A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath

The first book treateth chiefly of Lay-elders.

• CHap. 1. Answering the Refuters Preamble, concerning the Author and matter of the Sermon and the Text.
• Chap. 2. Deuiding the Sermon, and defending the first part thereof which he calleth the Preface.
• Chap. 3. Defending the two first sections concerning Elders, and proving that there were no Presbyters in the primitive Church but Ministers.
• Chap. 4. Contayning the first reason why Lay-elders are not proved out of the 1 Tim. 5.17.
• Chap. 5. Maintayning the second reason.
• Chap. 6. Mayntaining the third reason.
• Chap. 7. That Ambrose on 1 Tim. 5.1. doth not give testimony to Lay-elders, and that their exposition of Ambrose is untrue.
• Chap. 8. The proof of their exposition of Ambrose disproved, and the reasons why the counsel of the Seniors was neglected, defended.
• Chap. 9. Answering the testimonies which the Refuter allegeth to prove Lay-elders.
• Chap. 10. Contayning an answer to the same testimonies and some others as they are alleged by other Disciplinarians.
• Chap. 11. Answering the allegations out of the Fathers for Lay-elders.

The second Book proveth that the Churches which had Bishops were Dioceses, and the Angels or Pastors of them Diocesan Bishops.

• CHap. 1. Intreating of the diverse acceptations of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Church, Diocese and Paraecia, which is translated parish.
• Chap. 2. Prouing by ether arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops were not Parishes but Dioceses.
• Chap. 3. that the seven Churches in Asia were Dioceses.
• Chap. 4. That Presbyteries were appointed not to Parishes but to Dioceses.
• Chap. 5. Answering their objections who say that in the first 200. years all the Christians in each great city were but one particular congregation, assembling in one place.
• Chap. 6. The Arguments for the new found Parish discipline answered
• Chap. 7. That the Angels or Bishops of the primitive Churches were Diocesan Bishops.

The third Book treateth of the superiority of Bishops above other Ministers.

• CHap. 1. Confuteth the Refuters preamble to the fourth point concerning the superiority of Bishops, and defendeth mine entrance thereinto.
• Chap. 2. Declareth in general that Bishops were superior to other Ministers in degree.
• Chap. 3. Showeth more particularly wherein the superiority of Bishops did and doth consist. And first their singularity of preeminence for term of life.
• Chap. 4. Demonstrateth the superiority of Bishops in power, and first in the power of ordination.
• Chap. 5. Proueth the superiority of Bishops in the power of jurisdiction.
• Chap. 6. Treateth of the titles of honor given to Bishops.

The fourth Book proveth the Episcopal function to be of Apostolical and divine institution.

• CHap. 1. That the Ecclesiastical government by Bishops was generally received in the first 300. years after the Apostles.
• Chap. 2. That the Episcopal government was used in the Apostolical Churches, in the Apostles times without their dislike.
• Chap. 3. That the Apostles themselves ordained Bishops.
• Chap. 4. The places where and the persons whom the Apostles ordained Bishops, but chiefly that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete.
• Chap. 5. Answereth to the allegations out of Jerome.
• Chap. 6. Directly proveth the Episcopal function to be of divine institution.
• Chap. 7. Defendeth the conclusion of the Sermon, and showeth that the chief Protestants did not dissallowe the Episcopal government.

CHAP. I. Answering the Refuters Preamble.

T HE refuter, before he would encounter the Sermon it self, thought good to spend some of his spleen upon the Author of the Sermon, the matter, and the text: proudly insulting over the Author; scornfully gibing at the matter, and captiously carping at the choice of the text. His insultation is joined with scorn, and with slander, therein behaving himself like another insulting Goliath, gibing Tobiah, slandering Sanballat. He insulteth I say, Goliath -like, despising the Author of the Sermon (coming against him in simple manner, like David, with five smooth stones taken out of the fountain of God's word, & streams of antiquity) as not able to stand in his hands, being as he saith, little worth, yea miserable poor indeed. He scoffeth Tobiah -like at my building as ruinous and tottering, so ready to tipe and fall, as if belike but one of the foxes that trouble the vine do come upon it, the goodly mansion built for our reverend Bishops, as a tower of defense for their Lordships to rest in, (which proud and disdainful sco • fe he repeateth again pag. 8.) will fall to the ground.

For answer whereof, I desire the Reader to compare the latter end of his preface, with this beginning of his confutation. For there, bearing the Reader in hand, that he hath sufficiently confuted my Sermon; he useth my praise as a step to raise himself, and to advantage his cause, giving me greater commendation, then either I do desire, or deserve: but here, beginning his confutation, he would persuade the Reader he shall easily perform it; his adversary being little worth, yea miserable poor • indeed, his building ruinous and tottering ready to tipe and fall. Which imputations, if they be not true, prove him to be a liar; if true, a worthless and witless fellow; worthless, who passing by all the worthies of our side, and their most accurate and learned treatises, as himself termeth them; maketh choice, either of such an adversary to contend with, as is little worth, yea miserable poor indeed, or of such a building to assail, as is ruinous and tottering, ready of it self to tipe and fall. Witlesse, in making choice of such an adversary, in vanquishing of whom, being so weak and miserable poor, as he can gain no credit to himself or his cause; so can he bring no great disadvantage to the adverse party. The fault being in all reason to be ascribed to the weakness of the Champion, not to the badness of the cause. But if so weak and worthless a defendant, did in a Sermon provided in 9. or 10. days at the most, so foret • fie the cause of the Bishops, that the greatest worthies of the adversary party assailing it withal their force, have not been able in twice so many months to make the least breach therein, then must it be confessed, that howsoever his adversary may be inferior to him in other things, yet he is superior in the cause.

But soft • let not him that putteth on his armor boast as he that puts it off. When I consider the weakness of your strength, and badness of your cause, I wonder at your confidence. You might do well to follow the counsel of • rch • damus to his fool-hardy son, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , either add to your strength, or abate from your confidence.

And whereas Sanballat -like he saith, I make

I answer with Nehemiah, it is not done according to these words, there is no such matter in my Sermon, but it is a fiction of your own heart. Such vanting suiteth better with my adversary, who, as in the forefront of his book, most arrogantly applieth the words of wisdom and truth to these his own writings, which for the most part are either false or frivolous; so now in the very entrance he playeth Pyrgopolinices himself, taking on, as if with a little paper-shot he could overthrow all my building, and blow poor me away as it were with a breath.

Sect. 2. The matter also he scoffeth at, applying unto it the speech of one of the sons of the Prophets (whō he calleth a poor laborer, to make him, as it seemeth the liker to me) saying of his axe when the head fell into the water, Alas Master, it is but borrowed. Neither doubteth he with what forehead I know not (for he goeth under a vizard) to affirm, that my whole building from the foundation to the roof, is but old stuff

Which base calumniation framed (as it may seem) according to his own practice, he doth odiously repeat ad nauseam us{que}, even so often harping on this string, as I have occasion to handle, (though never so differently,) the same points with that most learned and reverend divine. To which objection I answer, that if it were true, it would prove the refuter to be but a childish, and yet an odious wrangler. Childish, for it is the fashion of wrangling boys in their Sophemes and disputations, when they cannot tell how to answer an argument, to tell the opponent, he had it in such a book. And it is the part of an odious wrangler to seek the disgrace of my person, by that which doth no whit advantage his cause. For what advantage is this to his cause, to object, that my proofs are the same with D. Bilsons ; seeing his proofs be such, as never were, and never will be answered. But if the objection be false, as every man that compareth the treatises may easily discern; then, besides the testimony of odious wrangling, he shall gain to himself the commendation of a slanderous libeller. For, besides my consent in judgment with that most reverend learned man, which I most willingly and gladly professse, there is not anything almost besides concurrence in diverse allegations, which should breed any just occasion of this surmile. And as for them, I do profess, that the most of them are of mine own reading, and those, which before I had either not read, or not observed, I did not content myself to allege them as it were at the second hand; but to examine the allegations, and to cite them out of the Authors themselves. So that, although the liquor many times is the same, yet I drew it at the fountain, and not at the stream; remembering who saith, Tardi est ingenij riuulos consectari, fontes non videre. Which course, better Scholars then my adversary, would allow, especially to one that had no more time then I had, both to provide what to speak, and to speak what I had provided.

And forasmuch as in many places of his book, he maketh references to D. Bilsons book, to show, that what I deliver, was taken thence: I entreat the Reader once for all to compare the places. For thereby he shall see this caviller to have played the Ratte, both in discovering his own falsehood, and in betraying his cause. For as touching the former; I do unfeignedly profess, that I am not conscious to myself, either in that Sermon, or any other writing that I have published, to have taken any one line, from any, without citing the Author. His cause also shall be notably disadvātaged, because those things which I did perhaps briefly, and as it were, in hast set down; the Reader shall sometimes in the book (whereunto he is referred) read the same points fully & accurately handled, to his great satisfaction, and good contentment.

And whereas he objecteth, that my house is built of old stuff, &c. Let him know, that in these kinds of buildings, the oldnes of the stuff is a great commendation. For that, which is the oldest, is the truest. And that which hath been of greatest antiquity, 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 have lately set up specke and span new, building Churchframes as it were of wood covered over with straw, which will not abide the fire, I verily think they will not continue until they be old.

His third quarrel is against the choice of the text, as it were the plot of ground whereon to set my building. The which because it is allegorical, is compared to a marish ground, where though I dignity deep, and do what I can, I shall hardly find fast ground whereon to lay my foundation. The which quarrel doth please him so well, that he repeateth it again, pag. 3. But without cause. For seeing the exposition of the allegory is not doubtful, but is confessed on both sides, that as by the 7. stars, 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 lawful & good, is built on the foundation of the Apostle John, as it were upon a Rock. For although some object, that by the Angels are meant, either all Ministers in general, as the new sect of disciplinarians doth, or the presidents of the Presbyteries, as the Elder and more learned disciplinarians do, who do not stand for the new-found parish-discipline; yet I do prove both by the text it self, and by other evidence, that the calling of Diocesan BB. is in this text commended unto us under this title of the Angels of the Churches. But hereof more in my answer to the third pag.

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

H Auing thus quarrelled with the Author, the matter and subject of he Sermon, he setteth upon the Sermon it self. Which in the abortive book, was dismembered into six parts, and yet one main part left out. In this after-birth, into 3; viz, the Preface, the body of the Sermon, and the conclusion. The Preface, he saith,

and that again he mangleth into 4. sections.

But if my adversaries were as good in dividing, as they are in making division; or so skillful in analysing logically, as they are captious in comptrolling that which hath been logically composed; they would, either have followed the ordinary division of orations, saying, that the Sermon consisted of 4 parts, which are, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the proaeme, (to pag. 2. lin. 3.) 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the proposition or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the confirmation proving and defending those five points, (from pag. 8. to 94.) 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the conclusion containing the application, (pag. 94. to the end:) Or, if this division had not liked them, they might out of the transition pag. 94. have observed 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 governors of the primitive 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 lawful and good. Of these two assertions, the former, is an explication of the text; the latter, a doctrine collected 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 proved, in that which he calleth the body of my book. The former, as I said, may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the proposition; the latter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the confirmation. Now for the trial of the first, viz. wheth • er by the Angels of the Churches we are to understand 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 only, ( as our new disciplinarians say,) or dioceses, as we and the elder disciplinarians hold: and consequently, whether themselves were parishional, or diocesan BB. 2. what manner of preeminence they had in their Churches, in respect whereof they be called the Angels of the Churches, whether only a priority in order above other Ministers, and that but for a short time and by course; or a superiority in degree, and maioritie of rule for term of life. And this is the sum of that which he calleth the Preface. Now I come to his sections, and his quarrels against the same.

