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

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

THe refuter having neither learning enough to bear the weight of this argument, nor wit enough to forbear it, in answering thereto, he uttereth more gall then would well become an honest man. The virus and poison of his libelling speeches I leave to himself: The vir • s and force of his arguments and answers, I will take upon me plainly to confute, and both here and everywhere else, by the help of God, to put him to silence.

First (as his manner is) though he dares not deny the proposition of my syllogism to be most true and undoubted, yet he must needs cavil with it: And because he hath nothing to say against it, he hopeth with it to wound some of our side, who among other interpretations of this place, have thought the former part of this Text might more probably be understood of not preaching Ministers, or Deacons, &c: then of Lay-Elders. And although I would be loath to become a Proctor for unlearned Ministers, especially, when learned may be had: yet thus much I will say, that if the Disciplinarians do rightly ground upon this place a distinction of Presbyters, into two sorts, that there be some preaching Presbyters, some not: then this text doth without comparison, favor the not preaching ministers more thē the Lay-elders. Because it is a most certain truth, which I have manifestly proved, and which the refuter will never be able to disprove, that by Presbyters, ministers only are meant. As for Decons, (I mean not your Lay Deacons) D. B. hath better reasons to comprise them under Presbyters, then your W. T. had under the name of Deacons, to understand your Lay-Elders, though T.C. himself did subscribe to his opinion. And whereas you challenge those reverend men, for seeking by warrant of this place, to surcharge the Church with maintenance of unpreaching Ministers and Deacons: I answer, they do not hold, that in every parish such ought to be maintained (as you would have your Presbyterie erected in every parish) but where better, & more sufficient Ministers cannot be had; which was the case of many parishes in England, at the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign, &c.

But all his spite is against the assumption: though he spend his spite, neither in disproouing it with force of argument, nor in answering my proofs with any substance of reason, but in sophistical cavilling & odious wrangling. For whē he hath said what he was able, I cannot tell whether he doth deny the assumption, or grant it, only he cavilleth with my proofs of it.

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

If he say that the honor of maintenance, yea, double honor, that is, (as not only Theodore • , but T. C. also expound 〈◊〉 plentiful maintenance, is due unto them: he should have brought sufficient proofs, both to confute the judgment of those learned Divines, who reformed (as directors) other Churches, and condemn the practice of all reformed Churches, which having those Presbyters, do not allow, neither do think themselves bound to allow any maintenance at all to their Lay-Elders: and also to persuade all those reformed Churches which have them not, and which in many parishes are either not able, or not willing to yield sufficient maintenance to one learned minister, to erect in every parish, besides the Pastor, and the Doctor, a Senate of Lay-Elders, with purpose to undergo an unsupportable charge, and to think themselves bound by the word of God to allow them all, and every of them sufficient maintenance. But what one reason doth he, or can he allege to persuade this, or where doth he go about to persuade it? If he say, according to the judgment and practice of all Churches whatsoever, which either have them, or have them not, that this honor of maintenance is not due unto them; why doth he not ingenuously confess, that which is inevitably proved out of the words, that Lay-Elders are neither mentioned nor meant in this place. If he say (as indeed that is all he doth say) that my proofs are not sufficient: what better proof would he require in such brevity, then the confession of the parties? yea, but they do not confess it.

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

Their confession I prove thus: What the learned reformers prescribed to be done according to God's word as they pretended, that was their Doctrine.

That there should be only governing Elders, elected out of the people or Laity, without maintenance to be yielded to them, was prescribed by the learned reformers according to the word of God as they pretended.

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

The proposition needs no proof:

The assumption I confirm thus;

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

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

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

The proposition is manifest, because the laws of Discipline in those Churches, were either prescribed by the learned reformers, or framed according to their prescript. The assumption may also be evidently proved by induction: For the Lay-Elders, neither in the Churches of Geneva, France, Low-countries, have, nor of Scotland, had any maintenance allowed thē, & that according to the laws of their discipline; neither can the refuter give any one instance to the contrary. It shall suffice me to make instance in Geneva, which was a pattern in this behalf to the rest. In Geneva is this order takē by their laws, whereof Calvin was the chief author, that of the 12. only governing Elders, joined to the 6. ministers, 6. should be chosen out of the Council of 200.4. out of the Coūcel of 60.2. out of the Council of 25. all statesmen; to this end, both that they should be of great countenance, and also that the Church should not be charged with allowing them any maintenance: Beza professeth that everywhere in other Churches the like choice, according to the state of the place, is made; viz: Not of the meaner or poorer sort, but men of great, both ability & authority, are chosen to be of the Presbyterie: And else-where he saith, that consideration must be had, that Princes & Noblemen, and such as be of authority, be chosen into the Seignorie. And T.C. himself confesseth it to be the practice of the Churches in these days, to make choice of such Elders, as are able to live, without charging the church any whit. Their cōfessiō I have shown.

And it seems to me, that you would not have me read on that side as yet, or rather, that there is no such thing to be read: Else you would have pointed, if not to the leaf, yet at least, to the book. For my part, I profess that I do not remember, that I have read any such thing, either in Calvin, Beza, or Bullinger, but the contrary, as I have shown in Calvin and Beza. As for Bullinger, you had less reason to allege him, seeing that you found him cited together, with the other two, expounding this word honor, as signifying the maintenance due to ministers.

As touching D. Bills: it is strange that you should both accuse me for taking this reason from him, and also charge him with teaching the contrary. In his preface, he saith thus: By no precept nor example will it ever be proved, that Lay-presbyters had in the Apostles times, or should have by the word of God at any time, double honor and maintenance from the Church of Christ. Wherefore they must either give all Lay-Elders double maintenance, as S. Paul willeth, which they do not, or shut them clean from these words, which yield double maintenance, by God's Law to Presbyters that rule well. And to the like purpose he speaketh, in the place by you quoted.

The speech of that worthy learned man, who is highly to be commended for his great learning, good pains, and zealous affection for the maintenance of the truth, whom you vilely and vngraciously abuse, as you do all others that come in your way, be they never so worthy champions of our Church against the Papists, his reproof I say of T. C. for requiring maintenance as due to the Lay-Elders, I have not seen to my remembrance. But this I remember well, that I have read in his treatise of Ecclesiastical discipline, that the Elders whereof the Apostles speak received wages of the Church. But (saith he) the new Aldermen in all Churches where they reign, live upon interest of their own money or goods, and receive no salarie of the Churches.

Neither had he indeed any great reason (in my judgment) to blame T. C. (that I may also come to him) as opposing his judgment to the practice of the reformed Churches. For although he seem to say, that by the Apostles rule such Elders, as be poor, ought to be relieved at the Churches charge; yet it doth not seem to be his judgment, that he would have Lay-Elders maintained at the Churches charge. But this is one of his colors, whereby he would persuade, that the Eldership should rather now be admitted, then in the Apostles times. Because if the Apostle would charge the Churches being in persecution, and therefore poor with maintaining Elders, which being poor, were not sometimes able to live without some relief from the Church, &c: how much more ought there now to be Seniors, when the Churches be in peace, and therefore not so poor, and when there may be chosen such for the most part throughout the realm, as are able to live without charging the Church any whit, as the practice of these days doth manifestly declare. For if it had been his judgment, that Lay-Elders are to be maintained otherwise then for need, he would have argued thus.

But seeing he doth tollere consequence, contradict the consequent, saying, that when the Churches are in peace and prosperity, such a course may and ought to be taken (for that may seem to be his meaning) according to the example of all the reformed Churches, that the Church shall not be charged at all with the maintenance of the Seniors, that is to say, by choosing men of ability who need no relief; it is easy to conclude tollendo antecedens, that his judgment was, that (this rule of the Apostle notwithstanding,) Lay-Elders were not to have maintenance for their works sake, but relief only if they did need.

Of the same judgment is the demonstratour of discipline: for it being objected that the parishes would be overburdened in providing for so many: he answereth, it is not necessary that they should provide for anymore of them, saving those that are exercised in the ministry of the word, unless any of the rest may need the liberality of the Church.

But suppose that this were T. C. judgment, or the opinion of any other among us, who hath conceived a platonicall Idea of discipline which he never saw practiced: were this sufficient to disprove my assertion, who have the confession of the learned reformers in respect of their doctrine, and of the reformed Churches in respect of their practice? Or if this were a sufficient exception against the consent of those which stand for discipline, that someone doth hold a singular opinion by himself; then can their consent be scarcely alleged for any one affirmative point of discipline, every man almost pleasing himself in the novelty of his invention, and in the singularity of his opinion. For plentiful proof whereof, I refer you to the survey of the pretended discipline.

§ 5. His second objection is, that although in practice reformed Churches do not give their Lay-Elders any maintenance, yet this doth not hinder, but that in their judgment they may according to the Apostles rule, esteem them worthy of it.

What a profane mockery is this, to expound the Apostles words, as though he would have the people think they had discharged their duty in esteeming only their Ministers worthy of double honor, when in fact they do not yield them sufficient maintenance. If he were in the ministry (as I know not whether he be or not) and the people should answer him thus: Syr, though we allow you no maintenance as you desire, yet let this content you, that according to the Apostles rule, we count you worthy of double honor: would he not think S. Paul abused, himself deluded, yea and Christ his Lord and master in him to be mocked? Be not deceived saith the Apostle, speaking in this cause, God is not mocked. That which I say of Ministers, is in like manner to be understood of Lay-Elders, if they be included in this text. The words of the Apostle are general, the Presbyters that rule well, let them be counted worthy of double honor. Wherefore let them either acknowledge that the Lay-Elders are not meant in this place, or else teach the people before they admit Lay-Elders, to think themselves bound by the Apostles rule, to yield them double honor, (that is saith T. C. a plentiful reward, such as may be fully sufficient for them and their households) and to yield it willingly & gratefully. For that is the Apostles meaning, when he requireth the Presbyters to be accounted worthy of double honor, not only that this honor of maintenance should be given them, as appeareth by the reasons which he hath annexed; but that the people should give it, not grudgingly, and as it were by constraint of law, as thinking the Ministers not worthy of maintenance: but willingly and gratefully, as esteeming them most worthy of double honor, and thinking it a small matter to give temporal things to them, of whom they receive spiritual. Neither is it to any purpose which he objecteth concerning either

unless he can prove, that order being taken in those Churches for the maintenance of their Elders, which they may readily receive if they will, themselves do voluntarily, and freely refuse it. For if those Elders be comprised under Presbyters in this text, there must the like order be taken for maintenance of all by the Apostles rule, though the painful Preachers are chiefly to be respected.

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

To the like purpose is that which he saith, that I

In which words, first, he wrongfully chargeth me with insulting over those Churches. Secondly, he confuteth himself, who having before denied them to be Lay-Elders, here confesseth they have civil callings, which they may attend upon, as well as our Churchwardens. Thirdly, where he speaketh of the Elders consent in not taking maintenance, it is the consent of obedience to the laws and orders of the Church, such as is in our Churchwardens, who by the like consent have no maintenance. But to leave his words, and to come to the substance of his speech; seeing their pains are not such, but that they may follow their civil callings and worldly business, and seeing they have civil callings to attend upon, and other sufficient means of livelihood, being in all these respects like, if not superior to our Churchwardens, it may not be thought that the Apostle who was desirous the Churches should be eased as much as might be, would require them to give double honor to such, as neither deserved nor needed such maintenance.

And therefore he did not comprise them under the name of Presbyters (which indeed signifieth Priests or Ministers) or if he did, no Church must think it self to have authority to dispense with the Apostle, but must acknowledge it self bound, if it understand Lay-Elders to be comprised in this text, willingly and gratefully to give double (that is sufficient and plentiful) maintenance to them, esteeming them worthy of it for their work sake.

The only thing which is objected by the learned of that side, is that, which I mention in the Sermon: that their Lay-Elders, if they stand in need, are to be maintained. Whereunto I now add, that some of them so understand the Apostle: and I answer, that if he be so understood in respect of Lay-Elders, he must in like manner be understood of Ministers, his speech being general, and favoring the Ministers no more then thus, that as all Elders are to be maintained if they need, so especially Preachers; whom notwithstanding the Apostle would have, according to equity and justice, maintained with an honorable stipend for their work sake, and not only by way of alms to be relieved for their need.

But here the refuter behaveth himself as one that is at a nonplus for reason, and at an overplus for rancor: his words added to the last I cited, be these.

