A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath
The Reader, that hath found the refuter so strict in exacting Syllogisms of me, even when I perform the part of an answerer, cannot but expect most formal and accurate Syllogisms at his hands.
But he shall find that to be true, which I foretold him not long since: that this great Champion, not daring to urge his testimonies, or to reduce his proofs into Syllogisms; according to the poor policy of them all, holdeth out certain testimonies, as it were Pallas shield, thinking with the bare quotation of them, though he cite them not, to put us to silence. And to this purpose, like a notorious Mountebank, setting himself to delude the simple, he commendeth his witnesses, even Christ himself, his Apostles, and Evangelists with swelling titles, when their testimonies themselves are not so much as cited; as though he thought it more needful to win credit to his witnesses, then to prove, • hat they testify that, for which he would seem to allege them. But you shall hear Pyrgopolinices himself:
These are most worthy witnesses indeed, and without exception. If any one of these give testimony to your Lay-Elders, we will most willingly yield. But I pray you let us hear their words; It shall not need: if you will not believe us, that they give testi-monie to Lay-Elders, yet believe other divines, who say they do. Are they witnesses, what they said only, or what by the holy Ghost is committed to writing? If the latter, why be not their own testimonies produced, but other witnesses must be deposed, that they said so, when it appeareth upon most authentical record, whether they said so or not?
Let us therefore hear the words themselves. The first is Matt. 18.17. Where our Savior Christ saith dic Ecclesiae, tell the Church or assembly.
What then? therefore there ought to be Lay-Elders in every congregation.
See you not by this time, what a striker this is? first there may be question, whether Ecclesia signify the whole congregation of the people, or an assembly of judges or governors: if the former sense be followed, there is no show for Lay-Elders. If the latter, which is the more likely, question again may be made, whether Christ speak of the Synedrion of the Jews, as Calvin and some others suppose, or of Christian governors: if of the Synedrion, which was a civil senate and indeed the high counsel of estate in the policy of the Jews, what doth that make for Ecclesiastical Elders in the Church of Christ, and that in every parish?
If of Christian governors, as the Fathers expound it; what sense is there to understand the words of Lay-Elders, unless it can otherwise be proved, either that Christ had already ordained them, or that afterwards they were in use in the Church of Christ. But the former is absurd: and for the latter they have not so much as a fair show, being disarmed of the two places, which I have vindicated out of their hands, viz: 1. Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1. Nay further I add, that if it could be proved (as it never will) that ever there were Lay-Elders in the Church before this our age, yet they should but argue from the Genus to the Species affirmatively, tell the governors, ergo Lay-Elders: wherefore this is a very seely argument.
Yea but other divines say, that Christ spake of Lay-Elders. What others say it is not greatly material in this kind, so long as we plainly see, there is no necessity nor probability so to understand him. But who are they that say so?
For the three first, because they are no parties, I can be content to examine their testimonies.All that Chrysostom saith of those words is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tell the Church, that is Prelates and governors: and on those words whatsoever you shall bind on earth, &c: nec dicit saith he, Ecclesiae presuli, neither did he say to the prelate of the Church, whom he understood by Church, bind him with bands or cords, &c.
Theophylact explaineth the words thus: If before two or three witnesses he being reproved shall not be ashamed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Oecolampadius translateth thus, Ne graueris tunc in Ecclesiae suggestu invulgare peccatum, stick not then to publish his fault in the pulpit of the Church or judgment seat. But the accēt showeth that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 we are to understand An tistites or presides, the Prelates of the Church. And those words, what you shall bind, &c: he expoundeth thus, If thou who art wronged shall hold the offender as a Publican or Ethnic, even such a one he shall be in heaven, but if thou loose him, that is, forgive him, he shall be pardoned in heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for not only what the Priests loose are loosed, but also what we who are wronged do bind or loose, the same shall be bound or loosed : where, by Priests, he meaneth those, whom before he called the Prelates of the Church.
Erasmus maketh this Paraphrase: If the offender be so intractable, that he will be moved neither with shame nor fear of judgment, bring the matter to the congregation, that either he maybe reformed by the content of the multitude, or by authority of them which be rulers ou • the multitude. But if he be so far past cure, that he will not be corrected neither by secret and brotherly monition, neither by the knowledge and consent of two or three, neither by the shame of his fault uttered and disclosed, neither by the authority of the • hiefe rulers, leave him to his disease.
My adversary therefore, to salve his credit, had need to bring those, from whom he had these testimonies at the second or third hand, to depose, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Erasmus do say, that Christ speaketh of Lay-Elders. Otherwise he will hardly escape the censure of imposture, and seeking to seduce the people with glorious shows.
To the rest of his witnesses I answer, that what new writers, being parties in the cause, do testify without warrant of scripture, evidence of reason, or testimony of antiquity, it deserveth no credit.
The second testimony, Act. 14.23. that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every Church, therefore Lay-Elders. How is this consequence proved? because the Greek Scholiast and a few new writers say so.