In these words two questions (which be determined in the 2. assertions, even 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 alleged, as he saith, 2. reasons. The first, because when the holy Ghost expoundeth the stars by Angels, this interpretation it self is allegorical, and therefore needeth some exposition.

The second reason is propounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 preventing a secret objection against the former reason, which might be this: though the interpretation be allegorical, yet the exposition of the allegory is agreed upon, to wit, that by the Angels are meant the Bishops of those Churches, and therefore further explication needeth not: to this I answer in a discretiue sentence, granting the antecedent, but denying the consequence, that, although it be agreed upon, that the Angels are the Bishops of the Churches ; yet, in these times it is become a great controversy, and needful to be decided, what manner of Bishops they were, which in former ages was not wont to be called into question.

Against the former reason, the resuter first objecteth 2. things: the one, that it maketh against myself; the other, that it is: 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 he telleth me how I might have bestowed 〈…〉 maketh against me, he proveth thus 〈…〉 faith he is allegorical, th • refore it was 〈…〉 &c. Whereunto I have answered, that the meaning of the allegory is on both sides agreed upon, and that our adversaries themselves confess, that the Angels were the Bishops of the Churches: and therefore, by their own confession, the text was as fitly chosen, as if it had been said, the 7. stars 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 speak of. Then the unfitness of the text (be like) is not because it is allegorical, but because in his conceit it is impertinent. Which his conceit proveth the exposition of this text to be needful, as I shown in the second reason.

Yea, but hereby, saith he,

It followeth not. Of the same thing there are many times given two expositions, a shorter called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a larger called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of both there was need in this place. The necessity of the former ariseth from the allegory, which I briefly expound according to the received interpretation, viz. that the Angels signify the Bishops of the Churches. The necessity of the latter, ariseth from the controversy, which some have raised in these times, &c.

After he hath shown that my first reason might well have been spared, he telleth me, that I

And what is that I pray you? For it is great pity, I had not your help. And from hence reasoneth thus.

The assumption he proveth, because if the holy Ghost had intended to signify no more but 7. Angels, he would have said, the 7. stars are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches. And having so doughtily proved that the number of the Angels is not limited, from thence (as if he had made all Cock-sure) he inferreth 2. things: 1. that the holy Ghost, in not limiting the number, would have us to understand, there were more Angels or Bishops then 7. in these Churches: 2. that where every Epistle is directed to the Angel of each Church as to one, we are not literally to understand one, but by a synecdoche more then one. Which light as he calleth it, standing at the entry door, if I had had his eyes to have discerned, I should no doubt have seen an high point in a low house.

But were not I pray you the Angels or BB. to whom S. John writeth, just seven? help me, I beseech you, to remove this veil, which hideth the light, you speak of from me.

Again, of 7. monades or vanities, such as be 7. singular persons; the number is just 7.

That the Angels were 7. singular persons, it appeareth by the inscriptions of the 7. Epistles written unto them, viz: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the Angel of the Church at Ephesus: to the Angel of the Church at Smyrna, &c : where, whosoever is able to count 20. may easily find just 7. I will recite them, and let the refuter keep the tale. The Angel of the Church at Ephesus ; 1. the Angel of the Church of Smyr • a ; 2: the Angel of the Church at Pergamos ; 3: the Angel of the Church at Thyatira ; 4. the Angel of the Church at Sardes ; 5: the Angel of the Church at Phyladelphia ; 6. the Angel of the church of Laodicea ; 7: seven Angels, neither more nor less.

Moreover, to whom the 7. Epistles were written, they were just 7: for they were written singulae singulis ; the first to the first, the second to the second, &c.

The same is testified by Arethas, unto these 7. Churches, blessed John (saith he) reckoneth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : ouerse • ing or superintendent Angels, just of the same number: and by Ambrose, we must understand the 7. Angels, to be the governors of the 7. Churches ; and afterwards he calleth them the 7. rulers of the 7. Churc •• s.

Whereto I answer, that he hath more plainly limited the number, then if he had said so. For if he had said, they are the 7. Angels of the 7. Churches, such a captious Sophister as my adversary, would have expounded septem, 7. by septeni, seven a piece, and so have multiplied them by 7. as if there had been according to the number of the supposed Deacons at Jerusalem, 7. in every Church. But when he saith, the 7. stars are the Angels of the 7. Churches: he plainly signifieth, that there were just so many of them, as of the Churches: that is to say seven.

Seeing therefore the number of the Angels is limited to seven, it is not material what the refuter inferreth from the not limitation of them.

And whereas he saith, that by the Angel in each inscription we are to understand more then one: I would know of him, first, what reason he hath to forsake the gramatical 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? Secondly, whether in one particular congregation there were more Pastors then one? Thirdly, whether himself did not teach, pag. 2. that the Angels signify such BB. or Ministers, as were Pastors only of particular congregations: 4. whether in Ephesus there were more particular congregations, seeing in Ephesus as himself saith, pag: 3. there were more angels. For one that had his faculty in syllogizing, might appose him with these Syllogisms.

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

Sect. 4. Having thus manifestly proved, that the Angels of the seven Churches were just seven; and consequently, that there was one, and but one, in every Church, whom the holy Ghost calleth the Angel of that Church: it will be easy, both to free my Text from the cavil, which more then once my adversary objecteth against it; as also, out of the text, to clear the main controversy, which is in hand. For, whereas he objecteth that all Ministers are Angels, Pag. 2. & 4 and 6.

I answer, that all Minsters, who have charge of souls, are in a general sense called Angels, Pastors, Bishops, because they are messengers sent from God, to feed & to oversee his flock. But yet, where there are many ministers, who are in general called Angels, Pastors, Bishops; if there be one, and but one, who 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is called the Angel, the Pastor, the Bishop of that Church, he is plainly noted to have a singular preeminence above the rest. Wherof see more in my answer to pag: 6. And this is so plain a case, that even Beza himself (though a chief patron of the pretended discipline, and one that showeth himself as loath as may be, that the Episcopal degree should be hence proved; confesseth, that by the Angel of the Church at Ephesus (& so of the rest) we are to understand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , him that was the Prelate, or President of the Presbyterie; for so else-where he confesseth, that Justin Martyr calleth him, whom others call the Bishop, And although he would have us think, that this office of Presidentship was not perpetual, but for a short time, and that by course: yet he would have us also note out of 1. Tim: 5.19. where Timothy is willed, not to receive an accusation against a Presbyter, but under 2. or 3. witnesses; that Timothy was at that time the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Justin calleth him, that is Antistes, the Prelate or President in the Presbytery at Ephesus. Now it is absurd to imagine, that Timothy was sent thither, to be President among them as his course only or turn should come, as though the other Presbyters there were equal to him.

Moreover, we are able to show by the testimony of the most ancient Authors in the Church, who were these singular persons, whom the holy Ghost doth call the Angel of the Church at Ephesus, and likewise at Smyrna. For as before this time, Timothy had been the Angel, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Beza, confesseth, so at this time, Onesimus was the Pastor of Ephesus, as Ignatius testifieth, & Polycarpus the Bishop of Smyrna: If therefore Onesimus was but one man, and likewise Polycarpus: then we may be bold to conclude, that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, was but one singular person, and likewise the Angel of Smyrna ; and so of the rest. So much of the first reason.

The second indeed (saith he) necessarily occasioneth us to inquire what manner of BB. these Angels were, because, as I said, some of our times have made a question of that, which in former ages was not wont to be called into controversy; so saith he, because B. Bilson and B. Barlow have fancied to themselves another sort of Bishops, then either the scriptures of the New Testament do mention, or any sound Divines do teach thereout.

This then is the controversy which remaineth to be decided, whether sort of BB. such, as those learned Fathers, and myself, do defend, or such as my adversary and his adherents do stand for, is that kind of Bishop, which hath been but of late devised, and never till of late obtruded on the Church. And on which side the judicious Reader shall see better evidence, & more pregnāt proofs, I adjure him, in the name of God without partiality, to assent thereto.

The second question is, concerning the quality of the function, which is determined in the second Assertion, viz: that the calling of B.B. (who are here meant by the stars and Angels) is lawful and good. And this is a doctrine so necessarily arising out of the Text, that if it be proved that Bishops are here meant by stars and Angels (which was the thing I undertook before to prove, & now doubt not by God's help to make evident) it cannot be denied but that their calling is both aproued as good, and commended as excellent. Neither would the refuter have wrangled with this passage, having 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 resolved before hand to cavil with whatsoever he should find in my book. Especially if you consider, that elsewhere he would make me believe the proof of this doctrine to be superfluous, the former point being once proved.

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

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

That these 2. things are offered to our consideration (saith the refuter) we deny not: but if he had walked with a right foot in the path he entered into, he should by his Text have taught us the meaning of these 2. points, and not quite contrary, as he goes about, by these two points to teach us the meaning of his Text.

To whom I will not give that answer which Festus did to Paul, that too much learning hath made him mad: for he seemeth not to be greatly sick of that disease: but I may truly say that too much anger and wrath (which is furor breuis ) which he unmeasurably showeth in this Section, hath made him so to forget himself, that he wrangleth without wit and against sense. Unless any man that is in his wits will say, that it is not lawful for a Preacher to explain his Text. For what was it that in this Section I had in hand? was it not to endeavor the explication of my Text, and to show what manner of BB: are here meant by the Angels of the Churches? for the explicatiō whereof, 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 preeminence they had in those Churches, in regard whereof they are termed the Angels of the Churches; that from my Text rightly expounded of Diocesan BB. I might deduce the doctrine of the lawfulness of their calling, and from it infer the use.

Indeed if I had been now propounding the doctrine gathered out of the Text, or urging the use thereupon inferred, there had been reason I should prove them, as afterwards I do, 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 be so senseless, as either to require that the points should be explained by the Text, or to find fault, that by the handling of them the Text is explained.

But now he is pleased of his grace to consider them. And whereas I yield as a reason of my propounding the former point to be discussed, diverse new-fangled Assertions of the new-found parish discipline, whereof I spake but too mildly, as you may see: he chargeth me with bitter inueighing, scornful, upbraiding, overflowing of the gall, with spitting out unsavory reproaches, making a calumnious out-cry in the ende of the Section: and much ado he had, not to apply to me that saying of Solomon, (with whom it better fitteth, let the Reader judge) Proud, haughty, and scornful is his name that worketh in his arrogancy wrath, and in the ende out of the super-abundance of his charity, he is afraid for me, that I care not to loose much of my peace within: that all I here speak is Night work, proceeding from great distemper of the brain, &c.

Was my adversaries back or conscience rather galled, was he guilty to himself, of being one of the coyners of those new opinions, that he thus flingeth and kicketh, when they are so gently touched? Who, knowing that those Assertions were some of those 16. positions, for the trial whereof, the unchristian and vnmodest offer of disputation was made, which are there magnified, as being such chief points in controversy between us and the Papists, that if in them the BB. (joining as they pretend, with the Papists) have 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 Jesuits can satisfy them in these points, they would be reconciled to the Church of Rome:

Who, I say, knowing this, could with more mildness have spoken of such Schismaticall novelties? For where he saith, that almost all of them have been always generally maintained and practiced, by all soundly reformed Churches, he seemeth, either not to care what he speaketh, or by soundly reformed Churches, to mean none but Brownists, or such like. Between whom and these unchristian and immodest challengers, there went as we say but a pair of sheeres; These, remaining after a sort in the piece; the other, being by open Schism cut off: Which again they have manifested in their late petition to the Kings Majesty: This being the sum of their suite, that they may be tolerated Schismatics.