Sure his eyes dazzled, and his wits were to seek. In the survey is not so much as a show of any such objection: neither is it alleged to any other end, but to prove that, whereunto the letter in the margent directed him, that is, that they make choice of such as have no need. But what is it? Is this the sum of the objection? that is senseless, and yet he seems to say so: What then? is it the sum of the answer, or of both? no man that were not at a loss would say it. I profess I have not often read a speech more senseless. To help him out of the maze, and to make him confess that he was at a nonplus, I will explain my words. For whereas some object said I, &c: My meaning was this, the only thing which is objected to disprove my assumption, that to the Lay-Elders the honor of maintenance is not due for their work sake, is this: that Lay-Elders if they stand in need are to be maintained. Which objection hath been made personally to me, I will not say by the refuter, though some think so, for I take that obiector to be an honester man: and that which is objected, is that conceit not only of T. C. the master, and the demonstrator his scholar, but of Danaus also writing on that place: To this objection of their need, I answered first, that it is needless, (as the refuter also in the words following doth censure it) as being prevented by all those reformed Churches where the Presbyters be erected, in which order is taken, that none shall be chosen into the seigniorie, but such as be of good ability. To which purpose I cited the tenth chapter of the Survey: the argument whereof is this. Their Aldermen must be (according to their own positions) men of good calling: and among other things in that chapter, are cited the laws of Geneva, requiring, that all their twelve Lay-Elders should be men of state &c: as I said before.

Secondly, I answered, if they chance to have need (which is a case that happeneth as seldom at the least to them, as to our Church-wardens) and if they be relieved (as our Church-wardens also should in the like case) that then the maintenance which is allowed, is for their need, and not for their work sake. But the Apostle saith, the Presbyters are worthy of double honor, and the workman is worthy of his stipend, &c. As if I had said: the relief which is given to Lay-Elders for their need (if ever that do happen) doth not disprove my assumption, nor prove that they are included in this text. For,

Now let us hear what the refuter addeth to his former words.

here now he speaketh with reason, though without truth. The objection is made by the chief of his side, and is the best (though needless) if not the only objection, they have. My answer is such as you have heard, that is to say, such an answer, as whensoever he meddleth with it, will bring him to a nonplus again: but because I said he speaketh with reason, let us hear his reason. to which I reply: if it were a maintenance in justice due for their work sake, and not a relief given only in charity by way of alms for their need; that then it ought in justice to be given to them, whether they be in need or not. For the workman is worthy of his stipend for his work sake; and willingly it must be given him as deserving it, whether he need or not. For although it be a crying sin, and do offend more against charity to hold it from him if he need: yet it offendeth as much against justice, to withhold the stipend from the workman, that is not in need. The stipend, which Paul appointeth to Presbyters, in respect of their pains in edifying the Church, which is the house of God, is as due in justice to them for their work sake, as the stipend is due to a Carpenter, that buildeth an house. And as it were injustice joined with folly, for a man not to think himself bound to give the Carpenter his stipend, unless he be poor: the like is to be conceived of the stipend denied to Presbyters for their wealth, which is due for their work.

The rest of his speech is uttered in rancor and gall: but the points be these. First, that

In what sense I called it beggarly alms, given only in charity, opposing it to honorable stipend, due in justice, I have already explained. To the second I answer, our Church-wardens, having less trouble, have notwithstanding no less allowance, then your Elders, for they have none at all. And where you say, our Church-wardens are crept into their rooms: you must first prove that ever they had a room in the Church. For we will never grant that our Church-wardens be your Elders successors, till you have proved your Elders to have been their predecessors. And whereas you make yourselves merry with my want of riches, as you did before with my want of preferment; I tell you plainly, I had rather be poorer then M. D. is with a good conscience, then to be as rich as some of you by maintaining a faction, to be maintained by it.

Thus have I maintained my assumption, and the prosyllogisme thereof concerning their confession. Now I will prove by another argument, that the honor of maintenance is not by the word of God due to Lay-Elders, and that the Lay-Eldership is not the ordinance of God, nor hath any warrant in the scriptures. We have often heard great words, that your Presbyterian discipline is an essential note of a true Church, if not an article of your faith; that it is to little purpose to receive the doctrine, unless we also embrace the discipline of Christ, meaning the pretended discipline: that your discipline is the kingdom of Christ, wherein your Presbyters hold, as it were Christ's scepter; that to deny this discipline, & yet to profess Christ to be our King, is with the soldiers that crucified him, to put a Reede in his hand, and a crown of thorns on his head: that in the second petition of the Lord's prayer, Let thy Kingdom come, we are to pray, that your Discipline may be advanced; that the question between the BB. and you, is about no less matter then this, whether Jesus Christ shall be King or no: that in denying your discipline, we are the men that say, Luke 19. We wll not have this man to reign over us: and to us is applied that terrible doom, Those mine enemies that would not have me to reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me: and many such like speeches, concerning the kingdom of Christ, which being applied to your own devices, are not far from blasphemy. These confident speeches considered, a man would think that you have most evident, certain, and undeniable grounds for your Presbyteries. But when I come to examine your proofs, & to search the Scriptures, and records of antiquity; I profess unfeignedly, & in the fear of God, that I cannot sufficiently wonder, that men of reading should approve, & men of sincerity should urge so confidently, and maintain so resolutely, even unto silencing and deprivation, such not only human devices, but mere novelties, as the sacred ordinances of Christ our Savior; for which, after all the search which hath been made, there cannot be produced any sound testimony. But to come to the point: you say, (if you deny my aforesaid assumption,) that to Lay-Elders governing well double honor is due by the word of God, for their work sake. I say, the holy Ghost is so far from assigning this double honor to them, that neither their work, or office it self, for which that honor should be due to them, nor their qualities whereby they should be qualified for that office, nor themselves, or their names, whereby they should be known are once mentioned, or intimated in the holy scriptures.

For first, as touching their office: it is by them assigned, either to their Elders severally, or to the Elder-ship jointly Their duty severally, is to be watchmē in y ^e Church, having their several Wards or precincts appointed to them, wherein they are to observe the manners of men for avoiding offenses, and other occurrence for perverting disorders.

The manners of men they are to inquire into, and to pry into their faults, that if they be secret or small, they may admonish the offenders priu • lie: if opē or great, they may inform the Consistory thereof. And for other occur̄ts, they are to look that good orders be kept, especially respecting the sacraments. As they are to inform their pastor if there be any child in their Warde to be baptized, if there be any in their precinct, lately come into the parish, to acquaint the Minister before the Communion, and at the Communion to keep back those whose religion and honesty is not known, and whom the Ministers have not dealt withal before. Wherefore, as in respect of manners, they are by them compared to the Censors of the Romans, so in respect of good orders, they are as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Athenians.

The joint-office of the Elders, is the office of the whole Presbyterie, or Eldership, Consitory, or sacred Senate, which in the Assemblie of the Elders of the Church, who by common counsel and authority, do rule and govern the same.

For as Lacedemon had her Seignorie, Athens her high court of the Areopagi •• s, Rome, her Senate, and every kingdom their counsel, so every Church, (that is, every parish according, to the new disciplinarians) must have her Presbyterie, or sacred Senate, unto which Christ hath given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whereby is meant all Ecclesiastical power and authority.

This authority respecteth either the Officers of the Church, or the offenders. Officers, as Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons. Concerning whom the Eldership hath authority to elect, ordain, deprive, or depose them.

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

Believe me, if the word of God hath committed these things to the hands of the Elders, then have they an office of great consequence indeed. But if you remember their own positions, that the Word of God doth perfectly describe all the lawful offices of the Church; and that no office or calling in the Church is lawful, but that which is directly warranted out of the Word: yet it was the sin for which Coreh, Dathan, and Abiram were punished, in that they presumed, though they were Levites, to take in hand that for which they had no warrant: then can you not but expect most manifest & pregnant proofs out of the Scripture, directly warranting this whole office, and all the branches thereof. Or if you fail of your expectation, you cannot but wonder at the extreme boldness of them, who holding these positions, impose upon the Church, an office of such authority, not as an human policy, but as the holy ordinance of Christ, having no warrant in the Scriptures.

But what one pregnant testimony of Scripture can they produce, pursuing any one part of their Lay-Elders office? Upon my credit not one. For first a peculiar office, either of spiritual watch-men, the scriptures acknowledge none.

Besides, Prophets, and Priests, or Ministers, or of Censors of men's manners, besides ministers and Magistrates: and much less do the scriptures appoint a peculiar officer to be the accuser of the brethren.

Indeed it is the duty of all good Christians, mutually to exercise the duties of the Communion of Saints, by instructing, exhorting, admonishing, rebuking, comforting one another. And as the Apostle s • ith, to consider or observe on • another, to provoke unto love, and to good works.

We may not be of Cain's mind, who said, Am I my brothers keeper? We are so far to be keepers and observers of our brethren, as by all good means to further and advance the salvation one of another.

The Lord hath charged thee in the Law, freely to rebuke thy brother, and not suffer sin to rest upon him. And likewise in the Gospel, If thy brother sin against thee (either committing an injury against thee, or giving thee offense, by some sin committed in thy knowledge, laying by his evil example, a scandal or stumbling block in thy way,) go and reprous him, privately between thee & him alone, If he hear thee thou hast won thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take yet with thee one or two; if he will not hear them, tell the assembly, &c. But a special Church-officer to prye into other men's faults, such as S. Peter calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the scriptures do not appoint, and much less to inform against, or to accuse private offenders, such as we call Prom • ters, and the Grecians, Sycophants.

As for their dividing of Parishes into Wardes, and awarding them to several Elders, as also all the rest of the offices and duties assigned to their Elders, of acquainting the ministers who is to be Baptized, what new parishioners are come, of helping at the Communion, and repelling some there from, they must and do confess they have no scripture for them: and yet all these duties must be thought to be prescribed in God's word.

To which purpose, the arguments which some of their chief writers do use, are these. First, that although all these things be not specially expressed in scripture, yet forasmuch as offenses must be avoided, and those duties of Charity, and Communion of Saints must be performed, as also those things which appertain to good order provided for: and forasmuch as there are no other officers or Elders to whom the charge of these things should belong; therefore satis vt opinor apparet, haec ad Presbyterorum officium ex verbo Dei referenda esse ; I think it sufficiently appeareth, that these things by the word of God, are to be referred to the office of Elders. Their argument standeth thus.

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

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

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

It seemeth by the proposition, that the Lay-Elders have begged a book of concealmēts, that they may be authorized to deal in all these causes, for which other men have not express commission. But first I deny that the Scripture hath granted them any such concealements. Nay, I most confidently avow, that they themselves are concealed in the Scriptures, which do not once mention them in any place. And therefore, if there be cases omitted, that the Scripture hath not assigned to other Elders or officers; We may think it hath referred them to the wisdom of the Church, and authority of the Sovereign, r ••• er then to them, whom it never mentioneth. Secondly I answer, that there are many necessary duties, the performance whereof the holy Ghost hath not assigned to any public Officers at all, as though there should be special offices appointed for them; but are to be performed by every Christian; as the aforesaid duties which concern the avoiding of scandals, the duties of Charity and Communion of Saints. Likewise, there are duties respecting outward order and decency, which the Scripture doth not prescribe in particular, and much less assign to any peculiar office.

But the determination of these particulars, and the nomination of the functions or persons whereunto they shall be assigned, is left to the discretion of the Church, and authority of the Sovereign.

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

Their second Argument.

This discourse containeth 2. Syllogisms: the

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

Therefore the consequent.

To the assumption of the former Syllogism, I answer, that Lay-Elders are no wheres said in the Scriptures to be Presbyters, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : to govern or oversee, but all those places, which be alleged to this purpose, are to be understood of Ministers only.

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

But the places which he quoteth, are to be understood of Bishops & Pastors. Of Act. 20.28. & 1. Pet. 5. I have already spoken, as also of 1. Thess. 5.12. Why Heb. 13.17. should be applpyed to Lay-Elders, there is no reason; unless whatsoever is spoken of Spiritual governors, is to be understood of them. The Writers, both old and new, expound it of Bishops and Pastors.

The assumption also of the second syllogism is untrue, neither hath it anything to support it, but their own exposition of 1. Tim. 5.17. which I have proved to be false. Neither is that true, which is presupposed in both syllogisms: that there must be two sorts of Elders answerable to the two parts of oversight. For both the parts of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or oversight, belong to those which be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , overseers, that is Bishops and Pastors, whose duty is, both to teach and to govern.

Their third Argument is taken from the practice of the primitive Church next succeeding the Apostles. Which of all their Arguments is most frivolous, there being not any testimony of any writer, or example of any Church to be alleged, that ever there was such an office in the Church.

But howsoever these duties to be performed by the Elders severally, might be borne with, so they were not obtruded as the ordinances of Christ: yet the joint office of their Lay- presbyteryes is intolerable. For what reason can they allege for their intruding into the sacred office of Bishops and Pastors, & usurping the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which our Savior Christ committed to none, but to the Apostles, and their successors? That Lay-men should have authority, and that by the ordinance of Christ, to ordain Ministers by imposition of hands, to remit or retain sins, to excommunicate the obstinate, or to reconcile the penitent, is an opinion too absurd to be confuted.

