. But if I should say thus:

Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countreys adioyning, were dioceses: Therfore the 7. churches were dioceses: in this consequence the as­sumption were presupposed, viz. that the circuit of euerie of the seuen churches contained both the citie, and country adioyning. Which parts of Syllogismes omit­ted in Enthymemes▪ if the refuter would adde to make vp a simple syllogisme, either in his arguing or analy­sing, hee might spare both himselfe and his aduersary a great deale of superfluous trouble about his consequen­ces. Hee must therefore vnlearne that art (if he would not [Page 45] be accounted a trifler) of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogisme, that hee may haue a consequence to cauill with.

But so farre is the proposition which hee propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities, that it doth not so much as presup­pose those seuen in Asia, which it mentioneth, to be such. That is not presuppo [...]ed in the proposition, but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption. Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition, but the simple pro­position, which I said was the hypothesis thereof. If it be [...]aid, that what I say of the seuen churches, I would haue vnderstood of all other churches, and so seeme to presup­pose (though not in my proposition, yet in my argumen­tation) that which the Refuter doth obiect: I answere, that as in other places I am not to bee blamed for con­cluding from other Churches to these seuen: so neither here for concluding from these seuen, to all others. For the forme and constitution of all the Primitiue Churches, being one and the same, as the Refuter confesseth; it is euident that what is truely said of other Primitiue chur­ches in respect of their constitution, is verified of these seuen: And what is verified of these seuen, may bee truely affirmed of the rest. Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities, (that was spoken concerning fiue of these in Asia) it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining. And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery, or were (as you speake and meane) indued with power of Ec­clesiasticall gouernement.§ 4. Their instāce concerning Cenchreae. Neither can you giue in­stance in any one to the contrary. Yes, that they can. T. C. hath an instance: this disputer also hath one instance, pag. 57. and one in this place, and in some others. And yet all is but this: Some church was not a City, as for example, Cenchrea. He might haue said Cenchrea. Their reason is thus explicated: [Page 46]