But to let pass their new-coined positions, (excepting those that concern this cause,) with the Libellers bitter wranglings, and vain janglings, There are two things in answer to this Section, which I may not let pass: the one, is his defense of the challengers; the other, a great advantage taken against a word, which as he saith, I dropt by the way.

His defense is, against that calumnious outcry, as he calleth it, in the ende of the Section, where I briefly note, that by what reason they deny the Bishops to be members of the true Church, because forsooth they be not of some certain parish, by the same, they may as well deny the King, who having a more general reference to all the Churches within his dominions, as being the Governor of them all, in Great Britain and Irel • nd ; is further from being a member of one only parish, then any Bishop in this Kingdom.

He answereth, that the challengers

But tell me, do they hold it to be a true Church? that so the King may be thought to be a member of a true Church. Or if they do; Why may they not with the like reason acknowledge a Bishop and his family, to be an entire family by themselves? But it is no matter what they hold, unless they were more learned and judicious.

The advantage which is taken at my words had need to be very great, or else the refuter and his copartners do show themselves to be very weak men: seeing it is five times repeated in print; once in their late petition, with great amplifications; once in the Abortive book, with this note in the margent, sic tu beas amicos? Thrice in this Book, with great triumphs and insultations: not only in the treatise it self, but also everywhere in the margent, demanding with scorn, in this place, Is this your kindness to your friends? in the second, sic tu beas amicos? in the third, quid facias odio, sic vbi amore noces ?

The Reader must needs expect some great matter, seeing these hills thus to swell, The words whereat they take advantage were these.

Least they might seem to set up an absolute Popeling in every parish, who should have not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, they adjoin to him ( that is, to their Parish Bishop ) a Consitory of Lay or only governing Elders.

Out of which words they frame this proposition;

Mine own reason? in which there is nothing mine, but the proposition, which also is stretched beyond, not only my meaning, but even my words? this proposition (I deny not) may be framed out of my words: they who give to a Bishop, not only supreme, but also sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, do seem to set up an absolute Popeling.

From which words, if they had been retained, this might have been concluded, if I did give to our Bishops, both supreme and sole authority in causes Ecclesiastical, as I do not, that then I might seem to set up absolute Popelings. But it were well with my adversaries, if to seem, and to be, were all one. And yet, I do not so much as seem, to any 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 only impleyed and intended, but is one of the chief and principal points I undertake to prove throughout my Sermon. But their saying is false and frivolous. How do they prove it?

Here I entreat the Reader, to keep in store for future use, the state of the question, as it is here propounded by the refuter. In the mean time, let us after his own manner examine his argument.

(for I will for your credits sake leave out that Brownisticall and Anabaptistical dotage concerning the chief authority of the people)

Sect. 10. To let you see, how the refuter climbeth a ladder of untruths, to seat our Bishops in the Papacy, I will begin with his assumption, wherein are two untruths. First, that I take all authority from the Pastors, Elders, and people. The Elders, indeed, I reject as a new devise: in the parishioners, I acknowledge some authority in choosing, or consenting to the choice, of some Church-officers; but authority to govern, much less to ordain, depose, and deprive their Pastor, I know not any. They are the sheep, which must hear their pastors voice, and be obedient to their spiritual guides: They are the flock which must be ruled and taught, not followed and obeyed.

As touching the pastors of parishes, I leave to them that pastoral power, which ever was granted to them since the first distinguishing of parishes, and allotting of several 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 spiritual and inward jurisdiction, to rule their flock after a private manner, as it were in foro conscientiae, in the court of conscience, as they are pastors of that flock.

By which power they rule and guide their flock, not only in their public Ministry, but also in their private attendance, or if ye will so call it, superintendence, as occasion shall be offered. For as touching their public ministry; they are the leaders and guides of the people in God's service; they preach the word, therein teaching, confuting, instructing, reproving, correcting their hearers; they administer the sacraments, as the stewards of God's house; by the one, admitting into God's family, those which belong to his covenant; by the other, nourishing the household of Christ, in due season: and both by the word and sacraments, exercising so much of the power of the keys, as of right belongeth to them, as well binding the notoriously scandalous and impenitent, by denouncing the threatenings of God against them in the word, and by repelling them for the time from the sacrament; as also loosing the penitent believers, by applying to them the gracious promises of the Gospel, and adding thereto the sacraments as seals.

So that all power is not taken from the pastors: neither is all given to the Bishop alone. For in the government of the Church, others are joined with him: some under him, some above him. Under him, in the mother Church or Cathedral, the Dean and Chapter, which in the ancient Church as hereafter we shall show, were called Archpresbyters, and presbyteri ciuitatis: in the other Churches of the Diocese divided into several precincts, the Archdeacons and rural Deans, governing them as the Chorepiscopi were wont in the primitive Church. Not to speak of the Chancellers and Officials, the former being adjoined to the Bishops, the latter to the Archdeacons, by reason of their skill in the Ecclesiastical laws. Above him, not only the Archbishop and his courts, but also the provincial Synods, assembling chiefly for ordaining Ecclesiastical Canons and constitutions, by which the Bishops are to rule, and to be ruled. In making whereof, though the Ecclesiastical authority especially appeareth, yet neither all the Bishops alone, and much less any one Bishop, concludeth anything, but with the consent of the Presbytery. And therefore this may to the former authority of Ministers be added, that in making Ecclesiastical laws, they have a voice, either by themselves, if they be sent to the Synod, or by such as themselves shall choose.

Sect. 11. In the proposition likewise are two untruths. For first, it is not generally true as it is necessarily intended in the proposition (for otherwise the Syllogism is a mere Paralogisme) that whosoever doth give to the Bishop alone, the power which is taken from the several pastors with their Elders and parishes, doth straightwaies give the sole authority Ecclesiastical to the Bishop.

Indeed, if we were so mad, as to think that there were no Ecclesiastical government but parishional, there were something in his speech. But when besides and above the government not only parishional but also Diocesan, we acknowledge a superior authority in the Archbishop and his courts, in the provincial synodes, especially that authority of making Church-laws, whereby both Dioceses and parishes are to be ruled: it is apparent, that although I did take all authority from parish-bishops and their Elders, yet it would not follow that I give the whole authority Ecclesiastical to the Diocesan alone.

But that which he saith of my ascribing the

in causes Ecclesiastical to the Diocesan Bishops, that is the supreme and the loudest lie, and maketh the assumption of his chief Syllogism most evidently false. Do I, or any of us say, that the Diocesan Bishop hath the supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical? doth not our Church subject the Bishop to the Archbishop, and provincial Synods? doth not appeal lie from the sentence of the Bishop to the Archbishop, and likewise from him to the Kings Delegates? doth not himself acknowledge pag. 69. the Bishops so to be subjected to the two Archbishops, as that if we may judge by the outward appearance and practice, we may in his opinion seem to have but two Churches, and those provincial, the one of Canterbury, and the other of York? do we not all, with one consent, acknowledge, the Kings Majesty to have the supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical? and whereas the greatest authority of Churchmen is exercised in Synods, and the greatest authority of Synods is the making of Church-laws; yet the ratification of them we submit to the King (according to the Practice of the ancient Churches living under Orthodoxall Kings) in so much that they, and all our Church-laws, are called the Kings Ecclesiastical law.

Now then, if neither I take all authority from the pastors, nor give all to the Bishops, nor ascribe unto them • sole, nor supreme authority; what have the libellers gained by all their triumphing outcries, but the manifestation of their own manifold untruths? 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 join unto them a consistory of Elders, they would seem to set up, not only a Popeling, but an absolute Popeling in every parish▪ a petite pope indeed their pastor is in regard of that supremacy they ascribe unto him, (making him the supreme Ecclesiastical officer in every Church) which we deny to our Bishops, and were it not, that he hath a consistory joined to him, as the Pope hath of Cardinals, he would be more then a pope.

And again, whereas our Bishops are to be guided by laws, which by their superiors are imposed upon them; their pastors with their Elders and people having (as the Pope saith he hath) a supreme, immediate and independent authority sufficient for the government of their Churches in all causes Ecclesiastical, and therefore for making of Ecclesiastical laws, they are to be governed by their own laws. For the chief thing in Ecclesiastical government, is the authority to prescribe laws Ecclesiastical. If therefore each parish hath (as they say it hath) sufficient authority within it self, for the government of it self in all causes Ecclesiastical, immediately derived from Christ; then questionless they have authority to prescribe laws Ecclesiastical.

And as the Pope doth not acknowledge the superiority of a synod to impose laws upon him, no more do they. They will give synodes leave to deliberate of that which may be best, and to persuade thereto, but they will not be ruled by them. As for the Kings supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, how it may stand with their main assertion, wherein they ascribe to every parish an independent authority immediately derived from Christ, sufficient for the government of it self in all causes Ecclesiastical, I will not dispute.

Of the two points serving to show, 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 allege a controversy betwixt us 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 do greatly differ from us concerning the preeminence 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 preeminence of BB. in respect whereof they were called the Angels of the Churches, secondly, a reason thereof. To the proposition he answereth,

In which few words are 2. untruths. Whereof the former is an error, that they are to termed in respect of their general calling of the ministry. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , called the Angel of that Church, is not a common title belonging to all Ministers in regard of their general calling, but a peculiar style belonging to one, who had singular preeminence above the rest, that is to say, a Bishop. So saith D. Reynolds: in the Church of Ephesus, though it had sundry Elders and pastors to guide it; yet among those sundry was there one chief, whō our Savior calleth the Angel of the Church, and writeth, that to him which by him the rest should know. And this is he whom afterward in the primitive Church the fathers called Bishop.

As touching the latter: where he saith that I do here imply that the Bishops have a soueraignety or supremacy over other Ministers, and afterwards do affirm it plainly, that plainly is a plain lie. Soueraignetie and supremacy over other Ministers none but Papists give to their Bishop, and they to none but to the Bishop of Rome. Superioritie indeed belongeth to Bishops over other Ministers, and so much is intended in this place.

To the reason, if it had been obscure, he should have answered, as Aristotle teacheth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I understand not. For better were it to plead ignorance, then to wrangle with that he doth not, or will not understand. For I do plainly note in the Sermon two sorts of disciplinarians, who are opposite unto us in this controversy; the one, a new sect of disciplinarians lately risen amongst us, (who have coined the new-found parish discipline, which cometh nearer the practice of the Brownists, then of any well ordered Church) of whom I spake in the former point: the other, a sort of grave and learned divines, such as Calvin and Beza, &c. who stand for that discipline, which is practiced in Geneva, and some other reformed Churches; showing that as they do not consent with our new disciplinarians in the former point, so they dissent from us in the latter, touching the superiority of Bishops.

The refuter understandeth all as a grant made by them, whereof some part he acknowledgeth to be true, the rest he rejecteth as false. And though in neither he do understand what was intended, yet he is as bold as blind Bayard to blunder out this blustering speech, that

Neither doubteth he, though merely ignorant of that which he avoucheth, to charge me with four untruths ; denying 1. that

2 That they teach the only governing Elders, to be lay or annual.

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

4 That their presidentshippe was only for a week or a month, and that by course as being common to them in their turns.

For the manifestation of the truth in all these points, I shall not need to seek further then to the writings of Calvin and Beza.