Thus therefore I reason, according to their own principles. No office in the Church is lawful, as themselves say, which hath not express warrant in the scriptures, which is all one, as if they had said,

The office of the Lay-Elders severally, and of their Elderships yearly, hath not express warrant in God's word:

To their office we will join the consideration of their qualities: for surely, if the holy Ghost had prescribed in the scriptures, an office of such importance, it is to be thought, that he would also have described what manner of men were to be chosen to it, and how qualified for the performance of an office of so high a nature. And although he omitted their qualities in other places, yet me thinks if it be a function that is in dignity under the Minister, but above the Deacon, the Apostle could not have forgotten them, in 1. Tim. 3: where he describeth the qualities, not only of Bishops and Ministers which be above them, but of the Deacons also, which are beneath them; directing Timo 〈◊〉 , and in him all Bishops, what manner of persons to or • a •• Ministers, or Deacons. Forgotten? say they, why, are they not plainly expressed in that place? Yes no doubt, for that is agreed upon among us: For some will needs comprise them under the Bishop or Minister, and fear not to • ay, that they also must be su • modo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, able 〈◊〉 preach after their fashion. Others acknowledge, that they are never comprehended under the name Bishop, and that it is necessarily required of Ministers alone, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , able to preach, especially, in that sense that the Apostle meaneth, as appeareth by comparing that place with Tit: 1.9: yet resolved to find a room for them in that place, and not to suffer them to be excluded, are fain to s • row • e them under the name of Deacons: though the name of Deacon, neither in scriptures, nor Fathers, was ever attributed to them. How they will compound these contrarieties I know not. For if they be comprised under the name Bishop, then are they not to be shrouded under Deacons and if they be contained under Deacons, then are they not comprised under Bishops.

It shall 〈◊〉 me to allege, that forsomuch as the Eldership is in their conceit a different office, both from the Minister and Deacon, that it is comprehended in neither. For who cannot conceive this reason?

All which I will not deny to have been politickely devised, so it may be acknowledged an human devise, and not a divine ordinance. But why are not the margents filled with scriptures for the proof of these things? The truth is, there is not one testimony of scripture to be alleged, prescribing the office, or describing the qualities of Lay-Elders.

But perhaps there may be mention sufficient of them in the scriptures to warrant their calling, though neither their office nor their qualities be described in the word of God. Nor that neither: as shall appear, when I come to answer the refuters allegations for them. In the mean time I will not doubt to renew my former challenge, if they can produce any one pregnant testimony out of the scriptures, whereby it may necessarily be concluded, that either there were at any time, or ought to be at all times in the Church of Christ such Elders and Elderships as they speak of, that then I will yield to them in the whole controversy betwixt us. But until such proof be produced for them, which will never be: they shall give me leave to esteem their doctrine of Lay-Elders, to be, as it is, a mere fiction, how vehemently soever it be urged and obtruded upon us, as the holy discipline of Christ.

And now had we done with this place of the Epistle to Timothy, saving that the refuter looking back to the • enth page of my Sermon, as being loath thus to leave wrangling with my exposition of that text, noted three things to be caviled at, in this one speech, where I say, that Ministers are especially to be honored for their pains in preaching of the word, that being, in Paul's estimation, the chief work of the ministry. For first, he would

. I answer, because it was necessary to be added: for in such comparative sentences, where one part seemeh to be preferred before all the rest, we are not always to understand that part simply to be the chief, but in the estimation of the speaker, who in some respect preferreth it to the rest. As for example, if that you should say, all good Ministers or Preachers are greatly to be honored, especially they, who go before their people in the example of a godly life: I would expound your meaning (as I did the Apostles) to be this, that whereas double honor is due to all Ministers or Preachers, for the performance of their duty in general, 〈◊〉 they are especially to be honored for their godly life, that being in your estimation the chief commendation of a Minister. Or to use the refuters own example, which before I explained: all logicians that reason well, are to be well accounted of, especially they that judge well, or are judicious. In this speech are to be noted, not two sorts, but two duties of logicians; the one general, to reason well, the other, special to judge well, disposed in a comparative sentence, wherein the duties of a logician are thus compared, that whereas logicians are to be esteemed for the performance of their duty in general; yet especially they are to be honored for judging well, that being in the estimation of him that shall so speak, the chief work of a Logician: I say in the estim • i •• of him that shall so speak; for another perhaps would say thus; All logicians that reason well are to be well esteemed, especially those that analise well: another perhaps thus. All good Logicians are to be honored, especially those that are methodical ; another thus, especially those that invent well. In like manner I explain the Apostles speech, as hath been shown before. Answ. The Apostles comparison is to be understood of them which be of the same degree, being Presbyters and no more. Neither was it Paul's meaning, writing to Timothy the Bishop, that any of the Presbyters should have more maintenance then he, (for that is the honor whereof he speaketh) though perhaps they were more painful in preaching, as having better opportunity. It is well known that in the primitive Church, when the revenues of • ach Church were divided into four parts, the Bishop alone had one fourth part, and that was as much as all the Presbyters and all the rest of the clergy (though perhaps there were an hundred of them) had amongst them: For all of them had but another fourth part, a third fourth part went to the buildings and reparations, and the fourth to the poor.

His second cavil,

Answ. In none of those places do I compare preaching with governing, but Bishops with Presbyters, saying and proving that Bishops are superior to Presbyters in the power of ordination and jurisdiction, and that the Bishops are the Apostles successors in the government of the Church. But doth it follow because Bishops are superior to Presbyters, that therefore preaching is a work inferior to government? I trust Bishops are equal at the least with Presbyters in the power of order, as it respecteth the ministry of the word and sacraments, so that what can be said in commendation of the order of Presbyters in respect of the ministry, belongeth also to Bishops. If therefore BB. being at the least equal with Presbyters in the power of order, respecting the ministry of the word and sacraments, be above them not only in the exercise of that power, but also in the power of ordination and jurisdiction; they may, without disparagement to the ministry of the word, be said to be superior to other Ministers.

To your third cavil I might answer as to the first, that the Apostle speaketh to the Bishop of Presbyters, not to a Presbyter; as you do, of Bishops. But indeed our Bishops, as they ought all, so the most of them (as I trust) do think themselves bound to preach, when they have opportunity and leisure in respect of their other weighty employments; in regard whereof I have always thought, that one good Bishop, though he have not opportunity to preach very oft, may do more good in the Church of God, then a dozen good Preachers. So that in these three cauilles the refuter hath gained nothing, but the manifestation of his own malice, which I pray God to forgive him.

CHAP. VII. 〈◊〉 Ambrose • in 1. Tim. 5. • . doth not give testimony to the Lay- 〈…〉 that their exposition of Ambrose is untrue.

IN this allegation the disciplinarians have great confidence: For this testimony of Ambrose saith T.C. is so clear and open, that he which doth not give place unto it, must needs be thought as a Bat, or an Owl, or some other night-bird to delight in darkness. And it is a world to see how the refuter thinking that his cause will be advantaged by this testimony of Ambrose, taketh on like a beggar on horseback, or a coward when he hath gotten his adversary at a supposed advantage. See you not how he braggeth and vanteth, how he crakes and crows, and all for want as of a good spirit, so of a sound judgment, presuming of advantage, where he hath none, as the event will prove.

Concerning this testimony of Ambrose, he findeth fault as well with my manner of alleging, as of discussing it. At the allegation he hath three cauills. First he repeateth his frivolous cavillation concerning the consequence of an argument which he bestoweth upon me: that, if in this place of Ambrose there be no mention of Lay-Elders, then there is none to be found in the fathers writings. Which cavil I have so clearly refuted before, that I think I shall never hear of it more.

The second, that I allege this place not out of Ambrose himself (which is a base slander, for I had Ambrose lying before me) but out of D. Bills. because forsooth I cited the first words (which are not so pertinent, showing the slender occasion whereupon Ambrose uttered this sentence) in english, as D. B. doth: And yet his blind malice would not let him see that I cited the latter sentence in latin, out of the Author, which D. B. allegeth in English. Quod qua negligentia obsolouerit, &c. Which words if I had cited as a chief man of your side doth, you would have charged me, either to have alleged a place which I had never seen, or else notoriously deprived it. Ambrose speaking of this office of the • lders (although, saith he, not upon so good occasion,) thus 〈◊〉 saith, whereupon the Synagogue, and after the Church had Elders without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which Elders I know not by what negligence they are worn out, &c: and again, his saying is that the Elders fell away by the ambition of the doctors. Which allegation the rest, which were but gleaners after him, taking upon his word, have urged, as if the Seniors themselves, of whom Ambrose speaketh, were ceased before his time, inferring thereupon that he meaneth Lay-Elders, because the learned Presbyters still remained in the Church. When Ambrose doth not say, that the Seniors themselves were grown out of use, (for he doth not say, qui qua negligentia ob • oleuerint ) but that (themselves remaining) their counsel was neglected. If it be demanded; why then doth he say habuit ecclesia, the Church had ; I answer because the verb was to have reference both to the Church which had been before his time, and also to the Synagouge, not because the Church had not Seniors still. For Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory are alleged by the disciplinarians themselves, that there were Seniors in the Church long after Ambrose his time.

Thirdly, he cavilleth at the translation of the word docterum, which I rendered learned or Teachers. For which reading, if he had a sound judgment, he would rather have given me thanks. In that translation, as also in the exposition, I intended to give them satisfaction, who (as I thought) were not satisfied with the judgment of our learned men, who by the word doctorum understand Bishops only. For indeed if it be read Doctors or teachers (a title in these times appropriated to Bishops) the allegation out of Ambrose is as easily answered, as alleged, Ambrose his meaning being plainly this; that whereas the Bishops in former times were wont to do nothing of importance without the counsel and advise of certain ancient Ministers, who were his assistants; this was now grown out of use, either through the negligence, or pride of the Bishops. But because I thought it might be objected, that the word may signify the learned as well as Teachers; and so an opposition might be conceived as well of the learned to the unlearned Seniors, as of the Doctors that is Bishops to the Presbyters (who though they were learned were not called Doctors, neither did usually preach) I therefore endeavored so to expound it, as that they, who should so understand this place, might be satisfied, showing that although the word doctorum should signify learned, and although they would gather from thence, that the Seniors which were excluded from consultation were unlearned. And consequently lay men: yet notwithstanding that the speech of Ambrose needeth not to be understood of Lay-Elders. But seeing my adversary, in the profundnesse of his judgment, rejecteth that reading as unlearned and without example, (of which notwithstanding doctorum esto iudicium let the learned judge) I will cleave to that interpretation, which by Doctorum understandeth Doctors or Teachers, as the best, and keep the other in store as a secondary exposition to satisfy them, who by doctorum shall understand the Learned, and thereof infer seeing the learned are blamed for excluding the Seniors, that therefore the Seniors who were excluded, were unlearned. And although my antagonist fighting Andabatarum more and as cowards use to do, winking, smote he saw not what, nor cared what, so as he might deal his blows apace, condemning me in that for which he had cause to thank me: notwithstanding I will acknowledge my thankfulness to him, for handling this matter so well, that in this point he hath left our cause better then he found it. For whereas there being two expositions of this place according to the two significations of the word doctorum, the sentence hath almost no show of probability for Lay-Elders, if doctorum be translated Doctors, but seemeth very favorable to them if doctorum signify the Learned: my adversary, I thank him, hath freed me from the difficulty of the latter, (if his exceptions against it be good) and hath permitted me to rest securely in the former. The reader therefore is not to expect from me an ample defense of that latter sense against his exceptions, which make for us. For if his exceptions be good, and that sense untrue (as he saith,

) then will there be no difficulty at all in answering this testimony of Ambrose, that translation which seemed most to favor Lay-Elders, being rejected.

In discussing this testimony of Ambrose, because it seemeth to make for him, he is content to spend 17. pages: who if it were against him would scarce vouchsafe one line by way of answer.

I have known, when above a dozen testimonies of ancient writers directly testifying that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus (in which number Ambrose was one) the chief patron of the pretended discipline among us, hath refused so much as to examine the allegations, as a thing unworthy the turning of a leaf, and in another place he shaketh off Ambrose thus: As for Ambrose, a child may see how violently he forceth the text, &c. And again, the errors and corrupt expounding of scriptures, which are found in his works, declare, that it had been more safe for the Church, if by study of the scriptures, he had first been a scholar of divinity, or ever he had been made Doctor. And of this authority is Ambrose when he is alleged against the pretended discipline. But if he let fall a speech, which seemeth, and but seemeth to favor their cause, though so impertinent as if it had been foisted in by others, though in a book, wherein besides some suspected, there is apparent corruption, though the testimony it self is mistaken by them, and though their exposition thereof, hath neither scripture to warrant, nor consent of other writers to second, nor good reason to prove it, notwithstanding because they want better evidence, they make so much of it, that eight whole leaves are not sufficient to bestow upon it. Which I mention not that I would have anything detracted from the authority of this testimony, as though it made, against us; but to show, partly the partial dealing of the disciplinarians, and partly the poverty of their cause.