J distinguish of the word Church. For I denie not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church, much more in a village or towne. But the question is of such a church, as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery, and had, as they speake, the power of Ecclesiasticall gouerne­ment. Such a Church was seated onely in Cities, or great towns answerable to Cities. And therefore, if they meane (as they doe: or else they might aswell hold their peace) that in Cenchreae was such a Church; I deny the assump­tion. Cenchreae was subiect to the church of Corinth, as al other towns thereabouts, and neuer had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her owne. Yea, but she had a Deacon. Sup­pose that were so, what then? seuerall Deacons, and seue­rall Presbyters were placed in parish Churches, where was neither B. nor Presbytery, nor the power (which they speake of) of Ecclesiasticall gouernment. And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse, namely Phoebe. Of whom also it may be doubted, whether Paul calleth her [...], one that ministred to the Church in Cenchreae, in respect of an office imposed vpon her to minister to the needy, & to en­tertaine strangers on the churches cost, or in regard of her voluntary ministring to the faithful there, of her own sub­stance. For if she were, as Bullinger, and diuers before him report, nobilissima & ditissima foemina, a most noble, and most wealthy woman; it is not like, that she was a widow main­tained of the church;Luke 8.3. but one, which (like to Mary, Ioanna, Chusa, & Susanna mentioned in the Gospell, which [...] ministred to Christ of their goods) did maintaine and re­lieue the poore of the Church there, and giue entertaine­ment to Christian trauellers of her owne cost. In which re­spect Paul saith of her,Rom. 16.2. that she had been [...], a pa­tronesse of many, yea of the Apostle himselfe. Neither is it likely that a widdow maintained of the church, as hauing little or nothing of her owne, should haue such busines in Rome, or (as it is thought) at the Emperours Court, as that [Page 47] the Apostle should write to the faithfull in Rome to assist her in her affaires. But it may be you desire to heare some further reason of his deniall of that consequence: you shal heare it. For, saith he, ‘though it were granted, that these 7. were great Cities, & the Countries adioyning; [...]et there might be diuers others, which were small, &c.’ See you not how he seeketh about for starting holes? What if there were (and that is more thē might be) other smal churches? (as indeed there was none such as we speak of, but they were seated in the Cities, neither was any so small, but if it were indued with power of ecclesiastical gouernment, it was of the same constitution with those which were greater). What is that to this consequence? If these Churches contained ech of them not onely the City, but the country adioining, then they were not Parishes properly, but Dioceses. His answere if it bee well weighed, is an exception against the conclusion. As if hee should say, though I would fain wrangle with your propo­sitiō, but cānot (for how is it 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:§. 5. ‘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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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,§. 6. 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 [Page 50] 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 Bez. de grad. c. 24. Beza, and testified by Doctor Rain. &. H. 542. Rainolds, and others Caes. Baron. an. 39.10. Wolfg. Laz. de rep. Rom. l. 2. c. 12. Beat. Rhena [...]. in lib. Not [...]t. prouinci­ar. imp. Rom. in de­scriptione Illyrici., 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 Const. in Trullo. c. 38. [...]. (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 Act. 19.10. restifi­eth, that all which inhabited Asia (so properly called) did heare the word of the Lord Iesus both Iewes and Gen­tiles. Well, Paul hauing placed many Presbyters among them, and hauing continued among them for the space of three yeeres, afterwards Act. 20.31. sendeth Timothy to be their Bi­shoppe, who ordinarily continued among them vntill his death. And that you should not thinke there was but that Church at Ephesus in Pauls time, hee maketh mention 1. Cor. 16.19. of the Churches of Asia. Saint Peter likewise had prea­ched, and by his preaching conuerted many in Asia, to whom among others, hee directeth 1. Pet. 1.1. his first Epistle. Af­ter the death of Peter and Paul, because those Churches were as Paul had foretold, much annoled with heretikes, [Page 51] Saint Iohn Testified by Origen. Eusebius, Epi­phanius, Chrysost. Na­zianz. apud Caes. Baron. in a [...]. 44.29., by the direction of the holy Ghost, went into those parts, preached the Gospell for many yeeres, ordained Bishoppes and Presbyters where need was. To the ministery of the Apostles, adde the preaching of the Bishoppes and Presbyters ordained by them, and disciples which they had instructed: by whose ministe­rie, not onely many particular Christians, but some Chur­ches were brought to the faith. As that of Colossae, (which was in the confines of Phrygia, bordering on this Asia) in Pauls time, planted by the ministerie of E­paphra [...] Coloss. 1.7., as their founder; watered by the ministerie of Archippus, as their Bishoppe. Now I appeale to the con­science of euery indifferent Reader, whether it bee not vnlikely, that not in any one of these famous Chur­ches, no not in that of Ephesus, there were in the whole citie and country belonging to it, any more then one ordi­nary congregation, after the preaching of such, and so many for the space of forty fiue yeeres.

And so much for the first of his assertions: the other two I will ioyne together. For if there were but one Bi­shoppe for the Church, both of the citie and country, (as there were but seuen in all these seuen Churches) and but one Presbytery: if the Churches both of the ci­tie and country were subiect to the Bishoppe of the citie: if the parishes both of citie and country had neither Bi­shoppe nor Presbytery, but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them: if the Presbyters of the country were ordai­ned by the Bishoppe of the citie, and not onely they, but the rurall Bishoppes also were subiect to his authori­tie; all which, I haue by most euident arguments and te­stimonies proued already: then did the seuerall congrega­tions and parishes, which J haue also prooued were all but members of one body, depend vpon the chiefe Church in the citie as the head, which afterwards was called Matrix ecclesia, cathedra episcopi, or the cathedrall Church, neither had the power of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction whereof they speake, as I haue also proued before.