Sect. 14. As touching the first, Calvin teacheth, that in the primitive Church (when in the government thereof there was nothing almost dissonant from God's word) each city had a college of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Doctors; and that to every city was assigned a certain region, which should receive their Presbyters ( meaning the pastors of several parisnes) from thence, and should be accoumpied as part of that Church. Every College was subject to someone Bishop. But if the country, which was under his Bishopric, was larger, then that he could in all places discharge all the functions of a Bishop; in certain places throughout the country were appointed certain Presbyters, who in business of less importance should be in his steed. These were called Chorepiscopi, because in the province they represented the Bishop. Likewise Beza teacheth, that the first distribution of the Church into Dioceses, was framed according to the division of the provinces under the Roman Empier, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it were precincts of government, which Pliny calleth conuentus & iurisdictiones, in the chief cities whereof the presidents kept their courts of judgment, of which sort Pliny reckoneth 9. in Asia the less, five whereof are mentioned in the Apocalypse (viz. Laodicea, Sardes, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos. Neither are we, saith he, to imagine that this order at the first proceeded rather from a council or decree of the ancient fathers assembled together, then from the very instinct of nature, and instigation of necessity.

Now saith he, in the chief Town of every Diocese, the first Presbiter, who afterwards by a dangerous Catachresis, was called a Bishoppe, in the daily common jurisdiction, Praeerat caeteris, tum vrbanis tum alijs eius regionis, come-Presbyteris, id est, totj Diocoesi; was President over his fellow Presbyters, both of the City and Country, that is, the whole Diocese. And because sometimes the Country was of larger extent, then that all upon every occasion, could conveniently meet in the City; and forasmuch, as other small Cities and Towns did need commune inspection or oversight, they also had their Chorepiscopi, that is, Country-Bishops, or Vice-Bishops.

For the second, that they acknowledge their only governing Elders to be of the Laity it is plain. For whereas Calvin divideth the Church into two Orders or Ranks, Clerum, sc. & plebem; the Clergy and Laity, he plainly saith, that these Elders are chosen from among the Laity. And forasmuch as being chosen, they do not become to be of the Clergy, he must needs mean, that they still continue to be of the Laity. And that he thought they should be annual, the order of the Church of Geneva by him set down, doth declare.

Both which points Beza acknowledgeth together. In this City of Geneva saith he, those governing Elders, (which in the title of the chapter he called annual) are chosen yearly, 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 Geneva, 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, every year new are chosen, or the old confirmed. So everywhere (saith he) in other free Churches, according to the condition of the place, the like choice is observed. For of the Laity, some are chosen to this Eldership in Scotland yearly, in the Low-Countries they are chosen for 2. years, the half of them being changed every year.

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

Again, great consideration must be had (saith Beza) that Princes and Noble men, and such as have authority and preeminence in the Church, be chosen to be of the Seignorie.

And surely, saith he, in another place, (proving that there ought to be such Elders of the Laity joined to the Ministers) unless some chosen men out of the body of the whole congregation, do sit in that assembly, whereby the whole Church is governed, Scarcely shall the universal name of that Church agree to that assembly, 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 Clergy and Laity: So that Senate, which is to represent the whole Church, must consist not only of the Clergy, but of the Laity also.

And in another place he proveth by a necessary disjunction (as he thinketh) that if there must be a Presbyterie at all, a good part thereof must be chosen out of the Laity. Whence do they think 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 superiority, only Presidents of the presbytery, &c. Nothing is more plain.

The Presbyters (saith Calvin) in every City chose one out of their number, to whom specially they give the title of a Bishop, least from equality (as is wont) dissensions should arise. But yet the Bishop was not so in honor and dignity superior, that he had dominion over his colleagues. But what office the Consul had in the Senate, to propound matters, to ask voices, to go before others in counseling, admonishing, exhorting, by his authority to rule the whole action, and to execute that which by common counsel hath been decreed, that office did the B. bear, in the assembly of the Presbyters.

Again, every College of Presbyters only for preservation of peace and good order, were subject to one Bishop, who did so go before others in dignity, that himself was subject to the assembly of the brethren, meaning the Presbyterie.

Calvin therefore maketh the Angels or ancient Bishops, nothing else but presidents of the Presbyterie, or moderators of the Assemblie.

Beza, as by each of these Angels he understandeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the President of the Presbyterie, (as before I noted; So he will acknowledge the first Bishops, to have been no other but presidents of the Ecclesiastical Senate, Presidents over the assemblies of Pastors, (to wit, of diverse Parishes, belonging to one Church) whose authority he will acknowledge to be nothing else but the Dignity of the first place in the sacred Assemblie, with the right of ruling the common action, without any dominion over those which sit with him. And such a presidentship he acknowledgeth to be a Divine ordinance.

And whereas Jerome saith, there was a time when the Churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters, he would not have him so understood, as if they had not always a president. And whereas D. Sarauia objecteth, that in Saint John's time, these 7. Churches of Asia had by Divine ordinance 7. BB. set over them, whom he calleth the Angels; Beza replieth; Wherefore urge you this against Jerome & us? For when he saith, that the Churches at the first were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters, we may not think he was so unwise, as to dream that none of the Presbyters was President of the assembly.

And most plainly in the next Chapter.

As touching the first Presbyter (saith he) or Bishop of the Diocese, what his Dignity was, and wherein it did consist, I have often shown; that it was wholly of Order, and not of degree. Everyone of his fellow-Presbyters or Pastors ruling his own Parish, and that first Presbyter or Bishop of the Diocese, having a super-intendencie or in-spection over all his fellow-Presbyters, thus far, as to admonish them of their duty; as also having assembled his Presbyterie, either on set days, or extraordinarilie, to propound matters to them concerning the Diocese, or the Censure of manners, to ask their voices, to pronounce what to the rest seemeth good. From which judgment, it was lawful to appeal to a Provincial Synod.

As touching the last point, what the learned disciplinarians hold, may be gathered by the practice of Geneva, and other Churches, which they did reform, as was pretended, according to the discipline of the primitive Church; the Presidents of the presbyteries in those Churches being not perpetual, or for term of life, but for a short time. But omitting the rest, Beza often urgeth this point, that the ancient BB: had this presidentship, but for a short time, and that by course. And as he professeth the presidentship in the Presbytery of every Church, to be a divine ordinance, & immutable; So he acknowledgeth those BB: alone for divine, who had this presidentship but for a short time and by course.

How be it he confesseth, that howsoever, the order it self, (Namely, that there should be a president in each presbytery) is perpetual and immutable, as being essential: Yet ordinis modum; the manner of this order: though it were a divine ordinance, that it should be by course and for a short time, was variable, as being but accidental.

But his words which most plainly testify that, which I delivered, are these;

And after, speaking of that change which Jerome noteth, he giveth this reason thereof;

Therefore that which had been common to all in their turns, it was thought good to translate unto one; and that one chosen by the judgment of the whole Presbytery.

Let the refuter therefore take home those four untruths to himself, which he objected against me; whether out of unmannerly ignorance, or rather cunning-rudeness. For it can hardly be thought that such bold challengers of the BB. and so confident an vndertaker of this business, could simply be ignorant of these things: but rather cunninglie sought to conceal the division, which is among themselves; fearing lest their favorites, (whereof some follow, some go before them, out of a zeal not guided by knowledge) should take notice, that the aforesaid challengers, and this Champion stand for a Discipline, neither taught by Calvin and Beza, and such other learned men, nor yet practiced by the reformed Churches: whereof I desire all men to take notice.

And verily, for my part, I was of opinion, till I saw H.I. book to the King, and the vnmodest & unchristian offer of disputation: that they who stand for the pretended reformation among us, had sought for no other discipline, then that which Calvin and Beza taught, and the reformed Churches, especially of Geneva doth, and Scotland did practice. But when I saw the novel Assertions, whereon the new-found parish discipline is founded, urged with such bold vehemency, I must confess, 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.

Hitherto the two Assertions contained in the explication have been propounded to be discussed. Now, in this Section, I made way to the proof hereof, by enumerating distinctly the several points which I purposed to handle, for the proof of either. And first for the former, which is the explication of my Text (viz:) that the Angels or Pastors of the primitive Church were Diocesan Bishops, and such, for the substance of their function, as ours be. ) I endeavored to prove it, both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by disproouing the presbyterian discipline, wherein I intended a disiunctiue argumentation, that (the question being, whether the Churches were governed by presbyteries, as they say, consisting for the greater part of Lay-men, or by BB: as we hold,) the disproof of their presbyteries, might be a proof for our Bishops: and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by showing what the authority of the Angels or ancient Bishops was, as well extensiue, against our new disciplinarians, ( viz: ) that the Churches whereof they were Bishops, were Dioceses, and themselves Diocesan Bishops; as intensiue, against the Elder, and more learned disciplinarians, that BB. were superior to other Ministers, not only in order, but in degree also. &c.

And for the proof of the 2 Assertion, which is a doctrine arising out of the Text before explained, concerning the lawfulness of the Bishops calling, this is proposed to be proved, that the fanction of Bishops, is of Apostolical and divine institution ; and this, as in the ende of the Section is signified, was the thing chiefly intended by me. These points I did not thus propound in Dichotomies, which the greatest part doth not so well conceive and remember, but for more easiness, was content to make a bare enumeration of them.

And this is the frame, of that which he calleth the body of my Sermon, the which our refuter endeuoreth here to put out of frame: For having first, of the five points which I propound, referred the first four to the former part of my main distribution (as he calleth it) where I inquire what manner of Bishops the Angels were; and the last to the latter, which respecteth the quality of their function: in the next words, as if presently he had forgotten himself, after he hath shown his scornful and disdainful spirit, he setteth up a frame of his own to work upon. The mansion (saith he) that he buildeth, is a Princely and pleasant Palace for our Bishops Lordships, under the roof whereof, their Honors may dwell safely, as in a Sanctuary, without danger of the adversary, and much delight. Look we upon the bare frame, as it standeth, without glasing, painting, &c: it is of this form:

The proposition of this syllogism is laid down, pag: 2. and 55. where he saith, that the office and function of Bishops, here meant by Angels, is in this Text approved, as lawful and commended as excellent: That is is lawful and good; having divine, both Institution being Angels, and approbation being stars.

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 reverend fathers of our Church are. The which he saith, by the grace of God he will plainly prove, and that in the four first points of the five, for to them he there referreth us for that purpose. pag. 61.

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

Behold, 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 been extraordinary, all this stir had been needless. But if you mark the ende of his ouerbusying himself in resolving my Sermon, and then putting the ends together to make up his own frame, perphaps he will not seem so skillful in resolving, as willful in dissolving the same. The end of his double dealing, appeareth in the sequel to have been double.

For first, whereas there are of the five points which I propounded, two of principal use, serving directly, the one to disprove their Presbyterian discipline, the other to approve the government by Bishops, (both which, he could wish that I had spared) he would fain make his Reader believe, that of these two, the former, is impertinent; and the latter, superfluous; or as else-where he speaketh, the former bootless, the other needless. 2. When he could not tell how to wrangle with the other 3. points, he bringeth them to his frame, as it were to the rack: first, finding fault, that they do not directly prove, that which he would have them: and then, by torture, making them to say what he pleaseth, that he may the more easily contradict them.

To countenance these sophistical shifts, he hath brought my Sermon to the Smiths forge, and having hammered it well, he hath reduced the whole body of it into one syllogism, with the proofs thereof. Vsing this syllogism for the parts of my Sermō, as the tyrant used his bed for his guests, cutting off those parts which seem to reach over, and retching out those which seem to come short.