But here the disputer, for his credit sake, must plead, that he (for his part) never saw the Greek Scholiast, but received this allegation from T. C. else he must be accused either of gross ignorance, or notorious falsification. I see not saith T. C. why it may not be referred to Elders (meaning Lay-Elders) as well as too Bishops, (meaning Ministers) seeing S. Paul there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church. And of that judgment is the Greek Scholiast, which affirmeth, that those which followed S. Paul and Barnabas, were worthy to be Bishops, and that they created of them Elders and Deacons: Understanding Oecumenius, as if by Bishops he meant ordinary Ministers, and Elders and Deacons, their Lay-Elders and Lay-Deacons: which were a notable depraving of Oecumenius his meaning, if he were so to be translated. But his words being these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those who have but small skill in Greek do know, that the article of the plural number with the preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , doth most usually signify no more then the proper name alone, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all in one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and so is used by Oecumenius in the very next sentence following, as you shall hear. Besides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify they were worthy, but they had the dignity or honor: or if they had been worthy to have been Bishops, Paul and Barnabas had small reason, in that want of sufficient Ministers, to make them lay either Elders or Deacons. So that Oecumenius his words are thus to be translated, it is to be noted, that Paul and Barnabas had the dignity of Bishops, for that they ordained by imposition of hands, not only Deacons but also Presbyters.
Note also saith he that in Miletum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Barnabas and Paul were by imposition of hands ordained, but I found another copy which for Miletum hath Antioch, and that is more probable. His meaning is that at Antioch Paul and Barnabas were ordained Bishops. Act. 13.2.
And that Oecumenius by Presbyters understood Ministers or Teachers, it is apparent by his words going before: for demanding, why the Apostles made not Presbyters in Cyprus and Samaria, but in these places mentioned▪ Act. 14. he answereth, those were near to Jerusalem and the apostles, and in Antioch the word prevailed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but in these places they needed much exhortation, chiefly those of the gentiles needed much teaching.
The third testimony, I am. 5.14. Is any man sick among you? let him call for the Presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. Therefore there were Lay-Elders in S. James time.
This consequence is proved because Calvin and four other new writers say so.
The fourth: Rom. 12.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he that ruleth, in diligence, this Ruler must needs be the Lay-Elder. For besides certain new writers, Ambrose saith so. But Ambrose understandeth the words generally of any Ruler, expounding him that ruleth to be eum qui curam vt praesit fratribus suscipit him that undertaketh the care to rule his brethren.
The fifth 1. Cor. 12.28. God hath appointed in the Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gouernements: these gouernements must needs be of Lay-Elders, for besides some new writers, Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, do testify so much.
Ambrose his words be these, sunt & gubernatores gui spiritualib. retinaculis hominibus documento sunt, there are also governors who with spiritual reins do nurture men.
Jerome, qui sciunt singulos prout apti sunt gubernare, who know to govern everyone according as they are apt. Theodoret, hereby he signified the administrations or gouernements of the Church.
These be all the places of scripture which this great striker durst make show of. Whereof not any one can be said with any show of probability to speak one word for Lay-Elders. If Lay-Elders were first proved by other arguments or presupposed, the best argument that could out of these places be raised, were from the Genus to the species affirmative ; as if they should say, the scriptures speak of governors, therefore of Lay-Elders; of Presbyters, therefore of only governing Presbyters.
But seeing they never were, nor ever will be proved by other arguments; the reason taken from these places, is from the Genus, to a fancied and platonicall Idea, or poetical species, and that affirmative. If I should say, it is a bird, therefore a Swan, it were but a simple argument: but if thus, it is a Bird, therefore a black Swan, it were too ridiculous. Such are the arguments of this disputer: for if he should say, the holy Ghost speaketh in three of these places of governors, therefore of Presbyters, it were a weak argument; but when he inferreth therefore Lay-presbyters, who were more rare then black Swannes, it is very ridiculous. If the worst argument in my Sermon, even when he made the worst of it, had concluded no better then the best of these, he would never have done insulting and triumphing. But I cannot blame him, they be the best proofs his cause can afford; they are the testimonies, which the principal patrons of the Presbyterie do use to allege.
But you will say, this is a strange kind of arguing to proceed from men, who allow no office in the Church but what hath express and direct warrant in the scriptures: this is the meaning of the scriptures, because some new divines do think so. We are wont to hold, that scripture is to be expounded by scripture, as by conference of other parallel scriptures, or by inference out of the context it self, diduced by some artificial argument; or if these fail, especially, in such places as concern matters of story or fact, as for example, whether there were any Lay-Elders in the primitive Church, we fly to the expositions of the Fathers, & testimony of antiquity. But what would you have a man do, these proofs and testimonies failing, the best gloss they can set upon their cause, and the fairest excuse for themselves is, that some other new writers, in matters of substance for the most part Orthodoxall, have been partly of their mind, and yet if we consider, that two or three principal men, having upon necessity devised the Presbyterie, to supply the room of the Bishop before ejected, and afterwards (being grown into liking with their own devise, because a few places of the scriptures and Fathers especially, 1. Tim. 5.17. and Ambrose in 1. Tim. 5.1. seemed to favor the same) commended it to others, as warranted by scriptures and Fathers; others, taking it upon their word without sufficient trial, have yielded their consent, and by their writings commended the same to posterity: I say, if these things be considered, we have no great reason, much to esteem the testimonies either of the principal Authors, or of the pedarie fautors of the Presbyterian discipline, being all parties in the cause.