In my handling this testimony, the refuter observeth three things. First, my denial of their exposition with the reasons of my denial. Secondly, a refutation of their proofs. Thirdly, an allegation of reasons (omitted by Ambrose ) why the counsel and assistance of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was grown out of use. In the denial it self, he layeth upon me such an imputation of immodestie, as he did before of unkindness. For although he cannot be against it, but that I may (salua modestia) confute the new writers for their false or wrong expounding Ambrose of Lay-Elders (whom he never so much as dreamed of) yet he cannot abide I should say they wrong Ambrose, though I prove that they wrong him by misconstruing his words, and giving them a wrong sense. And in this nice and idle cavil, for want of better matter, he spendeth almost a leaf, aggravating the accusation by numbering 12. Divines of our time, who understand Ambrose as speaking of Lay-Elders, and alleging that it is more likely that I should mistake him, then they. Indeed if I were alone in this cause, and did oppose my credit alone to their authority, or expected as my adversary falsely accuseth me, like another Pythagoras to be believed upon my bare word: such arrogancy (I confess) would not become me. But he seeth, and (I hope) feeleth, that I say not anything in this controversy, which I do not prove by such reasons, as he doth not know, without sophistical shifts and mere cauills how to answer. If these new writers prove their exposition of Ambrose by any sound reason, why be not their arguments produced? if they speak without reason, why is their bare authority objected against, both so many reasons as have been used to show there never were such Elders, and also against the general consent of antiquity, which never acknowledged any Presbyters or Ecclesiastical Elders, but Ministers only.

Of my denial he acknowledgeth two reasons: which though they were lighter then they be, are of more weight then bare testimonies, especially of parties, who are not to depose in their own cause. Howbeit I acknowledge but one reason, though my speech may be resolved into two Syllogisms, whereof the one is a prosyllogisme to the other: and because he saith, in steed of proving, I do nothing but beg the question, I will resolve the reason of my answer into this Syllogism.

The proposition is manifest. The assumption hath 2. parts, the one that Lay-Elders have no warrant either in scriptures, or in the elder writings of antiquity. The other, that the sense which they give to his words, is against his meaning. The former was proved in my former challenge, that not any one testimony can be produced out of the writings of the Apostles and Fathers, mentioning or meaning any Lay-Elders. The which is a sufficient allegation in a respondent holding the negative, until the opponent by sufficient instance can prove the affirmative. And therefore his cavil in saying, either that

is both an ignorant mistaking (for those words as you see, were not inserted to that end,) and a needless extenuating of Ambrose his testimony, as being such a one, of whom it may be said, that he testifieth that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or other monuments of antiquity. The rest of his words are mere babbling. The latter I prove, by this Reason:

The assumption is thus proved: A Diocesan Bishop, who not only approved, but labored to magnify his own calling, and was as far as any from subjecting either Bishops or Ministers, to the Presbyteries of Lay-men (as the Presbyterians do) would not complain that the council or assistance of Lay-Elders, (such as the Disciplinarians mean) was not used, or charge the Bishops with slothfulness or pride for it:

But such a one was Ambrose:

Therefore he would not complain for want of Lay-Elders, &c.

The proposition if it be explained, will need no further proof. The Elderships of Lay-men, such as the Disciplinarians stand for, 1. were never in use together with Bishops, but either were devised to supply the government of Bishops, when they were depressed, as in Geneva, Scotland, and the Low-Countries, or where orthodoxal Bishops were wanting, as in France, or are urged to extrude Bishops, as among us: 2. in their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of Lay-Elders, all having equal right of Suffrage, and all things being carried by plurality of voices, it is evident that the Ministers, which in parish presbyteries are but one or two at the most, and in others the far less number, are subjected to the Lay-Elders, as being the greater number.

It is manifest therefore, that a Diocesan Bishop, who not only approved but sought to magnify his calling, and was as far as any from subjecting Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men, would not complain of the want of such Elderships.

Now that Ambrose was such a one as I affirm in the assumption, I will manifestly prove in answering the refuters cauills. For he (as being led with a spirit of contradiction) after his usual manner, granteth neither proposition nor assumption, nor any one branch of them to be true. Which course (me thinks) should discredit him with all indifferent Readers, who may discern him to write, not out of conscience, but out of a resolution to cavil and contradict: especallie, if they consider that hitherto (though he would scarcely grant anything to be true that I had said: yea, in his preface avowed, that I have scarce uttered one true word) yet he hath not been able to prove any one thing which I delivered to be false. And such will his success be in the rest.

That he might fit this Argument to his own strength, he hath cast it (as his manner is) into a connexiue syllogism: For it is an easy thing to frame a connection, & when he hath done to deny the consequence. But yet belike this consequence was too strong for him to deal with, whiles the Medium consisting of 3. branches, was bound together: therefore he dissolveth it, taking every branch by it self, endeavoring like a gross headed Sophister, to persuade the Reader, that because he can bow every twig severally: therefore the whole bundle or fagot is weak. For the 3. branches being joined together, as they are in the proposition, the conscience of the Reader will I (doubt not) give testimony to the manifest truth of the proposition, understood as I explained it. But though it be to no purpose, if he can bend & break the branches severally, yet we will try his dealing that way: and what he weakeneth by dissolving, I will strengthen by uniting. And first, he saith, this consequence is naught:

(understand who magnified his own calling, and could not abide that Bishops or Ministers should be subjected to the censures of Lay-men) , (he should have said, then would he not have complained of the want of Lay-Elders, who were never thought to be wanting, where Bishops were thought to be lawful.

And why? because D. Whitgift was a Bishop, yea an Archbishop; and D. K. would be a Bishop, and yet both give testimony to Lay-Elders. Because D. Whitgifts grant is oft laid in our dish, the Reader is to know, First, that he denieth Lay-Elders could be proved out of the scriptures. Secondly, he granteth they had been in use as Calvin & others had testified, taking it upon their credit, being loath either to contradict those famous learned men, or to impeach the credit of those Churches where the Presbyteries were erected. Which course of not contradicting them had still been held, if the Elders had not been obtruded as Christ's ordinance, to extrude those, who (in respect of their first institution), were ordained of God. Thirdly, B. Whitgift was so far from complaining of the want of Lay • Elders, that he was a chief instrument of God under the Prince to keep them out.

The testimony, which D. K. giveth to your Lay-Elders, appeareth by his Sermon: where, for confuting your Presbyteries, you say he spitteth out much poison against these Elders, and spendeth much gall upon them. God grant the poison of Asps be not under your lips, and that yourself be not in the gall of bitterness, who so virulently & bitterly use to rail on men of so good note in God's Church. But his testimony concerning your Elders, is so far from complaining of the want of them, as that he doth not only say, but also prove at large, that there never were, nor yet do need to be such. Only you catch hold of his exposition of Ambrose his speech, which as he saith, may well be understood of Elders in years, experience, and gravity, having some temporary commission to assist in ordering the Church, but not such as your Lay-Elders. It is very true, that although Seniores or Presbyteri, be a name of order, signifying Ministers and Priests; yet according to the original signification thereof, it is used by Tertullian, and here by Ambrose, (as appeareth by the occasion of his words) as opposed to the Iuniores of the Clergy. And so not only Luther understandeth the word as you heard before, but Ambrose so speaketh else-where: showing that it was not needful that the Iuniores, the younger men of the Clergy should go to the houses of Widows, and Virgins but only to visit them, & hoc cum senioribus and that with the Seniors or elder sort of the Clergy, that is with the Bishop or with the Presbyters, if there be great cause.

Secondly, he rejecteth this consequence: if Ambrose did labor to magnify the calling of Bishops, then was it not his meaning, &c: for saith he

These examples, unless they had been better fitted, are to little purpose. If he could have said, A Monarch laboring not only to justify but to magnify the royal calling, and not enduring that Monarchs and Princes should be subjected, either to the Senate or people, would notwithstanding complain that the state is not either Aristocratical or popular, he had fitted the example, though he had spoken untruly; For if Suetonius and Tacitus had been Emperors and such as did magnify the Monarchical government and could not abide either that the common-wealth should be ruled by the multitude, or themselves over-ruled of the greater part of the senate, then would they not complain that the government was not Democratical, or Aristocratical. But thus he might have said both fitly and truly. As a good king mislyking that some of his predecessors had managed all things without the advise of their senatours, might cōplain, that through their pride or temerity the advise of the senators was neglected: so Ambrose a good Bishop, seeing the Bishops not to regard the advise of their ancient Presbyters, that is Ministers, as it were their senatours, without whose advise nothing of importance was wont to be done in the Church, might also complain that their counsel and assistance was grown out of use through the slothfulness or pride of the Bishops. As for Samuel, if either the state before was Monarchical, or if he had magnified the Monarchical government of the Jews when Saul was set over them, he had had little reason to complain for the altering of that government into a Monarchy. But the state before had been Monarchical, neither did Samuel magnify the Monarchical government when Saul was set over them. For until Saul, God himself was the Monarch of the Jews, retaining iura Maiestatis the right of sovereignty in his own hands, chiefly in prescribing them laws, and in appointing their chief magistrates and governors, especially the judges whom he set over them to be as kings for a time. But when the people would needs have a king, after the manner of other nations; the Lord saith to Samuel, they have not rejected thee, but me have they rejected, that I should not reign • over them. And so far is Samuel from commending the government of the ear • hly King, in comparison of the Celestial; that describing unto them the fashion of their future king, he telleth them, that whereas before, God did rule them by his will and by his own laws only, they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure, which would not prove very pleasant to them, as he showeth by many particulars.

§ Sect. 8. As touching the third branch, he saith the

. If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subjected to Lay-persons, then would he not complain that Lay-Presbyters were out of use. But say I, where the far greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men, as always it hath done according to the practice of Geneva, and always would do according to the new Parish-discipline, it cannot be avoided, but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subjected to the far greater number of Lay-Elders; especially, if they (according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians) may be perpetual. But whether these three branches severally do infer a necessary consequence or no, it is not material, seeing they were jointly propounded, and seeing from them united a necessary consequence dependeth. Wherefore the severing of them to weaken the consequence, and to breed matter of cavil, was a sophistical, if not a lewd trick. The leaudnes whereof will the better appear, if we consider his dealing with the assumption: for he, that having severed the branches of the proposition, exacted from everyone severally a necessary consequence: in the assumption, he will have them all taken together. For before he taketh the assumption in pieces, meaning to cavil with every part severally, he useth this Caution: Provided always, and be it remembered of the Reader, that if any one of the three parts thereof prove false, though the other two be never so true, the whole assumption is in law of true reason, utterly void and of none effect: But if in the proposition I be urged to make good the consequence from each part severally, the assuming of any one part will conclude the question. As thus: If I must be forced to maintain this consequence, If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop, then would he no • complain of the want of Lay-Elders: it will be sufficient to assume thus, but he was a Diocesan Bishop, to conclude, that therefore he would not complain of the want of Lay-Elders. It is true, that it is required in my assumption, as I propound it, that every branch must be true: but the reasō hereof is, because they were joined in the proposition to make good the consequence. For if they be severally propounded in the proposition, they may also severally be assumed in the assumption. Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence, himself is to be charged with a bad conscience.

But come we to the assumption, with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus. Ambrose saith M. D. was a Dioces • n Bishop. Was he so indeed? Had he not only supreme, but 〈◊〉 authority (as our BB: have) over (I know not how) many hundreds of Ministers, in causes Ecclesiastical? Was he an absolute Pop lin • indeed?

Can a man of a sincere conscience professing (as themselves term it) the cause of sincerity, be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is utterly ignorant? or rather can a man that taketh upon him the defense of this controversy, as a chief champion of the pretended discipline, and one (I doubt not) of the chief challengers of the Bishops, to dispute with them in these causes, be ignorant, that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop? doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least, and can he thus deny it, and keep his conscience sincere? well, though the task be all one, as if I should be required to prove that the Bishop of London, or rather the Archbishop of York, is a Diocesan Bishop: yet seeing my learned adversary denieth it, and pretendeth some reason of his denial: I will first prove, that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B: and for the greatness of his authority, and largeness of his jurisdiction, comparable with ours; and in the second place, I will answer his reasons.

First therefore you are to be advertised, that Mediolanum Millaine, whereof Ambrose was Bishop, not only is a Metropolis, or seat of a Metropolitan, but was both in and before Ambrose his time. Strabo saith it was a Metropolis, wherein the governor of the province of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence. Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it also is a mother city of Italy. It is also evident and a thing confessed by Beza that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses & provinces, was framed according to the division of the Dioceses and Provinces under the Roman Empire.

Ambrose himself was a man of consular dignity in Rome, and being appointed governor of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine. Where keeping his residence, it fell out that Auxentius the Bishop being dead, and the Emperor Valentinian having assembled (as the manner) was for the choice of a Metropolitan ) the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum & consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus.