[Page 52] §. 7. His answere to the assūp­tion.I come to the assumption, wherewith hee cauilleth e­gregiously, because I said that the Churches whereof the seuen Angels were Bishoppes, were not onely the cities, but the countries adioyning, that is, as I expressed my mea­ning in the syllogisme before, that the circuit of euery one of these Churches contained both the citie and coun­try: which assumption I haue made good by necessary proofe. But, saith hee, ‘Who euer said that the Church of Ephesus was a great Citie? Who knoweth not that the Citie is one thing, and the Church another? But this might serue M.D. turne to dazell the eies of the simple, &c.’ As touching this foule imputation (that I may beginne with it) J thanke God, I am free, both from desire, and intent of daz [...]ling the eyes of the simple. But as in my conscience I am cleerely resolued of the truth of these fiue points contained in the Sermon: so I haue endeuoured with plaine euidence, to vphold and maintaine the truth, a­gainst the nouelty of your inuentions, and the subtilties of your sophistications, wherewith you haue too long both dazeled and seduced the simple. So much of that by the way.

If hee discerned the speech which I vsed, to bee im­proper, had hee not so much neither Art, I meane either Rhetoricke, or Logicke, nor grace, I meane charity, as ei­ther to conceiue me to haue spoken by a trope, or to explane my speech by such an enunciation, as the nature of the ar­guments doth require? When it is said in my text, the se­uen starres are the Angels; will he say, who euer heard that starres were Angels? Or when Christ saith, This cup is my bloud that is sh [...]d, or, the new Testament in my bloud: will he say; who euer heard that the cup is bloud or the Testa­ment? When I said the Churches are the cities and the country; could he neither vnderstand me as speaking (af­ter that most vsuall metonymy) of the Christian people in the citie and country: nor yet explane my words, as the na­ture of the argumēts contained in the speech doth lead him? If I should say, a man is not onely body, but soule also, or, the [Page 53] body is not one member alone, but many, you would vn­derstand me thus: Man consisteth of body and soule; the body consisteth not of one member alone, but of many. Or thus; Whole man containeth these two parts: the bo­die containeth not one member alone, but many. Euen so the Church or diocesse of Ephesus is (that is, contai­neth) not only the City, but the Country.

But is that so strange a thing with our learned Refuter,§. 8. Churches called Cities. that the name of the Citie should be giuen to the Church? Let him looke backe to Apoc. 1.11. and hee shall finde, that the seuen Churches were, Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. And so vsuall is it with good Authors speaking of BB. to say they were Bishops of such or such a Citie, as I might fill a Volume with quotations to this purpose. These few te­stimonies may suffice: Eusebius Euseb. Chr. an. 45. Ann. 71. saith, that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius was the se­cond Bishop of Antioch, &c. The Councell of Nice wri­ting to the Church of Alexandria, maketh mention Socrat. lib. 1. fol. 177. a. [...], of the Bishop of Alexandria. Athanasius Epist. ad E­pise. Afric. calleth Damasus, [...], the Bishop of the great Citie Rome; and Dionysius, De sentent. Dionys. the B. of Alexandria. The first Councell of Constantinople Conc. Const. 1. c. 1.2.3. mentioneth the Bishop of Alexandria, the Bishop of Constantinople, and the Bishop of Rome. And more plainely in the Councell held in Trullo,Const. in Trul. c. 2. Nectarius is said to haue beene the Bishop of the Citie of Constantinople, Dionysius the Archbishop [...], of the great Citie of Alexandria. Looke into the subscriptions of Bishops vnto Councels, as to that of Nice subscribed Osius the Bishop of the Citie of Corduba, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, &c. to the Councell of Sardica, Athanasius Bishop of the great Citie of Alexandria, Alexander Bishop of the Citie of Mesenia; and in like ma­ner all the rest, stiling themselues Bishops of the Cities. Looke into the inscriptions of epistles written either by Bishops, or vnto Bishops: Ignatius stileth himselfe thus: Ignat. ad Po­lycarp. Ignatius [...], the Bishop of Antioch. Leo Epist. 1.2.3. &c. in his Epistles stileth himselfe sometimes Bishop of Rome, sometimes Vrbis Romae, of the Citie of Rome. Basil writeth [Page 54] to Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata, to Athanasius the Bi­shop of Ancyra, to Ambrose the Bishop of Millaine, and writing to the Bishops of France and Jtaly, calleth himselfe the B. of Caesar [...]a.