But now if I should prove unto you, that as this disputer abused the names of so many of the Fathers, as he hath named: so also hath wronged some of the new writers: assuredly, if he be not as shameless, as he is nameless, his face which now he hideth, he will never dare to show. For first, where he produceth D. Whitaker's as a witness, that Christ when he said tell the Church meant Lay-Elders: it is evident to any that readeth him, that by Ecclesia in that place, he understandeth the Church represented in a Council, whether provincial, which he showeth to be above a Bishop; or general, which he proveth to be above the Pope. For if a Bishop or the Pope should offend, the course which our Savior prescribeth to Peter himself and the rest of his Apostles should be taken; First, by private admonition, Secondly, before two or three witnesses, and thirdly, if these fail, by telling the Church.
For the second place he allegeth D. Fulke, who doth not once mention Lay-Elders, nor mean them in that place. But our translation being accused by the Rhemists, for that where we should say Priests, we say Elders: D. Fulke doth not deny, but that Priests or Ministers are there meant by Elders, whom he could be content should be called Priests, as Priests is the English of Presbyters, and wisheth that the sacrificers of the law had never been called by that name, but that it had been reserved (if I understand him) to signify the Ministers of the Gospel. There is no question therefore between them, whether Lay-Elders be there meant; but whether the Ministers, who are there meant by the name Presbyteri, whom the Papists would have translated Priests, may not also be called Elders.
Aretius, though he holdeth the distinction of Elders, and so is a party in the cause, notwithstanding by Presbyters, Act. 14 23. he understandeth Ministers only. Ministr • s ordinat per singulas Ecclesias, expende hic quid sint Presbyteri, nimirum ministri certis Ecclesiis deputati, vnde duplex fuit primitiuae Ecclesiae genus Presbyterorum, vnum quod Ecclesiae praer at docendo, quales isti hic sunt, &c.
For the third, he abuseth again the testimony of D. Fulke, who, as in the former place, by Presbyteros, understandeth Priests or Ministers. And as the Rhemists blamed, after the same manner, our translation, for saying Elders and not Priests, he answereth as before. And whereas they object, that our Elders be not such as the Apostle James requireth to be sent for, as being not deputed specially to public praying or administration of the Sacraments; he answereth, that although in some Churches there be some Elders appointed only to govern, yet is there no Church, in which there be no Elders appointed specially to public prayers and administration of Sacraments. But admitting, that the Ministers of our Church be such as the Apostle speaketh of, you demand why we translate them not Ministers▪ I answer (saith he) because the word signifieth Elders, & not Ministers, & yet we contend not for the term, nor refuse the name Priest, when it signifieth the same whom the Apostle calleth Presbyterum, but when by abuse of Papists it is taken to signify a sacrificer.
In the second and fifth, he quoteth D. N • well, who indeed speaketh of certain Seniors which with the Pastor, that is the Bishop, were to exercise the discipline of the Church, but whether they were chosen out of the Clergy, or laity, he showeth not: by the places which he quoteth for the proof of them, diverse whereof, even in the judgment of Calvin, are to be understood of Ministers, he may seem to mean Seniors of the Clergy.
In the fourth and fifth he abuseth the testimony of Th. Morton (not the learned and judicious Dean of Winchester, but another old acquaintance of mine) who in Rom. 12.8. & 1. Cor. 12.28. by governors, understandeth those, who have the government of the Church.
These may suffice for a taste of his good dealing with new writers, especially our own countrymen: the rest, let examine them who either have the books, or think it worth their pains.
CHAP. X. Containing an answer to the same testimonies, and some other proofs, as they are urged by other disciplinarians.
T Hus much might suffice to have answered his allegations out of the scriptures; were it not, that some perhaps will imagine, that these places might be better urged. For their satisfaction therefore, I will take upon me, briefly, yet fully to answer these and some other of the best proofs, as they are urged by T. C. M. Calvin, Beza and Dudley Fenner.
First therefore concerning, Mat. 18.17. T. C. argueth thus. By Church is meant either all the people, or the Pastor alone, or the Pastor with the ancients and Elders; but neither the people, nor Pastor alone, therefore the Pastor with the ancients and Elders.