But let us examine his Syllogism which with the prosyllogisme of the assumption he propoundeth as the Analysis of the whole body of my Sermon. The function of the Bishops of the seven Churches is lawful and good, &c. I do not deny but that out of diverse places of my Sermon patched together, some such Syllogism as this may be framed. But in Analysing we must respect, not what we can devise or collect, but what the writer did intend, and our Analysis must be answerable to his Genesis. It is apparent that I propounded two things to be distinctly proved, the one as the explication of the text showing what manner of Bishops the Angels were: the other as a doctrine collected out of the text, concerning the quality of their function, viz. that the calling of Diocesan Bishops is lawful and good. This, which I propounded as a doctrine to be collected out of the text, pag. 2. and as a conclusion to be proved in the last part, pag. 55. and is indeed not the proposition, but the conclusion of the Syllogism which himself frameth, he would against sense make the Reader believe was by me propounded as the proposition of his Syllogism. As for the proposition which he assigneth to me, I did not express, but took 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 lawful and good. Of which collection if any man should make doubt, the consequence would be proved by the addition of the proposition. The calling of such, as are here meant by the Angels of the Churches, is lawful and good, &c.

Wherefore as there were two distinct parts propounded by me, so if he had drawn the same into two distinct Syllogisms concluding the same question, and not confounded the parts of the Sermon to make the principal branches thereof to seem heterogeneall or superfluous, he had not much missed of my project. The former Syllogism as I have said might be this.

The proposition I took for granted, and therefore did not express it. The assumption is the same with the former assertion, and is proved by the four first points. The conclusion I did not express, being implied in the collection of the doctrine out of the text.

The calling of Diocesan BB. is of apostolical & divine institution, Therefore it is lawful and good: of this Syllogism the assumption, is the same with the fifth point here propounded.

So that of the five points, which I propounded, not any one is either impertinent or superfluous, the four former serving to prove the former assertion which is the assumption of the former Syllogism, the fifth and last being the assumption of the second Syllogism.

As for the second Syllogism which he assigneth to me, I utterly disclaim it: because as no one part thereof is propounded by me, so both the premisses are false and contrary to my meaning. For neither to the Angels of the Churches, nor to the Bishops, do I ascribe that sole power of ordination and jurisdiction which he speaketh of, as after shall appear.

But that his Analysis of my Sermon was merely forced against the light of his own conscience, appeareth, first, by the quarrels which thereout he hath raised, seeing by his Analysis, of the five parts the first seemeth impertinent, the last superfluous, the three in the middes not proving that for which as he saith they are brought. For could he persuade himself that his Analysis or resolution was answerable to my Genesis or composition of the Sermon, when he saw two parts of the five could not be brought to his frame, and the other three not to be suitable unto it? Secondly, by the distribution of my Sermon, and the transitions which I use, wholly disagreeing from his Analysis. Thirdly, by the Analysis propounded here by myself, and by the defense of the several parts here ensuing, wherein I shall by the help of God manifestly prove, that neither the first of the five was impertinent, nor the last superfluous, nor the other three concluding besides the purpose. But now we are to entreat of them severally, having first given you to understand, that he divideth the body of my Sermon as he calleth it into five parts, & every part into diverse sections: as namely, the first, which concerneth the Eldership, into eight sections, in all which the sum of that which I maintain is this, that there were no other Presbyters in the primitive Church, but Ministers.

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

A S touching this first point, the refuter endevoreth two things. First, as he saith, he wardeth and repelleth my blows: and then, that we may see what a man he is of his hands, he showeth, that he also can strike if need be. His former act is a reproof of my treatise, the latter a proof of his own assertion. And first in gross, he rejecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent, and after descendeth to the particulars. For the first: Reason would, saith he,

I might answer, that common sense would, that what he seem done, he should conceive and acknowledge to be done. And charity would (which self love would not) that if he discerned not the affinity of this point with his pretended assumption; he should rather have suspected his own Analysis to be forced, then have blamed me for his own want of judgment. But that he may discern this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question; I would but entreat him, to take notice what is in question between us. The question, discussed in the Sermon, is twofold. The first de facto, whether the primitive Church were governed 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 governed by Bishops, as we hold; or must needs be governed by their Presbyteries, as they affirm. 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 again, is this; whether the primitive Churches were governed 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 parishional, consisting of the Parish-Bishop, and a company of lay or only governing Elders, as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians do boldly, though ignorantly affirm: or Presbyteries in the cities, consisting of the president and other Presbyters, whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some lay or only governing Elders, as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians do teach.

In this question, as the refuter will confess, (unless he will confess himself to be ignorant in logic) this disjunction is implied; either the Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by such Presbyteries, as they speak of. And this disjunction, though it be not absolutely necessary, yet is it necessary ex hypothesi, and so presupposed on both sides. For, this being the question, whether the Church were governed by Bishops, or such Presbyteries; it is granted on both sides, and agreed upon betwixt us, that it was governed 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 disjunction were true, it were but a foolish question, as the Philosopher saith. And that this is the question between us, the refuter hath truly witnessed in respect of the parts of the disjunction, though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion, where he saith, the question between us is, whether the Churches should be governed by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops. The question indeed de facto for the time past, is, whether the primitive Church were governed by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speak of. The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come, is, whether the Church may or should be governed by Bishops as we say, or must be governed by their Presbyteries, as they affirm. This therefore being the question, whether by our Bishops, or their Presbyteries, and this question implying a necessary disjunction: who seeth not that the disproof of their Presbyteries, is a direct proof for our Bishops. The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus.

The proposition is implied in the very question between us: and the disjunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessary.

The assumption is, that first point of the five, which now we have in hand. The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proved, viz. that the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops.

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

Now that the Church was not governed by such Presbyteries as they speak of, I proved in this passage. Because howsoever with great vehemency the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only governing Elders hath been by them urged and obtruded upon us; yet they are not able to prove that ever there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers.

For, the question, which now we have in hand, being, whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitive Church, as were not Ministers: forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffes, not only holding the affirmative, that there were such, but vehemently urging that still there ought to be such; we contrariwise the respondents and defendants, holding the negative, to wit, that neither there were such, nor now need to be: the Reader therefore is to understand, that, this burden of proving, lieth upon them which hold and urge the affirmative, that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders: and that in us it is a sufficient proof of the negative, if we can maintain, that they are not able to prove the affirmative. And whereas all their proofs may be reduced to two heads, for either they be such testimonies where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Presbyter is named, or where at the least the function it self is (as they suppose) meant; to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrary assertions. The one, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Presbyter, doth always signify a Minister: the other, that there is no one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning the lay or only governing Elder. The former of them, being affirmative, I do briefly confirm by three reasons; the latter, being such a negative as cannot otherwise be proved (for the induction of the particulars were infinite) I do therefore maintain it against the principal instances of the adversaries. And this is the sum of this passage. Now I come to his cavils, with the particulars.

The two assertions (which I did even now mention) opposed to the two heads of their proofs, the refuter casteth into one Syllogism, and having so done, wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition, and also with the manner of setting them down. The Syllogism is this.

In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts: the former whereof he rejecteth as superfluous, because the latter is as firm and full without it. And yet having rejected the former, he saith the consequence is infirm and weak. But if the former be therefore superfluous, because the latter is firm and full without it, by this reason it shall not be lawful for a man to bring two arguments for one thing, the one concluding the question without the other. Yea but these two are joined in one proposition, and therefore either must afford necessary help to the other, or the one is superfluous. Blame him then that joined them, and disdain th • t sophistical shifts of the refuter, devised to make himself work. Yea but if they be not joined, the former will be weak and of no strength, for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth evermore signify a Minister, unless I added only. For though it always signify a Minister, yet it may also signify him that is no Minister. But in mine understanding, if it always signify a Minister, it never signifieth him that is not a Minister. Neither will it serve their turn that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and governing-Elders, unless they can show, that as always it signifieth a Minister, so in some place, an only-governing Elder also, and they must remember that in this cause of Elders, they are the opponents, and therefore they must prove that the places which they allege for their Lay-presbyters, not only may, but of necessity must be understood of them, or else in vain do they urge and obtrude them upon us.

And surely we must needs esteem it a very partial genus, and such as yet was never heard of, that is always predicated of the one species, and never of the other. If animal, did always signify a man, and were never predicated of any other thing but man, we should hardly think it were the genus, but the self same species, and convertible with it; as indeed Presbyter is with Minister, and therefore not the genus of it▪ and that I proved, when I said, it always 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , able to preach.

But let him add only if that would please him, though so much be signified without it. No, it will not serve the turn, for though Presbyter do always and only signify a Minister, and never signify an only governing Elder, yet there might be governing Elders, who were signified by other names. Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers, which was the point to be proved. And what then becometh (which is the chief scope of this place) of all those testimonies, wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned, which T. C. and others do allege; supposing the most of the places in the scriptures, councils and fathers, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or, Presbyter is mentioned, to be so many proofs of your governing Elders? call you this a weak proof, which doth not only at once bereave you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned, and wherein your chief strength did lie; but also prove, that there were no Presbyters but Ministers. This consequence therefore was not to be denied.

And much less the other. For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimony out of the scriptures, councils, or fathers, mentioning or meaning, any lay, annual, only-governing Elders, with what proofs will they urge them, or with what conscience can they obtrude them, as the ordinance of Christ? An argument taken from the scriptures alone negative, was wont to be a sufficient disproof of any pretended ordinance of Christ; and shall not an argument hold negatively from Scriptures, Fathers, Councils, and all?

Notwithstanding, the consequence must needs

saith our ryming refuter.

But here I entreat the Reader to try the spirit of this Sophister. For if himself acknowledge, that my meaning is, simply to deny the only-governing Elders; then can he not be excused from this imputation of setting himself to wrangle against conscience. But so much he acknowledgeth, when he cometh to the assumption, for otherwise he could not have wrangled therewith.

Thus you see, how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction, not caring to gain say himself, so he may seem to contradict me. But so far was the consequence from being to be denied, because I mention Lay, and annual, that rather it was to be granted; These words being added, ad maiorem cautelam, and distinctly propounded, to make the consequence so much the stronger, and to signify that I spake of all Elders whatsoever, that are not Ministers, call them as you will, whether Lay, or annual; or only governing Elders.

And here again, let the Reader observe, that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not have such Elders as lately were in Scotland, and still are at Geneva, and the Low Countries▪ No, they scorn such, those be Lay & annual, as you have heard, but these may not be so.

Therefore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise, who, though they were fain to yield that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laity, yet they did foresee that the Ministers would bear the sway (as indeed they ought) because they were perpetual, the others annual, or but for a short time; whereas these men, making the Lay-Elders perpetual, and referring matters to be ruled by plurality of voices, absurdly subject the Ministers to be ruled and over-ruled by them, who, in the most Country-parishes, are more fit to hold the plough then to sit at the stern of the Church.

And so, desperate or frantic whether are they now grown, that although they make their parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church; and do hold that every parish hath a sufficient and independent authority, immediately derived from Christ, for the government of it self in all causes Ecclesiastical: Notwithstanding, offer to submit their Bishop and his Consitory: yea, their whole visible Church, with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiastical, to the oversight and superintendencie of each Justice of peace.

Having thus wrangled with the proposition, he setteth himself also against the assumption, containing the two aforesaid Assertions: The former whereof, viz: that the word Presbyter, (noting an Ecclesiastical person, in the Church of Christ) evermore in the Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, signifieth a Minister, he denieth. For, if the word only be added▪ it is utterly false.

So that, by his own confession, all is one, whether the word only be inserted or omitted, the contradictory being one, and the same, that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister.

But though he delay the Reader for his own proofs, (which I dare assure him will not satisfy his judicious expectation) yet seeing he setteth himself to catch and snatch at every word, he should not have passed by those arguments • hereby I proved my Assertion, and I am persuaded, would not, if silence had not been his best answer. For a man of his Acumen, might easily out of those few words have raised three syllogisms, which he could not so easily answer. But the labor which he thought best to spare, I will undertake for him. For,

• 1. If the word Priest, (freed as it is in our Church, from the popish abuse, and conceived without all relation to real sacrifices) be the proper English of presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiastical person, then presbyter signifieth a Minister only, and as well might question be 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 signify a Minister only.