This title giuen to Bishops after the diuision of parishes, plainly prooueth also, that they were not Bishops of any one parish, but of all the Churches in the Citie, and of the whole diocesse.

My assertion therefore, that each of the seuen Churches was not only the Citie, but the countrey also adioining, would according to the true meaning thereof haue beene consuted, if hee had beene able, and not the words fondlie cauilled with. But not contended heere with, he stretcheth my words beyond that which his owne conscience would tell him was my meaning; as if I had said, ‘that all the people in the City and Country had beene at this time Chri­stians.’ Which could scarcely bee verified of any Citie and Country for 200. yeeres after and more, I meane vn­till Constantines time. Neuerthelesse, this was an assertion which he found himselfe able to confute. And therefore full soberly he goeth about it, telling vs, ‘that there were not then so many Christians as inhabitants, nor it was not then in Ephesus, as it is now in London. And very lear­nedly out of h [...]s reading telleth vs, that Polycarpus Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. was put to death by the rage of the heathen multitude, in the sight of his people:’ when euery body knoweth, that in all Ci­ties and Countries, for the space of almost 300. yeeres, the Christians were persecuted by the Gentiles.

If any man aske, how it may bee said, that the Church contained the Citie and Country, when but a few Christi­ans, in comparison of the heathen, were in either of both: I answer (as before) that the circuit of the Church or dio­cesse was the same, when there were few, and when there were many, yea when all were Christians. Neither were there more Bishops set ouer the Citie and Country when all were Christians, then when there were but a few; the same Bishop of the Citie hauing iurisdiction ouer all the Christians both in the Citie and country, as well when all [Page 55] were Christians, as when but a few: which J prooued be­fore by the generall consent and perpetuall practise of all Christendome euer since the Apostles times; which ought without comparison to preuaile with vs aboue the autho­ritie of a few selfe-conceited persons among vs, who are not so singular for learning, as they are singular in opini­on; whose pride and arrogancie in aduancing themselues against the iudgment and practise of the vniuersall church in all places, and in all ages since the Apostles times, is in­tolerable.

Yea but saith hee, ‘the Church of Smyrna writing Euseb. l. 4. c. 15. of the said Martyrdome of Polycarpus, intituleth her selfe the Church of God which is at Smyrna. Was there a whole Diocesse or Countrey of Christians inhabiting Smyrna?’ Which is an obiection scarce worth the answering. For whether by the Church of Smyrna you vnderstand the whole Diocesse, it was seated chiefely in the Citie (as the soule, which is in all the bodie, is said to bee in the head; and God, who is in all places, to be in heauen) or but that part which did inhabit the Citie, you are not to maruell, if the whole companie of Christians inhabiting a City, are called a Church, seeing the companie of Christians in a parish, or in a familie, deserueth that name. Neither doth the naming of it selfe the Church which is at Smyrna, exclude the Churches in the Countrey from being of the same bodie or diocesse with it. And thus much may suf­fice to haue spoken concerning the first syllogisme which he framed for mee.

Now are wee to examine the second.§ 7. The 1. proofe of the as­sumption, viz. that the seuen Churches contained both the Ci­ties and Countries adioining. ‘M.D. (saith he) perceiuing that this assumption wanted strength, sought to fortifie it by two reasons.’ This is my aduersaries vsuall, though odious, fashion, sophistically to argue euery as­sertion of weaknesse, for which I bring proofe: when ra­ther the proofe (if it bee good, as hitherto hee hath not beene able to disprooue any) doth argue the weake­nesse of their iudgement, who denie or doubt of the truth which is prooued, and the strength also of the assertion, which is armed with such proofe.