The disjunction is grounded upon a supposition of the newfound parish discipline, that there were no other Ecclesiastical governors but parishional, which I shall hereafter by God's help prove to be absurd. In the mean time, for the confutation of this disjunction, it shall suffice to note that, which all disciplinarians confess, that our Savior Christ speaketh according to the manner of those times either bidding them tell the assembly, that is the Synedrion ; of the Jews; or at least, that the party offending is to be delated to the like assembly, authorized for hearing of causes, in the Church of Christ. Wherefore T. C. and our new disciplinarians, must first prove these two things, first, that there was an Ecclesiastical Presbyterie in every Synagogue, and secondly, that what they had in every Synagogue we ought to have in every parish, before they may urge the like, in imitation of them, to be erected in every parish among us. But they are so far from proving the latter of these assertions, that they fail in the former. T. C. professeth, he cannot prove it out of the old testament; but that it may be concluded out of the new, he hopeth the Reader will judge; considering that the policy of the Church now, was in this point taken from the Jews Church. As if he should say: forasmuch as the Church, which imitated the Jews, had in every parish a Presbyterie (which indeed is most notoriously false) it is to be supposed, that the Church of the Jews had in every Synagogue the like. Where, by a circular disputation, the question which we deny, is brought to prove his argument, whereby notwithstanding he would seem to prove the question. For aide therefore he bringeth the custom of the moderne Jews, who, if they had any such custom, were no fit presedents for us to follow. But indeed they, though they have their Rabbi in every Snagogue, yet an Ecclesiastical Presbyterie they never had for ought that I can find. And whereas he, and after him the author of the Counterpoison, allege Jerome, to prove, that they had their Elders in Every Synagogue, which should as well admonish the polluted to abstain from the assemblies, as to reprove the Sabbath-breakers ; I cannot sufficiently wonder at the allegation: for Jerome mentioneth that custom of the Jews, which he speaketh of, as one of the worst of the Pharisaical traditions which he calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which one (saith he) I will mention to the shame of the whole nation, and which I will not mention for modesty sake; & therefore we may be sure, neither Christ transmitted, nor Jerome commended it to the Church. Secondly, the governors of their Synogogues, which Jerome speaketh of, were such as were to judge of clean and unclean, a duty peculiar to the Priests. Neither doth he speak of admonishing the polluted from coming to the assembly, but only of judging between clean and unclean. And thirdly that which T. C. addeth concerning the Sabbath, is by Jerome mentioned as another tradition of the Pharisees having no affinity with the former.
Yea but the new testament speaketh of them in diverse places, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the chief of the Synagogues. The archisynagogi were such as now they call their Rabbies as being the Scribes and Pharisees who were their Teachers sitting in the chair of Moses, as Sigonius witnesseth. Bertram likewise saith, those who at the first were called Prophets and afterwards Scribes and Doctors of the law, at the last in the Synagogues were called Archisynagogi, (for those who were in the Temple were called scribae templi ) and of these in the greater Synagogues there were more then one. Beza also seemeth to have been of the same mind. Howbeit, both he and Bertram (who dedicateth his book unto him) do think, that in the Synagogue of the cities, these Rulers had Elders joined with them. But it may be you expect their proofs. Hear therefore the very foundation of the Presbyterie: to wit, that what was the order of the Church of the Jews, Christ translated and recommended to his Church. But in the Church of the Jews there were Elders joined to the Teachers to make up an Ecclesiastical Senate. How the proposition will be made good, I know not: The assumption is proved thus. There were Levites in the Synagogues, saith Beza, in whose hands the spiritual administration was, there being joined to them
Now let us see what Calvin, Beza, and others, collect out of that place of Matthew. When Christ biddeth them tell the Church: Forasmuch as there was no Christian church established, whereunto they might repair, it were absurd to understand Christ as propounding the judgment of the Church, which yet was not. Therefore dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that Christ spake of such an assembly as was then in use alluding to the order of the old Church, wherein, after their return from Babylon, a select Council was established, which they called Sinhedrim, in Greek Synedrion, whereunto the censure of Doctrine and manners was committed. Which Synedrion, besides some Priests and Levites, consisted of the Elders of the people. And although the discipline was corrupted amongst the Jews in our Savior Christ's time, and therefore it is not likely that our Savior would send his Disciples to their Assemblies to have their causes heard; yet dubium non est, it is not to be doubted, but that form of discipline which had been under the Law, was by Christ transmitted to us: and that the form of discipline, which was in use in the Church of Christ succeeded in the room thereof.
The sum is.
What manner of presbyters were among the Jews, the like Christ ordained in his church: when he said, Tell the Church:
But among the Jews there was an Ecclesiastical presbytery, which, besides the priests and Levites, consisted of the Elders of the people:
Therefore such an Ecclesiastical presbytery Christ ordained in his Church.
The proposition hath no other proof but their own testimony, signified in those asseverations, dubium non est, ne{que} ambigimus: for that which is added by Beza & the author of the counterpoison, that the words which Christ used, Let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican ▪ to prove that he spake according to their custom, do in no sort prove, that he translated their form of government into his church. For if Christ did translate from the state of the Jews, any Consistories into his church, then he transmitted such, as were either ordained of God, or devised by men.
If the former, then such as God ordained for the government of the people, either in the Wildernes, or in the Land of promise. In the Wildernes, by the advise of Jethro. and approbation of God, there were Rulers set over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, to judge the people: the deciding of more difficult causes being reserved to Moses. But the multitude of these difficult causes increasing, and Moses waxing weary of them, the Lord joined to him a Senate of 70. Numb: 11.