  But Presbyter by their own confession, is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop.

  Therefore presbyter, doth signify a Minister only.

• 3. That word, which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , able to preach, doth signify a Minister of the word only; for in none but Ministers is that property required.

  But Presbyter is such a word, as being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note a person, who must by the Apostles rule be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or able to preach. Therefore the word Presbyter, doth signify a Minister only.

You see then the cause of the new reformers, is not the cause of other reformed Churches, as I said.

Mark well the spirit of this man. For having denied without reason the consequence of the proposition, being (even as himself propoundeth it) undeniable, were it not that he caviled with the words Lay & annual, which in his a • swear to the • ssumption, he confesseth were not to be caviled with: and having barely denied both the former part of the assumption, which I fortified by 3. reasons, which he could not answer, and also the latter, without any show of reason, though the proof of the contradictory in both lie upon him, (which course any man might take to answer the best argument that ever was propounded,) notwithstanding he scornfully craketh, as if he had done some great act, which might give occasion to leave fighting, and fall a crowing. For my part, I greatly wonder a • him, how he could either content himself, or hope to satisfy his reader with such answers. For if it be a sufficient answer to say. I fl • tly deny the proposition, & I do as plainly deny 〈◊〉 assumption;

But if a man having thus answered, shall take occasion thereby to insult over his adversary, verily as he deludeth egregiously his Reader that is simple, so he maketh himself ridiculous, if not odious, to him that is judicious.

Having seen how substantially he hath dealt with the substance of each proposition, let us now see how mannerly 〈◊〉 he dealeth with the manner of laying them down. For in regard thereof, he chargeth me with three no small faults. First, inclination to popery: 2. falsehood: 3. contempt and scorn. The which imputations, if he cannot make good by sound evidence, he will show himself unmannerly in objecting them.

How then proveth he the first? He saith, and saith it again,

First, I deny that those which call Ministers by the name of priests, are popish. For those worthy instruments under God, of that happy reformation, which is among us, & separation from Popery, in the book of Cōmon prayer, in the book of Orders, and in other their writings, do ordinarily use that name. And when they distinguish the Clergy into three degrees, they usually reckon these three orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, therein imitating the most ancient and purest writers, both of the Greek & Latin Church, who seldom using the word Minister, distinguish the same degrees by words of the same signification: viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Episcopy, Presbyteri, Diaconi, that is, Bishops, Priests, Deacons.

Yea, but the

, and protestant writers find fault with them for calling the Ministers of the Gospel by the name of Priests, to which purpose he allegeth D. Whitaker, & D. Reynolds Whereto I answer: of the word Priest, there are two uses, whereof the one is an abuse, the other is the right & proper use of the word, according to the native signification thereof. The abuse is, when it is ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospel, 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 apply it to the Ministers of their Gospel, with relation to their sacrifice of the Mass.

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. The right use of the word is, when it is used as the English of Presbyter, and without any relation to sacrifice. For Presbyter is the name which the Apostles and all antiquity gave to the Ministers of the Gospel, and the English of Presbyter is Priest, as D. Reynolds doth confess, where also he showeth, that the Papists play the sophisters in using the word Priest, after a double sort, the one, as it is derived 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 give a Minister, is Presbyter and not Sacerdos.

And again,

It is plain therefore, that the word Priest is rightly used in the signification of presbyter, but abused, as I said, in the Sermon, to signify Sacrificing priests.

I confess, that the first Translators of the Bible into English, in these latter times, being, (as D. Fulke saith) not Lord's of men's speech, but over-ruled by the popish use of the word, as it were by a tyrant, did give the name priest to Sacrificing priests, as the papists do, and having so done, when they were to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Presbyteri, which do not signify Sacrificing priests, but Ministers of the Gospel, they avoided the name, least they might seem with the papists, to make the Ministers of the Gospel Sacrificing priests. And so I do confess 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 do in their Translations, they might safely have given the Name Priest to the Ministers, and left the name of Sacrificers to the popish priests.

The name Priest saith D. Fulke, we do not find fault with, as it cometh of presbyter, but as it is commonly used for a Sacrificing priest.

Again, as for the name priest, as it is derived of the Greek, we do not refuse it, but rather wish that the Sacrificers of the Law had never been called by it.

And again more fully,

To conclude therefore,

. But in Translation, 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 Law, but priests, to make and observe that difference which the holy Ghost always observeth 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 have been known to differ from Sacrificers, it had been a small matter, and perhaps hindered you of this vain quarrel. It is not a popish abuse therefore to call Ministers priests, but to give the name priest, to Sacrificers.

And likewise, it is an abuse of Innouators, to give the Name presbyter, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (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 truly be called.

But how doth he prove that I

Whereto I answer, that I mention the Name Priest, (the proper English of presbyter ;) as a necessary argument, to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or presbyter, doth signify a Minister, as I shown 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 necessity laid upon him to answer. It is necessary with him (belike,) to wrangle with words, but not to answer arguments.

Now to conclude my answer to his first accusation, I appeal to the refuter himself, and to all which either know me, or have read my other Books; whether this imputation was laid to my charge, out of an upright conscience, or not rather out of an uncharitable desire to bring me, though unjustly, into the dislike of the people, to whom the Name priest is odious, as D. Fulke truly noteth; because they know not the Etymology of it. For if they knew that the English word Priest, as also the like words in French and Italian, were derived from Presbyter, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Presbyter, is the name which the holy Ghost and all antiquity ordinarily giveth to the Ministers of the Newe-Testament; They would rather condemn them that abuse, either the name Priest, to Sacrificers, as the Papists do; or the name Presbyter, whereof Priest is the true English, to signify Lay-Elders, as our Disciplinarians do: then he would mislike our Church, which useth the word aright? Namely, as the proper and true English of Presbyter, from whence it is derived, without any relation to Sacrifices at all.

Wherevnto this is to be added, that howsoever our first Translators in King Henry his time, avoiding the word priest, translated Presbyteri, by Elders; Yet by Elders they understood no other but Ministers. As appeareth by this speech of M. Tyndale.

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

Secondly, he chargeth me with untruth, for saying, that question might as well be made, whether there were annual Ministers, or Lay-Priests, as annual or Lay-Presbyters.

But this I proved, when I demonstrated by three arguments, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or presbyter, doth signify none but a Minister. For if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or presbyter, as it is the name of an Ecclesiastical office, doth signify nothing but a minister or priest, as I proved; then that question might as well be made of Ministers or Priests, as of presbyters.

But how I pray you doth he convince me of falsehood? with an if begging the question,

As if he should have said, if you will grant me the question, and deny that which you have already proved, and I could not answer, then I shall be able to charge you with untruth. Yea, . His words there, be these: that the

So that this was but a poor shift for want of proof to refer 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 have disproved, then that would appear to be false, which I have proved to be most true.

I come to his third accusation:

And it would be noted say I, with how bad a conscience he willfully depraveth the manner of uttering my words, to give some small color both to his unconscionable denial of the proposition which himself contradicted in answer to the assumption; and also to this forged calumniation. For whereas I propounded the words distinctly with a Comma or note of distinction, lay, annual, only-governing Presbyters, using these diverse titles more fully and certainly to express whom I meant; he hath joined them with notes of union , as if I had in contempt & scorn of them, framed a nickname for them, compounded of all these words.

And whereas he saith, that I call them lay

the truth is, that he disgraceth the laity intollerably, as if there were no lay persons but base and private men. Indeed if I had said, that such men as be not of the Clergy, are to be called idiotae, (as some of your side would have them called, rather then lay men) you might have had some colorable pretence for this accusation. But when with Calvin we divide the whole Church into the clergy and laity: under the laity, we comprehend the noble as well as the base, and public persons as well as private, and men of excellent gifts as well as Idiots.

And it is but a seely exception, which you do usually make, that you would not have them called lay, but Ecclesiastical. For first, that word doth not distinguish them from the Ministers. And secondly, because Ecclesia the Church, being divided into the Clergy, and laity, those which be lay men (as not being of the Clergy,) may have Ecclesiastical offices, and in regard thereof may be called Ecclesiastical officers, as Church wardens among us, officials, Chancellers, and commissioners in causes Ecclesiastical, as well as your Elders, whom though you make Ecclesiastical officers, yet you cannot deny them to be Lay-Elders.

Now to avoid this imagined disgrace, he would have all men to take notice, what manner of persons they would have by prayer and imposition of hands ordained and set a part to this Ecclesiastical office: not such as each parish is like to afford, but according to the vtopicall Idea conceived in their own brain. And though there must be many of them in every parish, men religious, of great gravity and piety (you may be sure) and of good years, adjoined to the Ministers: and though matters are to be carried by plurality of voices, everyone having the like right of suffrage; yet we must not in any case think, that they will over-rule the Minister, but be altogether ruled and directed by him. Beza saith, that in the sacred senate, which is called the Presbyterie, there is no superiority of degree or power, but a distinction of order; and that all matters are managed by common and equal right in giving their voices: the whole consistory being for that cause called a Presbyterie, because, howsoever otherwise there may be distinction of degrees among them, yet in this common function the Ministers are made equal with the Elders, and the Elders with the Ministers. So that they wrong them shrewdly, who shall say, where all have equal 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 over-ruled by the multitude of Elders.

Where the words of the abortive book seemed bitter and spiteful enough, there our refuter followeth that copy: otherwise to that potion of worm-wood, he addeth an infusion of gall, as in this place.

Not so, saith the libeller, you must not attribute any skill in logic, or modesty to him now: we must make our followers believe, that since he hath written in defense of the Antichristian calling of the prelates, those petite popes, he hath lost all modesty, and skill in logic too. For if we cannot answer his arguments, nor take away his answers, let us disgrace his person: so will our followers be sure to preiudge anything he saith, and which is our desire, the people whom he thought to satisfy, shall be kept in the same terms they were wont. But my purpose is not by reciting his words to spread this part of his spiteful libel, and much less by vouchsafing an answer to multiply words in this kind with so odious a wrangler. To pass by therefore his barking eloquence, or dog-rhetoric, the reader is to understand that in this section and those which follow, I endeavor to defend the two former assertions, viz. that they can neither prove that the word Presbyter doth signify any but a Minister, nor yet produce any one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning their lay or only-governing-Elders.

Now I would know of my adversary for my learning, how such a negative as this should be maintained. Whether, by induction of particulars, or by special insisting upon the instances which the adversaries give: not the former, for that were to examine every sentence in the scriptures, councils and fathers, which were infinite. If the latter, should I in one of the least parts intended in the Sermon, where I had promised brevity, stand upon every particular allegation which could hardly have been discussed in a whole Sermon? or should I make choice of some of the principal, which are of more weight then all the rest? the latter course I was necessarily to make choice 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 endeavored 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 defensive answer is brought to the anuill, and forged into a Syllogism after this manner.

In answering the proposition,

First at my want of modesty, in that I gloriously despise, and insolently reject the judgments of those divines, who besides those two, allege many other testimonies, when I say, I esteem these two only worth the answering. Whereunto I answer, that I esteemed no other, in that shortness of time, worthy to be stood upon but those two.