The honor and sublimity Episcopal cannot be matched with any comparison: if you compare it with the excellency of Princes and civil Magistrates, you shall compare gold with lead. As for the people, the Episcopal function hath not only obtained to be preferred before them, but also is enjoined by Evangelical precepts with fatherly authority to govern them: for they, as the sheep of Christ, are committed to BB. as to rulers, who together with Peter received that authority to govern them, &c. Again, these things I have spoken saith he, to show that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops.

For his deeds, consider his repelling of Theodosius the Emperor from entering into the Church, until he had testified his repentance: his not permitting him to remain within the Chācell, alleging that it was a place peculiar to the Clergy, (which favor when Nectarius the Bishop of Constantinople would have granted to him, Theodosius professed that he had with much a do learned the difference between an Emperor and a Bishop, adding, that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth. Ambrose is the only man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop ) his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith, in the Emperors Consitory, when Valentinian the younger had sent for him, contrary to a law made by his Father Valentinian, protesting that he would rather loose his life, then by his yielding, the honor of Bishops should be diminished. Non tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deijciat sacerdotium, non tanti est vnius vita, quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum: his refusal to deliver up the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperor Valētinians commandment, professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperor, but the Churches to the Bishop. His other doubt is,

here was a knot sought in a bullrush: seeing my meaning is evident, that Ambrose labored as much as any of the ancient approved Fathers. And that he did so, it is already sufficiently manifested. Ambrose & others thought it needful, that a presbytery of grave & ancient ministers, should with their counsel & advise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt (as D. Bilson saith) of danger and importance, when as yet nether Synods could assemble, nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church. But this, as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders: so doth it no more detract from the dignity of Bishops, to use the counsel of wise and learned men; then it doth derogate from the Majesty of Kings, to use the advise of their wise & faithful Counselors.

There remaineth the third branch. Wherevnto, besides his railing against our Bishops for subjecting Ministers to their Chancellors, Commissaries, and Officials, which are but lay-men, he answereth only

There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians. Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers; they, of Lay-Elders.

Ambrose, of an assistance to advise and direct, such as is the advise of Counsellers to a Prince; they of an assistance to overrule, as in the Roman Senate, by plurality of voices, giving their Bishop not so much as one negative voice, Ambrose therefore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop: they an assistance of Lay-Elders, subjecting the Bishops to them. Neither should they of all men rail against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors, &c. seeing it is not so intolerable, that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the laws, and that so far only as the B. shall think fit, as that they should not only be overruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most country-parishes, but also stand to the courtesy of them and their neighbors, to be deposed and deprived at their pleasure.

Now, how far Ambrose was from subjecting BB: or Ministers in causes Ecclesiastical, to the Consistories of Laymen, may appear, first, by his sentence given against Palladius, the Arfian. Bishop, in the Council of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answer, but before some honorable persons of the Laity, who were at hand. Ambrose answered, Priests or BB. ought to judge of Lay-men, and not Lay-men of Priests.

And again, though he be found guilty of many impieties, notwithstanding we are abashed, that he which challengeth Priesthood to himself, should seem to be condemned of Lay-men. And therefore forasmuch as herein he is to be condemned, who expecteth the sentence of Lay-men (seeing rather priests ought to judge of Laymen) according to those things which today we have heard Palladius professing, and according to those things which he refused to condemn. I pronounce him (saith Ambrose) unworthy of Priest-hood. But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperor, wherein he refuseth to be tried, as his adversary Auxentius desired, in the Emperors Consitory: alleging, that his Father Valentinian had by Law provided, that in the cause of faith, or of any Ecclesiastical order, he ought to judge qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: who is neiher in function unequal, nor in right unlike ; that is, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare: He would have BB: (for them ordinarily he meaneth by Sacerdotes ) to judge of BB: or Priests. Yea, moreover (saith he) if a Bishop were otherwise called into question, and the cause of manners were to be examined, even this also would he (that is, Valentinian the Father) have to belong to Episcopal judgment. When did you ever hear most gracious Emperor, that Lay-men in a cause of faith judged of BB: Are we therefore so bowed with flattery, that we forget the right of BB? And that I should think what God hath given me, is to be committed to others? If a Bishop must be taught of a Lay-man what to follow, let the Lay-man dispute, and let the Bishop hear, let the B: learn of the Lay-man. But surely if we call to mind either the tenor of holy Scriptures, or ancient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of Faith, In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare: You shall one day (if it please God) come to ripe years, and then you will be able to judge. Qualis ill Episcopus sit, qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut! What a Bishop he is, that subjecteth the right of Bishops to Lay-men. Your Father being through God's goodness of ripe years, said, Meum non est: I am not able: (For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence, Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse Iudicij) to judge among BB. & doth your Grace now say, I ought to judge ; would Ambrose condemn such a Bishop as should subject the right of BB. to Lay-men, and would he allow of such prerbyteries of Lay-men as intrude upon the right of BB: yea which are urged to extrude BB? could he not endure that a B. or minister should be judged in causes Ecclesiastical by the consistory of the Emperor, because it consisted of Lay-men; and would he allow a B. or minister should be judged, yea deposed and deprived by a parishional consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men? doth he commend the good Emperor that said he was unable to judge among Bishops; and would he allow of private men, unlearned, and unacquainted with government, as competent Judges in causes Ecclesiastical?

And thus much of my denial of their exposition of Ambrose, made good by sufficient proof.

CHAP. VIII. The proof of their Exposition of Ambrose, disproved, and the reas • os which I alleged, why the Counsel of the Seniors, was neglected, defended.

T Heir Argument is here such, as in this question of Lay-Elders, perpetuallie they use in all their proofs, of Scriptures, and Fathers, that is, from the genus to the species: yea, to a fancied, or feigned species, affirmatively. As if they should say, he is a Magistrate, therefore a Constable, an ancient Cittizen, therefore an Alderman, or rather thus: It is a man, therefore the man in the moon. I see a ship, therefore it is Argo. Like the wise man of Athens, who standing in Pyraeo on the key there, said every ship he saw was his. Sauing that he was somewhat wiser, because he had a ship at the Sea: These men's ship, doth swim in their own brains.

So strong is their fancy, as we shall hear, that when either Christ saith, Tell the Church, that is, as themselves expound it, the rulers of the Church, they strongly conclude, therefore tell Lay-Elders : or Luke that Paul and Barnabas, ordained Presbyters, ergo, Lay-Elders, or James, is any sick, let him send for the Presbyters, ergo, for Lay-Elders: or Paul he that ruleth, Mark how he speaketh of a ruler, therefore of a Lay-Elder: God hath appointed gouernements, therefore of Lay-Elders: or Ignatius be subject to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Christ, ergo, to Lay-Elders: or Tertullianus, Certain approved Seniors be presidents, &c: ergo, Lay Elders: or Jerome we have a Senate of Presbyters, Ergo, of Lay-Elders. And that no man should live in fear of the great strokes, which this great champion hath threatened, let him understand, that these be all the strokes that he will strike, when his turn of striking cometh.

To this argument, and all the rest, I answer by denying the consequence, which is so bad, as the refuter is loath to Father it; and yet neither in this, nor in any other of their testimonies, they have or can make no better.

meaning, as it seemeth, the reason of the answer, which was this: for even the Synagogue had Seniors of the Priests, as well as of the people. My reason may thus be explained: But the antecedent is true in both the parts of it:

Therefore the consequent:

The consequent of the proposition is necessary: for an argument from the genus to the species, doth not hold affirmatively. Genus saith Fabius, ad probandum speciem minimū valet, plurimum ad refellendum, the general is of no force, to prove the special affirmatively, though it be of great force to disprove it, if you argue from it negatively. As for example, it followeth no • , because it is a tree, that therefore it is a plane tree. It is not necessary, saith y ^e Philosopher that what is affirmed of the genus, should also be affirmed of the species.

As touching the assumption: the former part, viz: that the Church had seniors, which were ministers, I took for granted, because either all those places of Scriptures and Fathers as I say, or at least some, as my adversary will confess, where Presbyters be named, Ministers are understood.

The second part I prove out of Ierem: 19.1. where the Prophet is commanded to take with him some, not only of the Seniors of the people, but also of the Seniors of the Priests, that is, men of authority as well of the Ecclesiastical state as of civil.

Which words, though the refuter understand as I do, as proving, not that the Jews had an Eccclesiasticall Senate, consisting partly of the Priests, and partly of the Elders of the people (for of such a presbytery, though there be much talk, yet there is no proof) but that in the Jewish state there were as well Seniors of the priests, as Seniors of the people: notwithstanding the seely Philosopher, would fain make the Reader believe, that I confess (which most confidently I do deny) that in the Church of the Jews, there was an Ecclesiastical Eldership, consisting both of the priests and Seniors of the people: and thereupon would infer, that this testimony maketh me:

First for Ambrose: he doth not speak of Eldership, either among Jews or Christians; but showeth, that because both the Jews and Christians had Seniors, this is an Argument, that age is honorable, seeing that ancient men were of authority, both among the Jews, who had Seniors as well in the Ecclesiastical as civil state, and also among Christians.

Now, to infer from hence, that either the Jews or Christians had an Ecclesiastical senate consisting in part of Lay-Elders, is a vain collection. For if by Synagogue is meant the state of the Jews (they might have) as indeed they had) a Senate consisting of Priests and Levites, and chief of the people; but that was not an Ecclesiastical Senate, as hereafter shall be shown, but their chief Counsel of state▪ • f by Synagogue, you understand only y ^e ecclesiastical state of the Jews ; in that, there were no other seniors, but of the Clergy of Israel.

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

Besides, can any man that doth not willfully pervert my meaning, understand me to speak of any, but the Seniors of the priests, saying, & of such Ambrose speaketh, when he saith, in the Church, or Church-causes, nothing was don without their consent.

But it may be, that your former consequence may be confirmed, if the testimony of Ambrose be better pressed upon us, to which purpose I say in the Sermon: If it be said that Ambrose speaketh, &c.

Let him therefore, for his honesty and credits sake, show the Reader where this testimony of Ambrose is thus urged. In the mean time, the Reader shall understand these 2. things

First, that the disciplinarians, knowing that their proofs out of Scriptures and Fathers, will not necessarily conclude for them, if they should seem to enforce them by discourse: Therefore they use this poor policy, to hold them out, (as it were Mineruaes shield, as if they were so pregnant, that they need not to be urged, but the very naming of them were sufficient to put us to silence.—

They think it therefore, their best course, in all their writings almost to take it for granted, that their discipline is the very discipline and kingdom of Christ, their presbytery, the very ordinance of Christ: and when they should prove it, as they would seem most sufficiently to do, they hold out a few places of the Scriptures and Fathers, barely quoted, being so far from urging them, as that for the most part, they do not so much as cite the words: (thus in the book of H. I. dedicated to the King. 1604. urging a reformation after the new-cut. Thus in the protestation that came out of the North, made in the year 1606. and printed Anno 1608. Thus in this worthy work of the refuter, as after you shall hear, when he cometh to deal his blows) thinking belike that the very naming of such witnesses will sufficiently, if not daunt us, yet satisfy their simple followers, who are too easily led with shows.

The other thing is, that I have urged this testimony for them, and (to speak the truth) have enforced it better, and made it stronger for them, then ever they made it, or have yet the wit to conceive.

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

The one, as it signifieth Learned, and is a common title to the Bishops and Presbyters: the other, as it signifieth Doctors or Teachers, and was a title in those times peculiar to the BB. as shall be proved. The former of these, which seemeth more to favor the Lay-Elders, my adversary doth reject, & insisteth in the latter. But he doth not show (as me thinks he should) how this testimony then will conclude for Lay-Elders. It was sufficient for him, to contradict me, though he left his cause in w • rse case then he found it. For my part, I am so far from this spirit of contradiction, that I do agree with him in preferring the latter exposition, which by Doctorum, understandeth Doctors, before the other.

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

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

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

For the clearing of this matter, I will briefly show these four things.

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

For the first: After that Arius, being a Presbyter, had poisoned the Church with his heresy; the Presbyters or Ministers, were in many Churches restrained from preaching. So that the Bishops, who before were the principal, in Ambrose his time, they were almost the only Teachers; and for this cause the name of Doctors was appropriated unto them. And this is so clear a case, that the Bishops in those times were in a manner the only Doctors; that therefore thought the Presbyters, which are mentioned in the Fathers, to have been no Ministers, because he perceived they were no Teachers, and for this cause commendeth the decree of the Church of Alexandria, that the Presbyters should no more teach, and preferreth the African Churches before others, for that the same order was observed therein. As touching Alexandria, Socrates reporteth that Presbyters do not preach there, & Sozomen that the Bishop alone of the city doth preach. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Both of them assigning the heresy of Arius to have been the original occasion of that custom.