Answereable to these, the Lord appointed Consistories or Senates, for the government of the people in the Land of promise.
To the former, Deuteron: 16.18. Judges and Officers shalt thou make thee in all thy Cities, throughout all thy Tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. To the latter, Deut: 17. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in Judgment between blood & blood, between plea & plea, between plague and plague, in the matters of controversies, within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise, and go up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, and thou shalt come unto the Priests and Levites and the judge (that is, Judges saith Calvin) that shall be in those days, and ask, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment.
This prescript the godly king Jehoshaphat followed exactly 2. Chron. 19. both in respect of the inferior consistories in the cities, placing judges in the land throughout all the strong cities, city by city: and in Jerusalem did he set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chief of the families of Israel for the judgment and cause of the Lord, saying to them; In every cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in the cities, between blood and blood, between law and precept, statutes and judgments, you shall admonish them, &c. Besides these, the Lord ordained no consistories, or senates. But none of these did Christ translate into his Church, for none of them was Ecclesiastical. Neither did he translate those which were devised by men; whether by the Jews, as their Synedrion or Sanedri • n, which was their chief counsel of state, which Calvin saith after their return from Babylon they did institute, or by P. Gainius the Proconsul of Syria, who ordained four more Synedria of the like nature: which some suppose to have been the cause, why our Savior speaketh in the plural number Matt. 10.17. Mar. 13.9. But of the counsel renewed by Jehoshaphat, and the Synedrion ordained of the Jews, I shall have occasion to say more in answer to the assumption.
But how little credit is to be given to that proposition, may appear by this dilemma: for by Church, Christ doth signify either the consistories and assemblies of the Jews, or assemblies in the Church of Christ.
If the former, then was the direction, which Christ giveth, peculiar to those times, and pertaineth not to the Church of Christ, as D. Bilson showeth in the fourth chapter of his book, whereunto I do refer you. If the latter, then had he not so much as respect or reference to the Consistories of the Jews, so far was he from translating them into his Church, as shall appear by this most plain explication of the text according to the latter sense.
Our Savior Christ entreating of scandals and offenses, first teacheth us that we be careful to avoid offenses, and that we do not in that respect seem to disregard any of his little ones. 2. He directeth us what course we are to take when we are offended. If thy brother (that is, one professing the same religion) shall sin against thee (that is, privately,) either by injury, doing thee wrong, or if ye will also, by evil example scandalizing or giving thee offense, by his sin committed in thy knowledge, laying as it were a stumbling block in thy way, thou must as the Lord hath commanded not suffer sin to rest upon him, but in a desire to reclaim him, thou must 1. use private admonition, & brotherly reproof; go, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a • gue and redargue, convince & reprove him, between thee & him alone. If he hearken to thee acknowledging his fault, and testifying his repentance, then hast thou won or gained thy brother, and saved a soul from death. But if he hear thee not, suffer not sin so to rest vpō him, but take with thee yet 1. or 2. witnesses, & set vpō him jointly, that either by y e presence & authority of so many together he may be reclamed, or at least a way be prepared to public trial; that howsoever thy testimony alone would be rejected, yet in the mouth of 2. or 3. witnesses, the matter may be sufficiently testified. And if he will not hear them, but remain obstinate, then tell the Church, that is, the assembly of them who in the church have spiritual authority to censure offenders, whether it be the Consitory of one City, or particular church, or the Synod of a Province or Nation, or an universal Counsel, according to the nature of the offense, and the quality & degree of the offender. And if he will not hear the assembly, but remaining obstinate, draw upon him their censure of excommunication, whereby they shall bind the offender, & after a sort deliver him to Satan; then shalt thou hold him no more as a brother, or think thyself bound to exercise the duties appertaining to the communion of Saints, but withdraw thyself from him, abandon him, and have no more to do with him, then a Jew of this time would have to do with an heathen or publican, that by these means seeing himself avoided & shunned, he may at length be ashamed and brought to repentance. And least any man should lightly esteem the judgment of the Church, that is, of such spiritual governors as have authority in the church to censure offenders, Verily I say unto you, saith our Savior, speaking to his Apostles, and in them to all their successors, to whom the keys of heaven are committed, Whatsoever you (for you and such as you sitting in Consistory or Synod, are they whom I meant by the Church or assembly) whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Neither think, when I mentioned the church, I meant a great assembly only, or the whole congregation; for I say unto you, that where 2. or 3. are gathered together in my name, I am there in the middes of them, & therefore, if but 2. of you shall consent in asking anything of God (as namely pardon for the penitent sinner) it shall be granted unto you.