[Page 56] Ad pag. 55.The former reason he propoundeth thus:

To let passe his vnmannerly gibing, not worth the menti­oning, and to referre you to the manner how this Syllo­gisme is to be framed, before Supr. §. 2. mentioned, let vs see how hee dealeth with this frame which himselfe hath fashio­ned. He denieth, after his vsuall manner, both the propo­sition and the assumption. So hard is my happe, that scarce any one proposition or assumption, which hee fra­meth for me, may be acknowledged to be true: and yet so hard is his happe, that he is not able to prooue any one ei­ther proposition or assumption of mine to be vntrue.

‘The proposition hee would confute by an [...], though it were granted that our Sauiour wrote these epistles to all the Churches of Asia, yet it will not follow, that there­fore all the rest depended vpon these, as children vpon the mother. To which he addeth the [...], in denying the former part of the assumption, viz. that our Sauiour did not write to all the Churches of Asia. His deniall of the consequence he confirmeth by putting a case: If the Em­perour finding some abuses commonly raigning in the whole Country of Asia, should haue written to these principall and mother Cities for the reforming of those abuses, with intent (saith he) that all other Cities and Townes should be warned by his reproofe of them, (which put-case with that intent is worthy to be put into a cap-case) might a man conclude thereupon, that all other Townes and Cities of Asia were sub­iect to the gouernment of these seuen?’ But say I, put the case, that the Emperor so should doe, with that intent, which is, and also hath beene vsuall in such cases, that is, to the in­tent that what hee writeth to them, might by and from them be notified to those Townes and Villages which were within the circuit of their iurisdiction: would it not [Page 57] strongly proue, that all those other townes and villages were subiect to them? Come we to our selues. When the King or his Counsell would haue any thing intimated to all his Subiects in certaine Counties, are not warrants di­rected to the Lieutenants of each County, from them to the high Constables of euery hundred, from them to the Constables of euery towne? and doth not this shew that the officers of the towne are subordinate to those of the hundred, and much more to the gouernours of the Coun­ty? In like manner when the Archbishop would haue any thing imparted to euery parish, hee directeth his letters to the Bishops, they, to the Archdeacons, they, to the of­ficers in euery Dean [...]y, they acquaint (in particular) eue­ry Parish. Euen so by Christ his writing to the 7. Chur­ches, what he would haue imparted to all the particular Churches, it may bee gathered, that the rest of the parti­cular Churches were subiect to them. And it may well be, that when our Sauiour writing to euery one of the Angels seuerally, & concluding each Epistle with this Epiphone­ma, Let him that hath an eare, heare what the Spirite saith to the Churches, would haue it vnderstood what he writeth to the Angell, he writeth to the Churches, which be vnder his charge.