Concerning the use of the African Churches saith T. C. until Augustine's time, that one testimony is more then sufficient, whereby is affirmed that Valerius B. of Hippo did contrary to the custom of the African Church, in that he committed the office of teaching unto Augustine who was an Elder of that Church, and that he was checked therefore of the Bishops, checked I say, notwithstanding that Valerius is there declared to have done it for support of his infirmity, because himself was not so apt to preach. To conclude, his conceit is, that not the Presbyters mentioned in the Fathers and by him translated Elders, but the Bishop only had right to preach, the other but by indulgence or by commandment. In those times therefore the Bishops alone were called Doctors 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 at the least: for further proof whereof, if you expect some other testimony either of Ambrose, or of others in that time, you may have recourse to his book of offices, and to the Council of Carthage. Ambrose therefore saith, that the Bishop must not be offended, if either a Presbyter or Deacon, or any other of the Clergy do by mercy, fasting, integrity, learning or reading obtain great estimation. Gratia enim ecclesiae laus Doctoris est, for the grace of the Church is the Doctors that is the Bishops praise. But if any do not obey the Bishop and desiring to advance himself, seeketh a • counterfeit affectation of learning, humility, or mercy, he is lifted up with pride going astray from the truth. In the Council of Carthage it was decreed, that the people which never had a Bishop of their own, should not have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Doctor or Teacher of their own, that is a Bishop: for so is the title of that chapter, that the parts of the Diocese without the consent of the Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not receive another Bishop.

But hereupon we may not infer with T. C. that therefore the Presbyteri mentioned in the Councils Fathers and histories of the Church, were no Ministers; or that by the word of God they had nothing to do with the word and Sacraments. Far be it from us so to think, for nothing is more evident, then that they were Ministers.

The Fathers knew no Lay-Presbyters, nor Lay-Deacons no more then Lay-Bishops; but reckoned these three, for sacred or consecrated persons, calling them three degrees of the Clergy; the Bishop, answering to the high Priest; the Presbyters, to the Priests; and the Deacons, to the Levites. For proof whereof, there are almost as many evidences in the Canons of the councils, as there be leaves.

But that it may most clearly appear, that the Presbyters were Ministers, I will prove it first by their name, Secondly by their office, thirdly, by some laws that peculiarly concerned them. For their name: as they are most usually called Presbyters, so oftentimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Sacerdotes and these names confounded with Presbyteri, that is, Priests. In the Council of Carthage continency is committed to Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, as it becometh holy Bishops, Priests and Levites. Tertullian reproving the disorder of Heretics saith, among them, hodie Presbyter qui cras laicus, nam & laicis Sacerdotalia munera iniungunt, he is today a Presbyter who tomorrow is a lay-man: for even to lay-men do they enjoin priestly functions.

Cyprian speaking of Numidiuns to be chosen a Presbyter saith he was reser • ed that God might add him to our Clergy, and that he might adorn the decayed store of certain Presbyters with glorious Priests. And more plainly in another place he saith that the Presbyters are joined with the Bishops in priestly honor. Dionysius termed the Areopagite, instead of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, into which three he distinguisheth the Clergy, useth the names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Presbyters, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Deacons. Sozomen also calleth them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is Priests, Isidorus, those who in the Old Testament were called Sacerdotes, are they who who are called Presbyteri. And then he setteth down their office. That to them is committed the dispensation of divine mysteries, they rule the Church, and in the consecration of the body and blood of Christ are partners with the Bishops, as also in teaching the people and office of preaching. The Ancient Council of Ancyra permitting the Presbyters (who having once sacrificed, did after refuse) to retain their place; notwithstanding suspendeth them from the exercise of their function in these respects, forbidding them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : to offer the communion, to preach, or to minister in any part divine service.

The learned Author of the unfinished work which goeth under the name of Chrysostom by the servant which received five talents and gained other five, understandeth a Presbyter sent of God, whom he calleth sometimes Teacher and sometimes Priest: and showeth how by his five talents he gaineth other five: that is, by the knowledge of Christ as a talent committed to him, a godly life; by the office of a Presbyter the careful government of the Church: by the word, the sincere preaching of the word of truth: by baptism, the begetting of worthy children to the Church: by the sacrifice; the offering of an holy and immaculate sacrifice for the people, and making intercession for their sins.

More particularly for the ministry of the Sacraments, the Council of Laodic • a determined that those which returned from the heresy of the Cataphrygians, though of the Clergy among them, though supposed great men, must with all diligence be instructed and baptized either of the Bishops or Presbyters of the Church. Tertullian saith, the chief Priest which is the Bishop hath right to give baptism, then Presbyters & Deacons, &c. In the Canons called the Apostles & in diverse Councils it is presupposed that to Presbyters it belongeth to administer the communion In the Council of Nice the Deacons who are there said to have no power to celebrate the Communion, are forbidden to deliver it to the Presbyter who hath power, but must receive it either at the Bishops or Presbyters hands. To omit other of the Fathers, doth not Jerome expressly testify, that the Presbyters prayers, the body and blood of Christ are consecrated. For the Leiturgie or saying of divine service, it is reckoned among the functions both of Presbyters and Deacons, and such Presbyters or Deacons as without the consent of their Bishop do remove to other Churches and refuse to return when they are called by their B. are forbidden 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to minister or serve anymore.

As for the ministry of the word; though Presbyters were for a time by reason of Arius his fall restrained from preaching, yet both before and after they were allowed to preach. Among their functions, as you heard, the Council of Ancyra reckoneth preaching. The 58. Canon of the Apostles so called, requireth them to instruct not only the laity, but the Clergy also. Ignatius requireth them to feed the flock. Origen testifieth, that all BB. and all Presbyters or Ministers erudiunt nos, do instruct us, &c. Basil saith, that to them and to Deacons, in committed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the preaching of the Gospel. Calvin speaking of the primitive Church, saith, it was the duty in those times of the Bishop, as well as of the Presbyters, to apply themselves to the ministry of the word and Sacraments, Chrysost. having affirmed that there is no great difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter rendereth this reason, for they also have received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 authority to teach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & government of the Church, and what things the Apostle hath said concerning Bishops, do agre • also to Presbyters. In them therefore it is required that they should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 able to preach as most plainly appeareth by comparing that place with Tit. 1.5 7.9. Socrates reporteth that in Cesarea of Cappadocia, and in Cyprus on the Saterdaies and Lord's days in the evening 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Presbyters and B B. expound the scriptures.

§ Sect. 5. As touching the custom of Alexandria, in restraining the Presbyters from preaching, he saith, that it began after Arius troubled the Church: and Sozomen likewise, that it was not the custom before Arius being a Presbyter by his preaching broached his new opinions. And this is most plainly testified by Epiphanius, who saith that Arius was a Presbyter in Alexandria 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who was Rector of the Church called Baucalis, for all the Catholic Churches, saith he in Alexandria are under one Archbishop, and to them severally are assigned Presbyters: whereof when he had named some, he saith in one of these was Colluthus, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, & Arius in another. Now it is manifest, that everyone of these at their accustomed meetings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 teaching the people committed to their charge in their Sermons, made division in the people, whereof some inclined to Arius, othersto Colluthus, some to Carpones, others to Sarmatas. And as they taught diversely in their several Churches, someone thing, some another: so the people called themselves, some Arians, some Colluthians, &c.

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

And that was it which both Valerius granted to Augustine being a Presbyter potestatem coram se in Ecclesia Euangelium predicandi power to preach the Gospel in the Church himself being present, contrary to the use and custom of the African Churches, and also nonnulli Episcopy not all, but some Bishops found fault with. Whose reprehension Valerius regarded not, because he knew it was the custom in the East Churches (as appeareth by Chrysostom's homilies at Antioch. ) And some other Bishops, (even Aurelius himself the Bishop of Carthage, ) were so far from finding fault with Valerius, that they followed his example. Insomuch that some other Presbyters having received the like power, began to preach the word to the people Coram Episcopis in the presence of the Bishops. But that so learned a man as T. C. should be so transported with prejudice as to think that Augustine was a Lay-presbyter I cannot sufficiently wonder, especially, considering that Valerius, when he had ordained him Presbyter, rejoiced and gave thanks to God, who had heard his prayers in sending such a one, as might, verbo Dei & doctrina salubri Ecclesiam Dei aedeficare edify the Church of God, with the word of God and wholesome doctrine. Jerome such another Lay-Presbyter no doubt) though he grant that the Presbyters may not celebrate the Communion in the presence of the Bishop standing at the Altar (for so his words are Nec ego dico presentibus Episcopis, &c: though in Gratian it be corruptly written. Ecce ego dico ) yet he saith, it was a very bad custom in some Churches that Presbyters might not preach in the presence of Bishops. And such was the custom of the Church of Rome as appeareth by Leo who denieth it to be lawful for Presbyters in the presence of the Bishop unless he command them either to administer the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ or to teach the people, &c.

The Council of Vaux, held not long after Ambrose his time, decreed for the edification of all Churches, and for the profit of the whole people, that not only in cities, but also in parishes the Presbyters should have power given them to preach. And if by any infirmity the Presbyter were hindered, so that he could not preach by himself, that then the Deacon should read some homily of the Fathers.

To conclude, it seemeth strange to me, that they, who out of the Fathers would prove the Presbyters to be equal to the BB. in power of order, as indeed they are, excepting the power of ordination, (for as Jerome saith, excepting ordination, what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter may not do,) equal I say in the ministry of the word and Sacraments, should deny they were Ministers; or that to preach or to administer the Sacraments did not belong to them by reason of their office. Ambrose saith of a Presbyter and Bishop there is one order, vterque enim sacerdos est, for either of them is a Priest.

There remain the laws and discipline peculiar to Presbyters as being of the sacred ministry: As for example, that Presbyters and Deacons should not be chosen ex plebe out of the people or laity but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of the sacred order or Clergy. That as in the Counsel of Nice it was attempted, so in some others concluded, that Presbyters and Deacons should lead a single life; that he which had married a widow, or was the husband of a second wife, might not be a Presbyter. That they might not take upon them worldly business, not so much as Gardianship; that they might not remove from city to city, or from one Church to another, without the leave of the Bishop; that they might not go into a Tavern, and such like.

It is therefore most evident, that howsoever the Bishops were called the Doctors, yet the Presbyteri also were Ministers. Neither can any one instance be given of a Presbyter either in, or before or after Ambrose his time, who was not a Minister. For howsoever T. C. affirmeth, that this Eldership of theirs continued in the Church diverse hundred years after Ambrose his time (which doth not well agree with his exposition or reading of Ambrose ) yet being challenged by D. Whitgift to show any one testimony, and avouching that he could not produce any one, he answereth thus: The next I leave to the Readers judgment.

For the third: there was great necessity that the Bishops in the primitive Church, when they had neither the assistance of the Magistrate, nor direction of Ecclesiastical laws, should use the Council and assistance of wise and learned men. For which cause, Cyprian, to avoid both oversights in himself and offense in others, resolved to do nothing of moment without the common council, and advise of his Clergy, and for the same cause was Chrysostom accused 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that without the Presbytery and without the consent of his Clergy he made ordinations.

And that Presbyters were wont to hear causes, and to assist the B. it appeareth by the testimonies, first of Ignatius who calleth the Presbytery the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or consistory of God, a band of Apostles, and the Presbyters the Counselors, and Coassessors of the Bishops. 2. of Tertullian, president probati qui{que} seniores the approved Seniors be praesident. Thirdly of Clement in his epistle to James, translated by Rufinus, & cited by Gratian, if any of the brethren have Saints let them not be judged by secular Judges, sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur, but before the Presbyters of the church let the cause be decided, & to their determination let the parties stand. Fourthly of Jerome, Presbyters, saith he (meaning ministers whom he also calleth Priests, and attributeth to them the ministry of the word and Sacraments) from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes, &c.

And to the same purpose the Authors of the centuries testify, that the Presbyters besides that they taught the people, did also compound suites and controversies.

Now that their advise was much neglected, and themselves but too much dejected by the Bishops in Ambrose his time, appeareth not only by his, but also by Jerome's complaint.

Likewise, by diverse Canons in the fourth council of Carthage, held about the year 401 wherein it was decreed, that the Bishop without the assembly of his clergy, should not ordain clerks: & that in the ordination of a presbyter, the Presbyters also, which be present, should with the Bishop impose their hands: that the B: should not determine any man's cause, but in the presence of his Clergy: that he might not alienate or sell the goods or possessions of the Church, without the consent of his clergy: that the Bishop though in the Church, and in the assembly of the presbyters, ought to sit in an higher place, yet privately he should use the presbyters as his Colleagues, and sitting himself, should not suffer a presbyter to stand: that the Deacons should acknowledge themselves to be Ministers to the presbyters, as well as to the Bishops; & that if the presbyters bad them, they might sit in their presence, which otherwise they might not do.