If against this exposition it shall be objected, that the Churches hearing and censuring of offenses would be prejudicial to Magistrates: I answer, offenses and offenders admit diverse distinctions. Of offenses, some are open & notorious, some are secrete & private. Some again are grievous and capital crimes, which may not be cōcealed or left unpunished, other be offenses not so heinous or enormous, but they may be concealed and pardoned, where is hope of amendment: For notorious and enormous crimes our Savior doth not prescribe this course, but for the private and less offenses. Again, offenders are either (in the judgment of charity) our brethren in Christ, or the sons of Belial: For the latter, we may take the civil course of Justice, for the former we must take a spiritual course of Christian charity, that we may win our brother unto Christ, or recover him being fallen, which course our Savior here prescribeth.
By Church therefore or assembly, our Savior meaneth neither the supposed Ecclesiastical senate of the Jews, nor yet a Presbyterie of Christians answerable thereto, consisting for the most part of Lay-elders. Not the former: for Christ speaketh of such, as should meet in his name, to whō he promiseth, what they bind upon earth, shall be bound in heavē: neither are we to think, that our Savior would send his disciples to the corrupt Consistories of the unbelieving Jews, as Calvin also saith. It was a strange conceit therefore of Beza, not only to imagine, that the name Church is here attributed to the Jews, but that the Archisynagogi assembled together were they who are meant by Church in this place. Or if that were true, how should this direction belong to us, seeing not only the imaginary Ecclesiastical Senate of the Jews is vanished, but also the true Synedrion is long since abolished, and their whole policy abrogated. Not the latter, for our Savior, by Church understandeth such as should have power to bind & loose sins, as appeareth by the words following. Which power of the keys of binding and loosing sinners, of retaining and remitting sins, our Savior Christ hath so peculiarly appropriated to the Apostles, & their successors in the ministry of the word and Sacraments, as nothing more.
Neither had the Jews indeed such an ecclesiastical Senate, as they speak of, mixed of the Priests and Levites, with the Elders of the people: as I am now to show in answering the assumption. For if this be true, that the Jews had no such Presbyterie, then what show of truth or probability is in their argument taken from Matth: 18.17▪
Calvin saith, that the Jews after their return from captivity, had a chosen counsel, to which was committed the censure of doctrine & manners, which they called Sinhedrin, or Sanhedrin, in Greek Synedrion. T.C. holdeth, that the Synedrion was not then first instituted, but restored: which seemeth to be the truth: Howbeit his reason (as almost all the rest) is but a mere color. For it would follow (saith he) that the Priests, & other Levitical teachers who were a part of that Bench, had then their first institution: when it is plain, that the Priests and Levitical teachers were instituted before the Synedrion, and so might have continued their functiō, though the Sanhedrin had never been. Beza fetcheth the first institution of it from Moses, & the instauratiō thereof, whē it was decayed frō Jehoshaphat. T. C. doubteth not to fetch the Eldership from Exod: 4.
With his Elders therefore, as being the eldest in conceit, I will begin. This order of Eldership (saith he,) was taken from the government of the people of God, before, and under the Law. Before the Law, the Elders which Moses assembled, Exod: 4. were Ecclesiastical officers: for it is not likely, that under such a Tyrant, they should have Magistrates of their own.
I answer briefly: the state of the Hebrews, if you respect the whole people, was neither a settled Church, nor established common-wealth. But if you respect the several kindreds and Families, they were ruled by the Elders of the people, which were the heads of the Families; who, as always from the beginning, so at that time, & until the separation of the Tribe of Levi, to the priestly function, were both priests and magistrates, to their several kindreds and Families. Wherefore let them, who will needs have these to be Lay-Elders, tell us, who were then the priests, whom these Elders did assist.
Under the Law, he findeth these Elders in Elisha his house, 2. King: 6. and in Ezekiel's house, Ezek: 8. because it is unlike that in so corrupt a state the Prophets could have the civil Governors to consult with: & is it not more unlike, that there should be approved Elders of an ecclesiastical Senate, either in the Apostoticall Church of Israel, under Ahab and Jehoram, or in Mesopotamia, whether Ezekiel, and those Elders of Judah were transported, who could never be found under the most godly Kings at Jerusalem ?
Again, he findeth them standing on the right hand of Ezra, and on the left, Nehem: 8. Being distinguished both from the teaching Levites, and from the people: From the people, because they stood by Ezra. From the teaching Levites, because he speaketh of them after. Therefore they must needs be Lay-Elders: as though, either some of the Princes of the people might not stand with Ezra, or that these might not have been priests, or that all the Levites were teachers, or that there were no more teaching Priests or Levites but those, which are mentioned then, and there to have taught the people. He that considereth what T. C. was able to say in a good cause, must needs think this cause to be very bad, which he was not able to make good by better arguments, then those most unlikely likely-hoods.