And thus you haue heard, how he hath fared with the Proposition. The Assumption hee distinguisheth into two parts, the former,§ 10. Whether Christ wrote to all the churches in Asia. affirming that Christ wrote to all the chur­ches of Asia: the latter, that some of these seuen Churches were Mother-Cities: both hee denieth as false. ‘The former, because it is vnlikely, as he saith, if not impossible, that our Sauior writing to that third part of the world which was not much lesse then both the other, Africa and Europe, would write but to these 7. which were all together in one little cor­ner of it.’ Here I appeale to my aduersary, if he be a man of learning, whether hee doth not cauill against the light of his conscience, seeing he could not be so ignorant▪ as to thinke, that by Asia mentioned in the Apocalypse, and else where in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, is [Page 58] not meant Asia the great, nor yet that which is called A­sia minor, being the whole Chersonesus, now called Na­tolia, bounded on the north with Pontus Euxinus, on the west with the Hellespont, & mare Aegaeum, on the south, with the Mediterranean sea, including▪ according to Ptolemey, eight countries, whereof Asia (so properly called) is one. And albeit he knoweth (as I am per­swaded) that by Asia in the Apocalypse, is meant onely that, which is so properly called; yet he maketh a great flourish, partly to shew some small skill in Geography; but chiefly (that I may vse his owne terme,) to dazell the eyes of the simple;Ad pag. 56. shewing how vnlikely it is,‘either that the great Kingdomes of Asia maior should bee Parishes vnder the seuen Churches: or that those many famous Churches of Asia Minor, as the Churches of Derbe, Lystria, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, Pergain Pamphylia, of Galatia, which were many, were but dependants vpon these seuen.’ If hee doth not know, that none of these Countries are contained in that Asia whereof the holy Ghost speaketh: let him compare but these few testimo­nies of Scripture. Act. 2.9.10. & 6.9. & 16.6.7. & 1. Pet. 1.1. and he shall find, that Cilicia, Pontus, Ga­latia, Cappadocia, Bythinia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, and Mysia, (meaning Mysia maior, or Olympina) being all parts of Asia minor, are reckoned as diuers countries from that Asia, which is mentioned in the Scriptures. If the refuter would needs haue shewen his skill in Geo­graphy, he should haue done well to haue set down the bounds and limits of this Asia, whereof wee speake. For the Authors that write thereof, whome I haue seene, doe not agree with the Scriptures. The Romanes, when Attalus Strabo Geo­graph. lib. 13. Philomator the King of Pergamus, and the coun­tries adioyning, had bequeathed his Kingdome to them, and they had recouered it from Aristonicus who claimed it as his inheritance, they reduced it into a Prouince, and by the name of the continent called it Asia, hoping it would be an introduction to the rest. E­rasmus [Page 59] Erasmus Annot, in Rom. 16. saieth, it is euident, that when Asia is named absolutely, that part of Asia minor is signified where Ephesus standeth. And Erasm. in Act. 16. on Act. 16. where Paul and his company were forbidden to preach the Word in Asia, the holy Ghost meaneth (saith hee) that Asia, not which by the generall name is called minor, enuironed on each side, but on the East, with the Sea, and which comprehendeth Phrygia, Pam­phylia, Galatia, and some other Countries; but that which is neare to Ephesus; for that properly is called Asia-minor. But hee doth not tell vs how much of the Country, which is not farre from Ephesus, is contai­ned within the circuit of Asia. Those which write of Geography, giue a larger circuit vnto it, then agre­eth with the Scriptures, bounding it northward on Bithynia, westward on Propontis, Hellespont, and the Aegean sea, which in those places is called the I­carian sea: Southward, on the Rhodian sea: East­ward, on Lycia, Pamphylia, and Galatia. And by this meanes, they include within the limites of it. Phrygia, both the greater and the lesse (wherein Troy stood,) and Mysia, both the greater, which is called Olympina, and the lesse, which is called Ptolem. cal­leth Mysia Pergamene, maior. Pergamene. When as Phrygia is in the Scriptures distinguished from Asia, and onely the borders or frontiers of it, where Laodicea (according to their opinion) standeth, are reckoned in it, and likewise Mysia, Olympina, and Phrygia minor, (which is also called Epictetus or Troas) are reckoned apart from A­sia. So that according to the scriptures, Asia seemeth to include, Ionia, Mysia▪ Pergamene, Lydia, or Maeonia, and perhapps Caria; for thereof is no men­tion. In Ionia stoode Ephesus, and from it northward, Smyrna. In Mysia Pergamene Mysiae prin­cipatum Per­gamum ob­tinuit. Aen. Sylu. in Asia minor. C 62. Acolis quon­dam Mysia ap­pellata. Plin. l. 5. c 30. Ptolemy a­mong the Ci­ties of Lydia, and Maeonia reckoneth Thyatira, Sard [...]s and Philadelphia. stood Pergamum north­ward from Smyrna: and southward from it Thy [...]tira, which Strabo calleth Mysorum vltimam. In Lydia (which Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny, l. 5. c. 29. take to bee all one with Maeonia) stood Sardo [...] (which Strabo calleth Ly­dorum [Page 60] caput) southward also from Pergamus. In the confines of Mysia and Lydia stood Philadelphia. The borders of Phrygia, Caria and Lydia are hardly distingui­shed, saith Strabo l. 13. Strabo, because they meet together, and are confounded in the midlands, (as Aeneas Syluius saith,) and this confusion is encreased, saith Strabo, because the Romaines haue diuided these countries, not by the nati­ons, but according to the administrations ( [...]) that is, circuits of iurisdiction, wherein Courts are kept, and iudgements exercised according to law. Now in these con­fines standeth Laodicea, which according to Ptolemey Ptol. l. 5. c. 2. is a City of Caria, and by the testimony of the holy Ghost in the Apocalypse is a part of Asia, though by the most Geographers it is saide to stand in the borders of Phrygia. Eunapius In Maximo. speaking of Clearchus made proconsull of Asia, by Valens the Emperor, describeth the circuit [...], of that which now properly is called Asia, that it beginning at Pergamum, and comprehending the sea coasts, endeth in the continent at Caria, the mount Tmolus circumscribing the borders thereof on Lydia. So that according to this description the circuit of Asia is lesse then that which is limited in the Scriptures, Lydia, and Caria being excluded. And accordingly in the sub­scriptions Subscript. Con. Nicen., to the Councell of Nice, not onely Phrygia, but Lydia also and Caria are reckoned apart from Asia, that we should not maruaile, that a lesse circuit is assigned vnto it in the Scriptures, then the Geographers doe de­scribe, seeing within a lesse compasse then that which the Scriptures assigned thereunto, it is circumscribed by others.