And if that answer will not suffice him, I plainly profess, and yet without despising the judgment of any learned man, that these two testimonies are the two main pillars, whereon their whole building leaneth: and that, as their other testimonies depend upon the presupposall of these as giving witness to their Lay-Elders: so these being taken from them, the rest have scarcely any probability in them, but may as easily be rejected, as objected. And this I will say, because I am so indignely provoked, that if my adversary, or any of his copartners, can produce but any one testimony, either out of scriptures, or fathers, that either may be compared with either of these, or that in it self, without an eye to these, hath so much as any show of a necessary or demonstrative proof, I will then be content, that they should wonder, & wonder again, at my want of modesty.

Secondly, he wonders at my want of logic in making so feeble a consequence. The consequence, though it be not absolutely necessary, yet upon supposal, that these are the two chief proofs, without which, all they can say besides for their Elders, is scarce worth the answering, it is necessary. For, if any testimonies prove their Elders, then certainly the chief, and which be, as it were, all in all.

Thirdly, he wondereth at the weak prop, whereby this consequence is vnderset; which is my unfeigned profession, that to my knowledge, there were only these two allegations, which I esteemed (in that shortness of time) worth the answering; which was reason sufficient for my insisting on those two alone. If this prop be so weak, let his knowledge, and the skill of all his adherents, show but one other testimony comparable to these two. But that he may leave both wondering and wandering, I do again plainly and confidently affirm, that the whole cause of the Lay-Elders relieth on these two places; and therefore as in the former negative assertion I did imply; so now I express, a challenge to him and all his partakers, to produce any one such testimony if they can. This challenge I say was implied, when I professed that they cannot allege out of the scriptures, Councils, or Fathers, any one pregnant testimony mentioning or meaning, any lay, or only governing Elders.

To this challenge, what doth our insulting refuter, reply?

In which words, though he dares not, as you see, accept the challenge, yet he setteth a good face upon it. For whereas I said, and say again, that besides these two testimonies, they can produce no more of any moment in comparison; he saith, that he both could and would produce many more. He would, I do not doubt, if he could: but because he doth not, you may be assured, he cannot. What he, and all of them can do, 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 refusal are two; the one, because

; but that I denied upon certain knowledge. And what they have said to any purpose, hath been confuted also before now; and that, though often repeated, and oft refuted, as threedbare as it is, himself doth afterwards produce, having nothing to say, that hath so much as a good show of a necessary proof, as hereafter shall appear. The other, because

The which is a sophistical, and if I may freely speak what I truly think, a lewd shift, to elude my answers and the reasons thereof, and to delude the unlearned Reader.

For who I pray you, be the opponents and plaintiffes in this controversy, we or they? Those which be in possession do not use to be plaintiffes.

Neither would there have been any controversy betwixt us, if they did not oppose: forasmuch therefore as they are the opponents, urging the pretended discipline; we the defendants maintaining the established discipline among us; it is a sufficient defense of our cause, especially where we hold the negative, if we show that their proofs are not sufficient; and their proofs are not sufficient, which do not necessarily and inevitably prove, that which they urge.

Neither let them ever hope to bring in their Lay-Elders, till they have necessarily proved that they ought to be admitted.

But the lewdness of this shift is then most manifest, when as I ex professo undertaking to answer their objections, he will needs make me the opponent: and where it is required of them, necessarily to prove what they say, and is sufficient for me, to show that their proof is not necessary; absurdly, against all order of disputation, he maketh himself the respondent, and me the opponent. So that my answers must be put into Syllogisms, and his proofs be thought sufficient, if he can but say, that they make not against his cause, though they do not prove it. Examples of this shameful dealing we shall not want long. For in the discussing of their allegation out of 1. Tim. 5.17. which is their chief objection, it is most manifest, that they are the opponents, and I the answerer. But my adversary maketh me the opponent, and my answers must be oppositions, and so put into Syllogisms: and in the end as you shall see, whereas that is the only place in scripture which they can with any show of necessary proof allege for their Elders; he would make the Reader believe, that he hath aquitted himself well, if their Elders be not necessarily disproved out of that place. When indeed, if they be not necessarily and inevitably proved out of it, they have no ground nor warrant for them in the scriptures.

Again in my preface (where the refuter understandeth me to have made a challenge, & as it were to have cast down the gantlet) as I desired they would distinctly answer my arguments, so also that they would produce their proofs, (for it is an easier thing to pull down, at least to seem so, then to set up:) in his answer to my preface, he accepteth of the offer, acknowledging that I

and doth not only promise to satisfy my desire, but also beareth the Reader in hand, that he hath brought but now, when he should come to the performance, when I again renew the challenge; averring, that they have no such proofs, and expecting that he should produce them, if he have any: his answer is, that alas he is the respondent, and it cannot with any reason be expected, that he should bring proofs or dispute the questions.

And that you may yet more fully note the absurdity of this disputer, (of whose great acts in this book, I hear no small vants) though he say, it is not his part to produce proofs, neither can it with reason be expected of him, which afore he confessed to be reason: yet this is to be understood of needful proofs, whereby he might prove something, which is by us denied. But if there be anything, which seemeth to make for his cause, and which we freely confess, as for example, the consent of diverse protestant writers with them in some things, there he will be sure, to be plentiful in proving of that, which no man doth deny.

And this is the chief thing, which he and his consorts in compiling this book, have labored. As if they should have said: do you indeed grant, that diverse protestant writers expound such and such places as we do? and do you not deny, but that diverse of them agree with us in some things? Mary that will we prove at large, and although reason grounded on scripture, testimony of antiquity, and no small consent of new writers be against us: yet we will make a fair muster of those new writers which be for us: and though the greatest part of them be parties in the cause as well as our selves, yet we will allege them as witnesses without exception, and will never have done with alleging their testimonies. For though the learned will easily discern the desperateness of our cause, yet the unlearned sort, who are carried away with shows, seeing such a multitude of learned men on our side, will still cleave unto us, &c.

And this shall suffice (saith he) for his proposition. To his assumption I answer, by denying it, and affirming that both these places do speak of only governing Elders, and that I will clear (as the opponent, no doubt) by the places themselves, which now come to be handled.

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

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

Therefore besides the Ministers which labored in the Word and Doctrine, there were other Presbyters or Elders, which were no Ministers.

This, as I said, is the principal reason that is alleged for the Lay-Elders, wherewith the Disciplinarians do wonderfully please themselves.

T. B. is so confident, that he judgeth them to be of no sound judgment that will not acknowledge two sorts of elders to be contained in this place. Another T. B. that spied them under the wings of the 4. Beasts, Apoc: 4. saith plainly: they are blind, and of no understanding, that cannot or will not see them in this place. T. C. setting some color upon Act. 14.23. to make it show for Lay-Elders, at length he saith, Why should we follow conjectures? when S. Paul, 1. Tim. 5.17. doth declare what these Elders are? The author of the counterpoison affirmeth, that the Apostle in express words, doth in this place set down their two sorts of Elders. And this is usual with them all, to confirm their exposition of other places which are ambiguous, by this which they esteem most clear.

To their reason I answered, by denying their antecedent, and because I would not shake off the opponents with a bare denial as enemies, but satisfy them as brethren, I yielded some reasons of my denial, which I set down in 2. degrees. For whereas they urge the Lay-Elders, as necessarily collected out of this place;

First, I answer, there is no necessity that the place should be understood of any other but Ministers. And secondly, that this place is so far from concluding Lay-Elders, that it doth exclude them, or conclude against them.

The former again, I maintain by two reasons: The which I can well be content that my adversary shall reduce into Syllogisms, so he would frame them, as being the reasons of a respondent, that is, such as be propounded, to show that there is no necessity of their inference from this Text. For that as I said, is a sufficient defense for the respondent.

The first reason is this;

For surely if there had been any such Elders in the Apostles times, the ancient Fathers, which were near those times, had been more likely to have noted these two sortes of Elders, then those who came so many hundred years after.

Of this Syllogism he denieth both the the parts. And of his denial▪ of the consequence in the proposition, he giveth three reasons.

The first, because we may not argue negatively, concerning the sense of the Scriptures, from the authority of the Fathers, &c.

Wherevnto I answer, that I argue as affirmatively from the consent of the Fathers, and of all before our age, who always conceived of these words, as if the Apostle had said, Let the Ministers or Priests which rule well, &c: as negatively: Neither do 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 rejected: or because it is always by them interpreted, as speaking of Ministers only: Therefore this interpretation is necessarily to be received. But thus I reason, that this exposition is more likely, which hath the perpetual and universal consent of the Fathers, and of all writers before our age, then that which not only hath not their allowance, but is clean contrary to their interpretation.

Wherevnto I now add that, which my adversary will never be able to answer.

For my part, until my adversary shall be able to disprove this assumption by someone instance, which I am well assured he shall never be able to do: I will take it for granted, and in my conscience am fully resolved, 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 be added, is sufficient to show, that Lay-Elders cannot be proved out of this Text.

His second reason is this:

To the parts of which syllogism before I answer, I must know of the disputer, whether he mean the consent of all the new writers, or not, for if the word all be 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 only to other, and perhaps as many, and as learned new writers; but also to the general and perpetual 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 persuaded, of the most protestant divines. Notwithstanding, he endevoreth to prove both.

That the proposition is true, he appealeth to my conscience. Whence he shall receive this resolution. Where the contrary expositions of the old and new writers concern a point of doctrine, I would not incline to the authority of the new, unless they have better reason then the old. For where the question is simply of authority, which is the greater; I say with the Philosopher, that whereas witnesses be of two sorts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , some old, some new: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the ancient are of greatest credit. If it concern a matter of story or fact, as whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitive Church, or not; I would without comparison, give credit to the ancient writers, who lived in, or near those times, then to them who lived 13. or 14. hundred years after them.

Yea, but

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 judgment? And doth not this prove, that the Assertion, which in this cause is opposite to antiquity, is to be condemned of novelty?

Again, you say the judgment of the new writers is to be preferred, because they have more searched into the matter, as being now in question.

Wherevnto I answer, that in this very respect, the authority of the ancient is to be preferred, for the reason which the Philosopher giveth in the place before alleged. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The old be of most credit, for they are uncorrupt, or impartial. Whereas contrary wise, the new writers, which oppose themselves to us, who follow the ancient, are parties in the cause; and therefore to be preiudged as partial.

And whereas he challengeth me

I ask him whether he doth think they were free from all error or mistaking in the expounding of Scriptures? and if he thinketh that they did fail in any particular, I would desire him to show what moveth him to think, that the spirit of God, who enlightened them as touching the substance, in which they were so sound, did fail them in that particular? This therefore was a mere color: or if there were any weight in it, might not I more justly make the like demand of him concerning the Fathers; what reason he hath to think, that the ancient Fathers who had such profound knowledge in the greatest mysteries of divinity, whereby they confounded the most subtle heretics, should be ignorant of those things which appertain to the outward government 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 primitive Church, better then the Fathers, that lived in those times?

As touching his assumption: if he 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 proved, 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 judicious it seem a very idle and vain flourish, and in this writer, who is copious only in this kind, a manifest sign of a desperate cause, which cannot be fortified by better proofs, which he forbeareth to allege under a poor pretence, that he is the answerer, and yet spendeth above 20. whole pages in his book, in proving what we deny not, that many writers are partly of his mind. Notwithstanding, it is a matter of great content to the unlearned Reader, to be led along, (for so he speaketh more then once) by such a worthy leader, from one to another till he hath seen the whole Troupe, and hath heard the commendation of everyone.

For that also is to be noted, how he playeth the egregious Mountae • bank, in commending and setting forth his authorities in most glorious manner.

Just commendations I confess of worthy men, whose memories are blessed.