Beza holdeth that 2. sorts of councils or consistories were ordained by Moses, which should be held both in Jerusalem, the place which God did choose, & in other cities; whereof the one, was civil, the other ecclesiastical, consisting of the priests, Levites, & scribes, or teachers, & also the seniors of the people. But the reader shall easily understand this latter to be a mere fiction, if he consider that the Synedrion at Jerusalem, which was the highest court & chief council of state, having power of life & death, & authority to deal in causes both civil & ecclesiastical, cōsisted of the high priest, & other priests and Levites, together with the Princes & Seniors of the people, being besides the High-priest 70. or 71. in number: Of which, that in Deut: 17.8.9. is to be understood. These were called Sanhedrin, and did sit in Gazith: In which number, those which were priests, were called Seniores Sacerdotū, and those which were Princes, were called Seniores populi, as Sigondus saith. And likewise that the Sanedrioth or consistories in other cities, consisted as well of the learned Levites as of the seniors of the people. Josephus saith, that to every cōsistory in the cities belonged 2. Levites. The reason hereof was, because the laws whereby that church & common-wealth were governed, were the laws of God; wherein the Priests, Levites, & Scribes were most skillful, and therefore best able to determine what was right according to the law. And therefore another sort, which should consist of Priests, Levites, and elders of the people, & which should respōdere de iure (as Beza imagineth this should) was altogether needles. But his proofs are as weak, as his imagination was strong. His only proof for the 1. institution of the Ecclesiastical senat, is Levite: 10.10. where they were ordained saith he, to show the difference between holy & profane, between clean & unclean, & to teach the law of God. But no such thing can, with any show of probability be gathered out of the text, where the Lord speaking to Aaron, commandeth him, & his sons the priests, by a perpetual law, that they should not drink wine nor strong drink, whē they were to enter into the sanctuary, whereby they might be hindered from exercising their function discreetly & soberlie, either in judging between holy & profane, between clean and unclean, or in teaching the people; which duties were to be performed in the sanctuary, by the priests, as well severally as jointly, & no ecclesiastical senate at all here instituted: or if there were, it should (according to Bertrams conceit) consist wholly of the Priests, to whom alone this speech is directed. As for Elders of the people, they were not to intermeddle with these things. The high Priest indeed, if it pleased him, might consult with other Priests, and use their assistance, as Azariah did use the aide of 80. 2. Chron. 26. But that there was a settled Presbyterie or senate Ecclesiastical ordained by God, we do not read: and that it should consist in part of Lay-men, there is not the least semblance of likelihood.
His proofs, that there were two diverse Synedria instituted, are these First, because the number of the one is defined to be 70 the other left uncertain. Secondly because the second was not ordained at the same time with the former. I answer, there is neither number set down, nor time, of that which never was.
His proof for the instauration of two distinct Synedria is out of 2. Chron. 19. where he saith Jehoshaphat ordained two Synedria or counsels, the one Ecclesiastical for the causes of God, over which the high Priest was chief; the other civil, for the causes of the King, over which Zabadiah a Prince of Judah was chief. But it is evident by the text, that it was one and the same high counsel of state, which afterwards was called Sanhedrin, or Synedrion Hierosolymita • ū, consisting of the Levites and Priests, and of the heads of the chief families in Israel, ordained for the judgments of God and controversies of men, which was to hear and determine all manner of causes that were brought unto them from the judgments or consistories of the inferior cities, & were to judge between blood and blood, that is slaughter and slaughter, between the law and the precept, between statutes and judgments, having among them in the causes of God, Amarias the high Priest; and in the causes of the King, Zebadiah a Prince of Judah, as chief, and that the Masters or governors the Levites were with them to instruct them in the law. For whereas he would prove, that Jehoshaphat ordained two distinct counsels at Jerusalem, by these reasons, because the duty of the one was to deal in the causes of God, the other of the King: the one should determine de iure, the other de facto: the one, had for the president the high Priest, the other a Prince of Judah: none of these reasons do prove, that Jehoshaphat ordained anything but that, which before had been appointed by God; namely, that the difficult controversies which the judges in the cities could not determine between blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, should be brought to the Syned • ion or counsel of the place which God should • choose, the which is there noted to consist of the Priests, Levites and • udge, that is judges, saith Calvin, as appeareth by the holy history, where it is declared that Jehoshaphat besides the P • i • sts and Levites chose the Princes of the families of Israel: for the godly King would decline n • uer a whit from the rule of God's law. To this counsel the difficult causes afore said as we • l civil as Ecclesiastical, as well de facto, as de iure, were to be brought from other civil courts, as appeareth both in Deut. 17.8. and also 2 Chron. 19.20.
Besides, it is ridiculous to imagine, that the civil senate should determine only de facto, and that questions de iure should be brought to the Ecclesiastical; the rather because that counsel, which was appointed by God, Deut. 17. and renewed by Jehoshaphat did consist of the Priests and Levites and Elders of the people, and was to determine and to decide all questions of doubt and difficulty: or if they were to seek to an Ecclesiastical senate, it is absurd to imagine, that Lay-Elders should be joined to the Priests and Levites to answer de iure.
As for the causes of God, which verse 8 are termed the judgment and cause of the Lord and are particularized, verse. 10. and Deut. 17.8. (between blood and blood between law and precept, &c.) we are to understand them to be not only Ecclesiastical but also civil, so far as either they were to be decided b • the laws of God, or concerned the observation or transgression of God's law, whereby that land was gou • rned, in judging, whereof, they also exercised God's judgment.