Seeing therefore Asia is gathered into so small a com­passe, let vs see what the refuter can obiect, why our Sa­uiour writing to these seuen Churches, should not vn­der them comprise all the Churches in Asia. Because euen there or near, saith he, ‘we find diuers other churches: as those of Colossa, Hierapolis, & Troas mentioned in the Scripture; to let passe Magnesia, and Trallis recorded in other writers.’ [Page 61] But none of the three former are mentioned in the scripture as parts of Asia: Troas beeing the same with phrygia minor, and Hierapolis, and Colossae, Cities of Phrygia maior. It is recorded by Eusebius In Chroni­co., that in the yeare of Christ 66. and tenth of Nero Tacitus saith in the 6. of Nero, and so as it is thought with­in two yeares after the Epi­stle to the Co­lossians was writen. Tacit. l. 14 codem an­no Scil. 6. Neronis exil­lustribus Asiae vrbibus Laodi­cea tremore terrae prostra­ta, nullo a no­bis remedio proprijs opibus reualuit. these three cities Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae, were ouerthrowne with earthquakes. And al­though we read that Laodicea was quickly reedified, and flourished againe, when Saint Iohn wrote the Reuelation, and Hierapolis not long after, seeing we read that Papias Saint Iohns Scholler was by him made Bishop there▪ yet of Colossae, as Cal. in ar­gum. epis. ad Coloss. Caluin obserueth, that shortly after the Epistle was written to them, that Church with the rest perished; so that it stood in Saint Iohns time, I read not, neither doe I remember any mention of it, or of the Bishops thereof, in, or neere those times. Howbeit in processe of time it was reedified, and called Conae, or Chonae, whereof Nicetus the writer of the annales, because he was of that citie is cal­led Coniates. Oecumenius In Coloss. 1. saith that Colossae was a citie of Phrygia [...], which is now called Chona, and by that name [...], is reckoned among the Bishopricks as they are digested by Le [...] Iur. graeco­r [...]m. pag. [...]8. num. 54. the Emperour. That Colossae was no parte of Asia Theodoret sheweth: For beeing of opi­nion that Paul had beene at Colossae, he prooueth Prefat. in Epist. ad Co­loss. it because it is said that he went through Phrygia. Neither saith he let any man object that Paul was forbidden Act. 18. of God. For Luke speaketh of Asia and Bithynia, not of Phrygia.