All these things considered, together with that which before hath been alleged, to prove that there were never any Lay-Elders, do necessarily evince, that there is no reason to imagine, if Doctorum signify Doctors or Teachers, Lay-Elders to be meant by Seniors in this place.

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

Notwithstanding, because some perhaps will understand the word Doctorum, as being a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters, signifying learned, and will therefore imagine that the Elders whose counsel was neglected by them, were Idiotae or Lay-men: for their sakes therefore, I will briefly show, that though this interpretation be admitted, yet there is no necessity that Seniors should signify Lay-Elders: for Doctorum, being according to this interpretation, a common title both to Bishops and Presbyters, Ambrose his meaning may be conceived to be this, that the assistance and council of ancient Ministers, meant by Seniors, who were wont to assist the Bishop, was grown out of use, either by their own negligence, or the Bishops pride. Whereunto, after much froath of idle words, he replieth, First,

and this he endeavoreth to prove by five testimonies, First of Jerome saying that the Churches at the first were governed communi presbyterorum consilio, by the common Council of Presbyters: Which testimony maketh against him: for Jerome speaketh of such Presbyters as Paul speaketh of, who were Ministers, and are there called Bishops. If therefore the Church was at the first governed by common council of Ministers, and if Ambrose complain that their council in his time was neglected, which at the first had been used, and whereby the Church had been governed: who seeth not, that it was the neglect of the Ministers advise whereof Ambrose complaineth: 2. yea but Jerome saith, we also in the Church have senatum nostrum •• tum Presbyterorum, our senate a company of Presbyters: which testimony is wont to be alleged, to prove that in Jerome's time there was a Presbyterie of Lay-Elders. But here my adversary presupposing that Lay-Elders were grown out of use, in Ambrose his time, (whom T: C: supposeth to have continued diverse hundred years after Ambrose bringeth it to prove, that in Jerome's time, who was almost as ancient as Ambrose, there was a Senate of Ministers, which no man doubteth of. For else-where he saith the Church hath a Senate, a company of Presbyters, without whose Counsel, the Monks may do nothing. And not only in Jerome's time the Church had, but in all Ages since, even to this day, it hath such a Senate, which in latter times hath called Capitulum, the chapter. Howbeit, both in Ambrose his time, and since, the advise, and assistance thereof, notwithstanding the Decree of the fourth counsel of Carthage, hath been, though in some things evē to this day used, yet in the most things, and for the most part neglected.

His third testimony, (which he saith is plain enough) of the said Jerome, cited in the canon Law, is also plain against him. For having said as even now I alleged him, that the presbyters from the beginning had been appointed to hear and judge causes, as the Bishops assistants, he proveth it, because they also in the scriptures are called Bishops, howsoever now the Bishops envied them that dignity, &c.

His 4. testimony is, the 23. canon of the council of Carthage (which even now I cited) which maketh against him, rather then for him. For seeing good laws arise from bad manners, it is to be imagined, that according to the complaint of Ambrose and Jerome, who were somewhat before this council, the presence of the Clergy, and assistance of the presbyters was neglected: and that this neglect gave occasion to the making of that canon.

His. 5. testimony is of D. Bilson, (though he name also another learned mā, only to abuse him.) Howbeit D. Bilson understandeth Ambrose, as complaining of the Bishops of his time, who whiles they would seem to rule alone, had excluded, or neglected the aid & counsel of their brethren of the Clergy, who were wont to advise and assist them, as well in Doctrine as in Discipline.

And whereas in the second place he replieth, that slothfulness and pride must needs be referred to the same persons, and not slothfulness to presbyters, and pride to BB: I answer, that if Doctorum be a common title to both (as it is, if it signify learned) and if the slothfulness of the presbyters, rather then of the BB. be as like almost to be the cause why their assistance grew out of use, as the pride of the BB: then is there no necessity that slothfulness and pride should both be attributed to the Bishops: but rather it is very likely, that slothfulness is imputed to presbyters, and pride to the Bishops.

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

But let us hear his Reasons.

The second:

, which reason is the latin of the first, and the first the english of this: Such judgment here is shown in distinguishing of arguments. But who knoweth not, that the same sentence may very many ways be varied, in respect of the words, the same sense remaining? so that this exception might be made against any exposition almost. If I should say:

As in Christ's College, so in some others, Elections were wont to be carried by the voices of the iuniors, as well as the Seniors, which thing is now grown out of use, by what means I know not, unless perhaps, by the remissenes of the fellows, or rather arrogancy whiles they would rule alone, I might not unfitly so speak, ascribing remissnes to the iunior fellows, and arrogancy to the Seniors.

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

The 5. that Ambrose chargeth both slothfulness and pride upon the same persons, called Doctors, &c. But this should have been proved and not begged: especially, seeing I disprove it in the reason following.

For that which he pratteleth of amplifying the fault, by rising from the less to the greater, hath not so much as a show of a good reason, to dsproue my exposition; seeing of the 2. causes, Ambrose seemeth to make the slothfulness of the learned, that is, the Presbyters, not so principal as the pride of the learned, that is to say, the

Lastly, saith he,

I answer, if the word Learned be used, being a title common, both to the Seniors and the Doctors, there needs no addition to make the sentence perfect; but a distinct application of the common title to the special sorts, according to their several faults, by which they are to be distinguished; Slothfulnesse being the fault of the one, and pride of the other, as before you heard, in the example of fellows.

But why should I spend time in answering such slieght Objections? the which notwithstanding, seem of such weight with him, that he wondereth, that all these worthy reasons considered, I would understand Doctorum, signifying learned, as a common title, both to the Bishops and Seniors, and that saith he, as if he were another Pythagoras, upon his bareword, I say his bare word; for as yet he hath not vouchsafed us one piece of a Reason.

This is one of the refuters poor shifts, to make himself wrangling work: To take an Assertion of mine, and having severed it from the Reasons wherewith it was guarded, to cavil with me, as if without alleging a Reason, I would (like another Pythagoras ) be believed upon my bare word. Whereas in truth, both here and in other places, where I am the Answerer, I render more reasons then were needful, were it not, that I sought to satisfy, in hope that men will at the length be satisfied with reason.

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

I answer there is no necessity, this place should so be understood. Here might I have rested, and put the opponents to enforce this testimony, which by them is barely propounded. But being desirous to give satisfaction, I urge it for them thus:

Ambrose saith, there were Seniors in the primitive Church, whose council was now neglected, therefore he giveth testimony to Lay-Elders. I deny the consequence, giving a reason, because those Seniors were of the Clergy and not of the Laity.

Against this answer I make them reply thus; The Seniors advise was neglected by the learned: Therefore themselves were such as were not learned, or of the Clergy.

To this I answer, that if the word Doctorum signify learned, Notwithstanding this place may be understood of the Seniors of the clergy only: If we conceive Doctorū signifying learned, as a common title, both to the BB: & Seniors, and of this answer I give a reason by explaining this testimony of Ambrose.

And whereas I did foresee that it would be objected that Doctorum was to be understood either of pastors of parishes alone, according to the conceit of the new Disciplinarians, or of BB. a lone according to the rest: I therefore sought to prevent this objection in those words, for if you expound Doctorum for pastors, &c. Wherein a sufficient reason is concluded, holding strongly against the parish B. & his Elders. And not contented with all this, in desire to give satisfaction, I rendered the true causes besides arrogancy of BB. which I knew was presupposed, why the assistance of the ancient ministers, called Seniors, was grown out of use: and yet forsooth, like another Pythagoras ▪ I look that my bare word should be credited without reason.

Yea, but saith he,

But is it not strange, that he, who is so sharp sighted to find out Syllogisms where none were intended, could see no reason here?

Or shall we not think, that he chose rather like a shifting sophister, to take advantage of that modest phrase, thē to encoūter with the reason it self, which may thus be concluded.

One of these premisses should have been denied, and the denial made good, if he had been able: but in steed hereof he encountereth with the conclusion, laboring, as we say, clauum, clauo pellere, and undertaking to make me see, (if I will not shut mine eyes,) the contradictory of that conclusion to be true, which notwithstanding cannot be false the premisses being true.

And first, he denieth that Ambrose spake by guess, as I say, but certaienly and upon knowledge; when Ambrose his express words be these, Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio, nisi forte, &c: which by what negligence it is grown out of use I know not, unless perhaps by the slothfulness, &c. 2. He saith,

Then is it not their slothfulness belike, that caused them to take the whole burden upon themselves, but their pride, which made them wink at the seniors slothfulness, as giving way to their own ambition.

Thirdly, he saith,

Now it is evident, that in Ambrose his time, and a good while after, till the Presbyteries were in a manner wholly neglected, the Bishops had not ordinary vicars, or chancellors, or ordinary Commissaries, which were not of the Clergy; But what they did without the advise of their Seniors, they performed ordinarily in their own persons, or else extraordinarily delegated the same to some of special trust. In some cases, it is evident, that both then, and long after, they used the assistance of their Presbyterie, as in the judgment of Heresy, or for deposing of a clergy man, &c.

Siricius the B. of Rome, in an Epistle to Ambrose, denouncing Jovinian, Auxentius, &c. for heretics, showeth, that for their trial, his whole presbytery had been assembled; and saith, that by the common consent of his whole clergy, they were condemned for heretics.

The 4. council of Carthage, as you heard, ordained that the Bishop should hear men's causes in the presence of his clergy. The 2. council of Towers decreed that a Bishop might not depose an Archpresbyter, without the counsel of all his compresbyters: But whom negligence casteth out, let him with the counsel of the presbyters be removed. The council of Carthage appointed, that in the cause of a Presbyter, six, and of a Deacon, three Bishops should be joined with their own Bishop, because as the council of Civil determined, one Bishop may to Priests, and ministers, that is, Presbyters & Deacons. give their honor, but one alone may not take it from them: but in the cause of inferior Clergy men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Bishop alone of the place shall hear and determine it, viz. in the presence of his Clergy, according to the aforesaid Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage.

But as in some cases they used the counsel of the Presbyteri; so in others they did for the most part undergo the whole burden themselves. For the proof whereof, the examples of Ambrose and Augustine may suffice. For Ambrose was so occupied in hearing and determining men's causes, that he had so little time left him for his corporal repast, or spiritual studies; that Augustine could never find him at leisure to break his mind unto him. And Augustine was so encumbered with hearing of causes, that scarcely he could have the forenoon for his studies, the afternoon being wholly taken up with other men's business: neither could he, when the Councils of Numidia and Carthage had imposed a task upon him, and when his people had promised to forbear him for five days, obtain so much breathing time from their affairs. But when he was old, and was desirous to spend the rest of his time in writing, and in the study of the scriptures, he nominated Eradius to be his successor; in most earnest manner requiring, and charging the people, that they would suffer him to put off the burden of those employments to him. Possidonius giveth him this testimony, that he heard men's causes diligently, sometimes to the hour of repast, sometimes fasting the whole day: but always himself had the cognizance of them, and determined them.

The Emperor Justinian provided by law, that in Ecclesiastical causes civil judges should have nothing to do: sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat, but let the holy Bishop according to the Sacred Canons determine the cause.

As for ordinary Vicars, Chancellors or Commissaries which were Lay-men, in those times the Bishops had none: for not so much as the steward of the Church might be a Lay-man: whereupon Gregory writing to Ianuarius a Bishop, chargeth him to take heed, that Ecclesiastical matters be not committed to secular men, but to some approved of the Clergy. And the second Council of Ciuil, penned as it seemeth by Isidor who was president thereof, pronounceth it an unseemly thing Laicum esse vicarium Episcopy, & seculares in ecclesia iudicare, that a Lay-mā should be the Bishops Vicar, & that secular men should judge in the Church: for in one and the same officer there must not be different profession. Which having confirmed out of Deuteronomy, it inferreth: wherefore it behooveth us to obey God's book and the preceps of the holy Fathers, ordaining that they who shall be associated to Bishops in Church-government, may not differ neither in profession nor habit.

Notwithstanding that they extraordinarily committed to others or delegated causes to be heard appeareth by the aforesaid example of Augustine. But more clearly by the practice of Siluanus a godly Bishop of Troas, not long after Ambrose his time: who perceiving that they of the Clergy made gain of the contentions of them who came to be judged, he would not at any time appoint a judge of the Clergy, but himself receiving the petitions of Suiters would make choice of some faithful man or other of the laity, whom he knew to be a lover of justice, and to him he would commit the hearing of the cause: and for this cause Socrates saith he was greatly renowned. Out of which examples we may note that causes were wont to be brought to the Bishop, that he heard them himself if he had leisure: otherwise, that he committed the hearing of the cause to some of his Clergy: but yet so, as if he saw cause, he might make choice of some other, whom he durst better trust.