Notwithstanding when he hath all done, one good reason alleged, though it were by the meanest of his 25, had been of more worth then the allegation of all their authorities, though they had been as many more. But this was done as I said, to please the unlearned: for otherwise where the new writers gainsay him and his fellows, 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, and stoop very low for some of them, (especially if you consider that they are to be weighed with the ancient Fathers) and if of the 25. he thought good to cite but 8: now if all these 8. be not clear on his side, what shall we think of the rest? Surely Luther, though he tell him that he rose up as a bright morning star, even another Elias of these times, will not be gotten to speak a word for him. For in the place by him cited, he doth not so much as speak of this Text, and much less expound it: But he speaketh only of the 19. verse, Receive not an accusation against an Elder: where understanding Elder, according to the use of the word, in the first verse of that chapter, as a word of age, as well as of office, (as Chrysostom also doth, though he understand, verse: 17: of Ministers only) he saith, that how soever the popish Bishops, against whom he writeth, did expound this place of Priests, that is themselves, that they might be the more free from accusation or reproof: yet the Apostle speaketh of Presbyteri, that is, Elder and grave men, (for such then, bare rule in the Church) meaning thereby most plainly ancient Ministers, as appeareth by the words following; which the refuter hath Sophistically and shamefully perverted. For the Apostle doth not speak, De ijs Episcopis (saith Luther, ) & Sacerdotibus, qui iam nostra aetate plerum{que} sunt aetate florenti & pene 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 he meant in the words going a little before, when he calleth them Penelopes sponsos, ) but he speaketh of such as be aged, and ancient men, skillful in the Scriptures.

Observe now our Sophysters dealing.

First he saith, Luther expoundeth this verse of Lay-Elders; when as Luther doth not so much as speak of this text: 2. that he should say, their Lay-elders ruled in the Church then, when he plainly speaketh of ancient and aged Ministers. 3. that Luther denieth simply, that Paul speaketh of BB. and Priests. For so he 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 & skillful in the scriptures.

Bullinger in neither place alleged, doth say, that there were elders in the chuch, which were not ministers, but rather the contrary. For on 1. Tim. 5.17. he understandeth that text, as requiring the stipend of the ministry, & seemeth to confound the words Ministers and Presbyters in that sentence which the refuter citeth by halves. 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, leaving out the word Ministers. And upon the words following in the nineteenth verse, he saith, as to a diligent & good Minister of Christ sustenāce is due, so also defense, the reason of which law is this, a Presbyter is the Minister of truth, and truth procureth hatred, &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 always as did the BB. yet were they present with them that taught, &c. Where he doth not speak of lay and unlearned Elders, but of wise and learned men of the Clergy.

The rest, in the places cited, do acknowledge a second sort of Elders, besides those which chiefly labored in the word and doctrine, but whe they were of the laity or Clergy they do not mention.

As for D. Fulk in his answer to the Rhemists on 1. Tim. 5.17. he giving two interpretations of that place, preferreth that whereby the Apostles words are understood of Ministers or Priests only, that as everyone of them laboreth more in preaching and teaching, he is so much the more to be honored.

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

His third reason for the denial of my proposition: that

Naked to cover! But what fig leaves can he find to cover this naked, and shameless untruth? For whereas my exposition consisteth of two points, the first and principal that by Presbyters I understand, Ministers, as if the Apostle had said let the Ministers that rule well &c: the second that by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which commonly are translated governing well, I understand the commendable performance of their duty in general, for the latter I alleged the authority of Jerome and of the Syricke Paraphrast, to whom others might be added; for the former, I have the general consent of all the Fathers and of all writers before our age, who have expounded this place, and not one of them can be produced to the contrary; 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 five whole pages with very ill success as you see, he concludeth with as vain and causeless a brag, as his success was bad.

The assumption (that none of the Fathers nor any before our age did ever expound this text of any but Ministers) though he dares not plainly deny it; yet that it may appear, how he setteth himself to wrangle with everything, he seeketh all the corners of his wit to find some starting holes: out of which he may easily be driven, if the Reader will but remember these two things. First, that I speak of such as have before our age, (meaning hoc seculum this cēturie or hundred of years) expounded this place, either in their commentaries, or in their other writings, which be extant. For it were foolish presumption to rely upon their judgments, who, either did not write of it, or whose writings are not extant, whereby their judgment might be known. 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 anything to the purpose, must prove by good instance the affirmative, that someone of the Fathers, or some other before our age hath expounded this place of Lay-Elders ; and not absurdly urge me, being the respondent, to prove the negative; which as it cannot be otherwise proved, but by alleging, that no instance can be given to the contrary ; so might it be easily disproved by any one instance, if any such could be given. If these two things be remembered, the bare recital of his five exceptions will be a sufficient evidence of his folly.

But the fifth passeth all, for therein he giveth plain instances I warrant you of some before our age, &c. For Luther, Bucer, Bullinger, and diverse others in their time, understood this place of Lay-Elders, therefore diverse before our age. The antecedent he taketh for granted, as well as he might, because as we heard before how Luther who doth not speak of this text, by Presbyteri understandeth verse. 19. ancient Ministers, and Bullinger expounds it not of Lay-Elders ; so, what Bucer saith, we have not yet heard. But the consequence he proveth by such an argument, as showeth he was very near driven, because D. King in a Sermon preached in the year 1606. saith,

For in Geneva it was first conceived in the year 1537. when Calvin having with Farel & Viret, in the year before, attempted, as Beza saith; Ecclesiam compo • e •• and had drawn the first draught of it, got the assent of the Senate and people of Geneva on the 20. of July, 1537. howbeit before the year, 1541. it was not established, having in the mean time been banished together with Calvin.

But why should time which is so precious be spent in cōfuting such seelly shifts, whereof even the refuter himself is by this time (I hope) ashamed.

CHAP. V. Containing my second reason, why Lay-Elders are not proved out of 1. Tim. 5.17.

I N these words is set down the second reason of my exception against their allegation of 1. Tim. 5.17. proving that there is no necessity this place should be understood, as they imagine, of Lay-Elders. The reason standeth thus: If the words may very well be understood of two duties of Ministers, the one general, to be good presidents, the other special, to labor in the word & doctrine, in respect whereof the Apostle requireth double honor to be yielded unto them, then is there no necessity that this place should be understood as they imagine of Lay-Elders:

But the Antecedent is true: Therefore the consequent.

I might have reasoned thus. If diverse and sundry expositions, all of them understanding this place of Ministers alone, may be given, and each of them more probable or likely then that which is for the Lay-Elders; then is there no necessity, nor yet likelihood, that the place is to be understood of Lay-Elders:

But diverse and sundry such expositions may be given, as after you shall hear.

Therefore there is no necessity nor yet likelihood, that this text is to be understood of Lay-Elders.

But I thought it sufficient to insist in this one exposition, which seemeth to me to have been the very meaning of the Apostle. For seeing the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiastical person, doth always in all other places, in the writings both of the Apostles & Fathers, signify a Minister or Priest, and no one testimony can be alleged to the contrary: what sense is there, that it should otherwise be expounded here, unless the other words of the sentence did enforce so much. But that they do not, seeing they note only two duties of Ministers, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is the general duty of the Ministers, that is, to be good presidents; and to labor in the word and doctrine, is the special duty, for which especially honor is due to them. I had once thought, that the especial duties of a Minister had here been mentioned, the one respecting his behavior only; the other, the ministry of the word, unto which all the duties of a Minister may be referred. But I did consider, it would be objected, that the meaning of the Apostle was not, that double honor should be given to Ministers, that only lived well, unless they did also preach: for in another place where he would have Ministers to be honored and loved 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , more then abundantly for their work sake, he joineth these together, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which labor among you, and which govern you in the Lord: and therefore I insisted in this exposition, against which, well may my adversary cavil after his fashion, but he can take no just exception; especially, if the emphasis or force of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be not neglected.

As for his trivial gibes, which are frequent with him, of

But though he boasteth, that my Syllogisms hitherto have been lame on both feet; yet I trust the judicious Reader will testify with me, that he hath not been able as yet, to disprove any one proposition, or assumption, which hitherto hath been produced. And I am verily persuaded, for all his gibes, he will have no better success in those which remain.

As touching the Syllogism, which now he is about to oppugn, he seemeth to be glad of mine amendment, that whereas hitherto I have gone

But shall the proposition escape so, think we? No, I warrant you: though he can object nothing against the matter, yet he must needs cavil at the words, for he will play small game rather then s • t out: two faults he findeth with the words, charging me that I speak

. unfitly, when I say the Apostle doth here note two duties of Ministers, so much is he set upon opposition and division, that he thinks there is no reason in that speech, where is no opposition.

And what is the logic that this logicaster doth teach me? forsooth I should have said, that the Apostle first speaketh of the Ministers duty in general, and afterwards in special. Thus, in disprouing the manner of my speech he doth unwittingly approve it: such is his judgment. For if the Apostle first speaketh of the duty in general, and afterwards in special; then doth he speak of two duties, the one general, the other special. For when you speak of a duty in general, do you not mean a general duty? and when you mention a duty in special, do you not mean a special duty? Yes, yourself do speak so pag. 25. where you say,

Neither doth that need to offend you, that I call them two, when you speak of them in the same place in the plural 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 logic was in this, to require opposition betwixt the whole and the part? or if you conceived of Duty as the Genus, and of this speech as a distribution thereof, what logic was it, not to discern an opposition in a distribution of duties into general and special? for general and special I hope be opposite.

All this notwithstanding, my logic master chideth me for want of logic.

Yes verily, if in so speaking he should intend a perfect distribution of logical duties: Which, notwithstanding your cauills, might thus be performed.

The duties of a Logician are either general, as that which is comprehended in the definition of Logic, to reason well: or special, as those which be contained in the distribution of Logic, to invent well, and to judge well.

But, if in imitation of the Apostles speech, you should say, Logicians that reason well, that is all good Logicians, are to be honored, especially those which are judicious, or which do excel in judgment, 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 honored; the one general, to reason well, the other special to judge well, disposed not in a distribution, but in a comparative sentence, which some Logicians call axioma relatae qnantitatis, wherein the duties of a Logician are thus compared; that whereas Logicians are to be honored for the performance of their 〈1 page〉 take liberty, to disgrace, revile, slander, and libel, against our betters, we may not be touched in the least degree▪ neither will we stick oblique to revile him, that shall but say, we imagine that, wherein we foully, if not perniciously err. For your misinterpreting of this one place, is the very foundation of your Presbyterian discipline, and the vr • ging of that discipline, the very cause of that pernicious division which is amongst us. And thus much of the proposition.

The assumption was this; that this place may very well (for so much is sufficient for me, being the respondent, to say, but I do also add) and in mine opinion, is to be understood of two duties of Ministers: the one general, the other special. In respect whereof, double • onour 〈◊〉 due unto them; This difference only being put, that whereas double honor is due to all Ministers, for the performance of their duty in general: yet especially for their pains in the Ministry of the Word, they being chiefly to be counted worthy of double honor, who excel that way.

This assumption containing the exposition of this place, he oppugneth with all his force, cavilling that it is but a bare shift, and such as will not serve my turn: and this he undertaketh to prove by three reasons, which will prove nothing, but his own want of judgment.

For, as touching the first: Is not this extreme want of judgment, to allege the manifold expositions of this place, as a matter of great disadvantage to us; when as indeed, it notably disaduantageth his cause? especially, to triumph and insult over us for this cause, Saying

Now whether this multitude of expositions be an advantage to his cause, or disadvantage, the Reader may hereby judge.

For seeing the learned men of our side do reason thus, as I noted before, ( if diverse and sundry expositions of 〈◊〉 text 〈◊〉 be given, not including your Lay-Elders, everyone whereof is