Secondly, I answer, that the reason which I used, concludeth most strongly, against the refuters exposition, who by Doctorum will needs understand parish Bishops. Who if they should take the whole burden upon them of Church-government, and deciding causes Ecclesiastical, without the aide or assistance of the Elders, could not therefore be accused of idleness: for I hope the refuter will not say, that they also had Chancellers or Comissaries under them to whom they might put off those cumbersome employments.

It remaineth now, that I should proceed to the causes, which I rendered why the Council of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was so much neglected by Bishops. But that my adversary, after his accustomed manner, will needs take occasion to show his own ignorance, by taking up a speech which as he saith, I let drop by the way, concerning Deans and Chapters of our Cathedral Churches, as being a resemblance or remainder of the Presbyteries which were in the Primitive Church. For such is his reading, that he doubteth not to deny, that in Ambrose his times there were any Cathedral Churches, or that our Deans and Chapters are so much as resemblances of the Presbyteries of those times.

For Cathedral Churches, you are to understand, that although in every Diocese there were many parish churches, both in country and city, yet there was one chief church in the city, which was the Bishops Cathedra or seat, wherein the Bishop most usually performed the duties of the Episcopal and pastoral function, whereunto a peculiar Clergy belonged, consisting of Presbyters, Deacons, and other inferior orders, and whereto Episcopium the Bishops house was near adjoining. This church in those times was called sometimes Cathedra sc. Episcopy, as Council. Carthag. where it was decreed that no Bishop, relicta cathedra, leaving his Cathedral Church, should remove his seat or See, to any church in his Diocese, the Greek hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And likewise BB: are forbidden to neglect any of those places which belong 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Matrix, & Matrix Cathedra as Conc. Carth. 3. c. 46. Episcopus qui matricom tenet. Conc. Carth. graec. c. 24 sieve Affric. c. 90. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If in the mother Churches, that is to say the Cathedral the Bishop shall be negligent, &c: sometimes Ciuitatensis ecclesia, sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in the Council of Neocaessaria.

Such a Church was that in Millaine, whereunto Ambrose his house adjoined: for that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that house of salutation where Ambrose sat, when Theodosius came to him to be absolved, was not, as T. C. imagined, Ambrose his own house before he was Bishop: for it was intra septa Ecclesiae within the bounds of the Church, & Paulinus testifieth, that Ambrose gave away all when he was made Bishop, and left himself nothing which here he might call his own. In that Church Ambrose usually preached, to that Church the Emperor himself resorted, In the chancell whereof, when Theodosius the Emperor would have remained to receive the communion, Ambrose sent him word by his Archdeacon, that that place was peculiar to the clergy, which belonged to this Church, consisting of the Arch-Presbyter and the other Presbyters, of the Archdeacon and other Deacons, and other inferior orders of the Clergy. For albeit the name Decanus was not perhaps as yet in use, yet the office was, and the Dean signified by other names. For sometimes he was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the chief or ruler of the Presbyters, even as Ambrose his Archdeacon, in the place even now cited, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Such a one was Chrysostom, in Antioch a long time. Eulogius at Edessa: sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so Peter was the Protopresbyter in the Church at Alexandria. And Arsacius, who succeeded Chrysostom in the Bishopric of Constantinople, the Protopresbyter there. In latin most usually Archipresbyter ; as histor. tripat. lib. 10. c. 10. and in the fourth Council of Carthage: where it was decreed that the Bishop should take care of widows, Orphans & strangers, not by himself but by his Archpresbyter, or by his Archdeacon. Jerome showing that in each society there is someone ruler, saith, singuli Ecclesiarum Episcopy, singuli Archipresbyteri, singuli Archdiaconi the Churches have each of them one Bishop, one Archpresbyter, on Archdeacon. In process of time they were called decani. Archipresbyteri a pluribus decani nuncupantur, Archpresbyters of the most are called Deans. Neither were there only Archpresbyters and Deans of Cathedral Churches which were called Archipresbyteri vrbani, & ciuitatenses, of whom all these former testimonies are to be understood; but also rural Deans, called sometimes Archipresbyteri decani, as in the Council of Towers, and sometimes decani firsti. Archipresbyteri parochiarum in the Council of Agatha.

The chapter was wont to be called Presbyterium. Placuit Presbyterium contrahi we thought good the Presbyterie should be gathered together saith Cornelius to Cyprian. And Syricius the Bishop of R • me in an Epistle to Ambrose, facto Presbyterio, the Presbyterie being assembled, sometimes se • atus, caetus Presbyterorum, the senate, or assembly of Presbyters.

The Presbyters or Seniors themselves were called sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ciuitatenses Presbyteri the Presbyters of the city, seniores by Tertullian and Ambrose, in the place alleged. The ancient Council of Ancyra having pronounced it unlawful for the Chorepiscopi or country Bishops to ordain Presbyters or Deacons, addeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , neither yet is it lawful for the Presbyters of the city: whereby it may in part appear, what was the estimation of the Presbyters of the city in comparison of the country Bishops.

But as the Archipresbyteri in latter times were called decani, so these Presbyters of the city were in process of time called Canonici & prebendarij and the company of them which had been called Presbyterium, was termed capitulum in english Chapter. Calvin saith Presbyteri vrbani versi sunt in canonicos the Presbyters of the city are turned into Canons or prebendaries. And it is to be noted saith Duarenus, that in every city there was a certain College of these Presbyters which the Bishop governed, such as is at this day canonicorum collegium the college of Canons who seem to have succeeded into their place: and this company of Presbyters Jerome calleth the senate of the church.

By all which it is more then evident, that as in the ancient times they had Cathedral churches as well as we, and those endowed with great revenues, as it is easy to prove: so the Deans and chapters of our Cathedral Churches are the remainder of their Presbyteries, our Deans being those who were called Archpresbyters, our Prebendaries, those which were called Presbyteri vrbani, our chapters those which they called Presbyteries.

Neither doth that hinder which our refuter objecteth, that our BB: have not the like assistance of the Dean and chapter that the ancient BB: had of their Presbyteries. For Ambrose complaineth, that even in his time their counsel was neglected. And yet in these times, as the Bishop may use their advise if he please, so in some cases their assistance is necessarily required, the acts of the Bishop being void without their consent. Besides seed vacante, in the vacancy of the See, the custody of the Bishopric & Episcopal rights, as also the election of the new Bishop, is after a sort referred to them. And as in times past, so now, the placing and displacing of the Presbyters of the city, whom we call Prebendaries, appertaineth to the BB: a few Churches only among us excepted. And to conclude, as Deans and Chapters with us are in a manner peculiar to Cathedral Churches, the seats of Bishops (some collegiate Churches excepted:) so were the Presbyteries in the primitive Church. Insomuch that our new sect of disciplinarians might as well say, there was in old time, & now should be, a Dean & chapter, as a Presbyterie in every parish. If therefore they will sue for reformation according to the precedent of the primitive Churches, let them seek and sue, that the Bishops may use the counsel and assistance of the Presbyterie of the city, which we call the Dean and Chapter, and they may hope to prevail, if none of the reasons why their assistance is forborne be sufficient, which now come to be examined.

These reasons I added by way of surplusage or advantage, to give satisfaction if it might be. But nothing will satisfy them, who set themselves to cavil: for whereas I said, I doubt not but the true causes &c: the refuter depraveth my speech, as if the word I, had been uttered with an immodest Emphasis: when as I meant no more by that speech, then when we say, proculdubio, or dubium non est: which kind of speech my adversary (me thinks) should not so greatly mislike, sithens their Lay-Elders, which have been urged with such heat, have no better warrant then dubium non est, satis opinor, constat, probable est, as you shall hear, when we come to their proofs. They may say confidently, there were Lay-Elders in the time of the Apostles, yea from the time of Moses until Christ, and that after the example of the Jews (who indeed never had such Presbyteries) they are to be erected in every parish: and yet have no better warrant for these things, then their own conjectures. They may take upon them to avow without reason, that to have been done in the Apostles times, whereunto neither scripture nor Father giveth testimony: and in me it is great immodestie to affirm that, which but one of the Fathers seemed to doubt of, though I allege sufficient reason of my affirmation. For in the first three hundred years after Christ, when Christians neither had frequent Synods to determine doubts, nor Synodal constitutions to direct the Bishops, nor the authority of the Christian Magistrate to rectify what was amiss in the government of the Church, there was great necessity that the Bishop should use the advise and counsel of other wise and learned men: otherwise, his will would have seemed to stand for a law, and his government would have been subject to oversight in himself, to remediless wrong towards the clergy and people, and to the obloquy and scandal of all. But when as provincial Synods were frequently assembled to determine doubts, to right the causes of them that were wronged, to prescribe so many Ca • ons and constitutions, as to the BB: assembling in Council seemed sufficient for their direction, whē the authority of the Christian Magistrate was helpful to the Church; then we may easily conceive, that as the Council and assistance of the Presbyterie was not so needful, so both to the Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholastical quietness, and also to the Bishops desiring to rule alone, it would seem needless: which reason I am well content it shall be put into the equal balance of the Readers judgment, against the cauills of the refuter, wherewith he hath blotted more then a whole leaf. It happened to the Presbyteries as after it did to the provincial Synods. For when by experience it was found to be very troublesome & chargeable to the BB: hurtful to their churches, tedious to suitors by reason of multitude of causes referred to Synodal audience, that all the BB: in every country should twice every year for a long time be absent from their churches, to be present at Synods; it was decreed, both by the Emperors and BB, that those causes wherewith provincial Synods had usually been troubled, should be referred to the audience and decisiō of the Archbishop or Metropolitan. Even so, when it was found troublesome and tedious to the Presbyters, and hurtful to the Church, that their time which might better be spent in study of Divinity, to furnish them for the public Ministry, should be taken up in hearing brabbles and quarrels, and also their assistance seemed not needful to the Bishops for the causes aforesaid; it is not to be marvelled, that their assistance grew out of use. For whereas the refuter objecteth, and is the only thing worth the mentioning which he objecteth, that the Presbyteries continued in Ambroses time, and long after: I answer, that they continue to this day. But as their assistance now in matters of government is not much used, so before Ambrose his time it began to be neglected.

And thus much concerning the testimony of Ambrose: which having cleared as well as that, 1. Tim. 5.17. being the only places of moment, which use to be produced in this cause, I might safely conclude from all the premisses, that therefore there were no Lay-Elders in the primitive Church: From whence, besides the main conclusion, that therefore the primitive Church was governed by Diocesan Bishops, the two particular assertions concluding against our new sect of disciplinarians will necessarily follow. The first, that therefore there were no parishional Presbyteries: the second that therefore parish Bishops or pastors were subject to the Diocesan Bishops.

Against the former, he objecteth a speech of D. Bilson affirming that every Church in the Apostles times had many Prophets Pastors and Teachers, which, as the refuter saith, might make a Presbyterie. But the Churches D. Bilson speaketh of, were not in several parishes, but as he saith in populous cities, such as that of Ephesus Act. 20: and those provided, not for any one parish, but for the whole city and country adjoining, that is to say, the Diocese. For when my adversary shall produce any one pregnant testimony that in such congregations, as we call parishes, there was a Presbyterie of Ministers, I will also grant, that there were no other but parish Bishops. In the mean time let the Reader hold this for a certain and undeniable truth, that there were no Presbyteries of Ministers, but only in cities and Cathedral Churches, but hereof I shall have occasion to speak in the second book.

As touching the second conclusion, it followeth thus: the parish pastor had either a Presbyterie to assist him, or he was subject to superiors, as namely the Diocesan and provincial Bishops, to overrule him, or else he ruled like a Pope; for a fourth thing cannot be named, before there were Christian Magistrates. But it is absurd to imagine, that in the primitive Church they had an absolute popeling, who neither had assistants nor superiors, for that were to ascribe not only supreme, but also sole power to them: and it is as false, that in several parishes there was a Presbyterie to assist him, therefore it remaineth that the parish Bishops were subject to the authority of the Diocesan and provincial Bishops.

To the proposition he answereth two w • ies, first by retortion: that what I say

, which I have answered before. For this is the second place where he laboreth out of my word • to prove our Diocesan Bishops to be popes, using this insultation in the margent. But though their parish Bishops, whom they make the supreme Ecclesiastical officers, would be absolute popelings, if presbyteries were not adjoined to them, because they should have not only Supreame, but also sole authority: yet it followeth not, that our Bishops, to whom neither supreme, nor sole authority belongeth, should he esteemed such.

Secondly he denieth the disfunction, alleging that a fourth thing might be added concerning

Which, if it be added in the proposition, is with the rest to be denied in the assumption. For this brownisticall or rather Anabaptistical conceit (for some of the Brownists disclaim it) that the Bishops in the primitive Church were subjected to the people, as if the state of the Church had been Democratical or popular, is a dotage that was never dreamed of till of late, and therefore as it is most confidently to be denied, so it needed not to be inserted in the proposition.

CHAP. IX. Answering the testimonies which by the refuter are alleged to prove Lay-Elders.