The causes of the King were such as belonged to the Kings house, or his eschequer. And it is fond to imagine, that those causes which were to be decided by the iudicial and mor • ll laws of God, were not the causes of God, as well as those which concerned the ceremonial law.
Neither do I therefore reject the exposition of Beza and some others, who by the causes of God, understand Ecclesiastical causes, and by the causes of the king, civil causes, because it is prejudicial to my defense; but because it is repugnant to the truth: for though their interpretation were admitted, it would no more prove, that there were two distinct Syn • dria, then that which I do embrace. For though Zebadiah the prince of Judah was the chief in the causes of the King, as Amariah the high priest was the chief in the causes of God, yet were they Colleagues and coassessors in the same counsel, as Josephus also doth witness. For speaking of this act of Jehoshaphat, he saith, that he being returned to Jerusalem appointed judges there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Priests and Levites, and of the chief or principal men of the people: requiring them to exercise just judgment, but especially that they should be diligent in determining those difficult causes that should be brought to them from inferior judgment seats: but the chief or presidents of them, as colleagues and coassessors be appointed Amasiah the Priest, and Zabadiah of the tribe of Judah: and relating the law, Deu. 17.8. he saith, if the judges (in the cities) be not able to determine any cause, it is entirely to be sent to the holy city, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and let the high Priest and the Prophet (that is the scribe or Doctor of the law saith Sigonius ) and the senate assembling together, pronounce what seemeth right.
Besides, it is manifest, that the counsel at Jerusalem, after the captivity, which consisted of priests and Levites, besides the Seniors of the people, and whereof the high priest was president as Bertram confesseth, having authority to assemble it, &c. Act. 5.21. Matt. 26.57.59. was the high council of state called the Sanhedrin or Synedrion, or cōsistorium Gazith which dealt in causes not only Ecclesiastical, but also civil, and in causes criminal and capital. Neither happened this by the ambition of the priests, but by the ordinance of God in respect of the first institution, Deut. 17. and instauration by Jehoshaphat. 2. Chron. 19. and by his approbation, as Calvin witnesseth, in respect of the erection of it after the captivity. For as the Lord promised by Isaiah to restore their judges and counselors after the captivity, as before; so Ezekiel prophecieth, that the Priests, after the captivity, should not only teach the people, and judge between holy and profane, between clean and unclean; but also that they should stand up to judge controversies, judging according to God's judgment. Josephus also testifieth, that the Priests were ordained by Moses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , overseers of all, judges of controversies, and punishers of such as are by the law condemned.
And so much for the present shall suffice concerning the counsel at Jerusalem, until I come to answer Calvin's opinion.
As touching Ecclesiastical Presbyters in other cities, Beza hath nothing but his own conjectures: For the courts of judgment, which both Moses instituted, and Jehoshaphat renewed, though they had Levites among them, were to deal not only in Ecclesiastical, but also in civil and criminal causes. The reasons which he bringeth for distinct Ecclesiastical senates are three. First, because the Archisynagogi had, as it is probable, Seniors of the people joined with them. Secondly, because the name of Church in this place of Matthew is given to them, which could not be, unless they did consist of the laity, as well as the clergy. Thirdly, because as the civil consistories assembled in the gates, so the Ecclesiastical, in the Synagogues. To the first I answer, that a probability (if this were such, as indeed it is not) is no proof: to the 2. that the name Ecclesia is not given to the Archisynagogi, but to the Rulers of Christ's Church assembling in his name, with whom he promised his presence, and to whom he committed the power of the keys, to whom also the name Ecclesia, which may be given to any company of Christians, be it but of two or three meeting in the name of Christ, doth fitly agree. Thirdly, he telleth us of Ecclesiastical consistories ordained by Moses, and renewed by Jehoshaphat, sitting in Synagogues; when there is not once mention in the old testament, either of Ecclesiastical consistories, or yet of Synagogues. And in the new, such judges are mentioned in Synagogues, as punished by stripes. Bertram also witnesseth, that in the Synagogues of the cities, judgments were exercised by ordinary judges; the greater and weightier causes, as also the appeals of the less being referred to the counsel • t Jerusalem. And again, that the people came to the Synagogues to prayer, to hear the law and the Prophets, and to hear the judgment of Moses law, as well civil as Ecclesiastical And so much of Beza.
Calui • by Ecclesia understandeth the Synedrion or Sanhedrin of the Jews instituted by them after their return from Babylon : which he conceiveth to have been an Ecclesiastical senate, to which belonged the censure of doctrine & manners, having the power o • excommunication &c. What this Synedrion was, Calvin himself shall tell us, It is certain saith he that the Jews, when they were returned from the Babylonian banishment, because they might not make a King, did imitate this example (of appointing 70. Elders. Num. 11) in ordaining the Synedrion. Only so much honor was granted to the memory of David and the Kings, that out of their stock they would choose 70. governors, in whom should be the chief power: And this course continued until Herod, &c. The Sanhedrin indeed was the high counsel of state, which was to judge of causes, not only Ecclesiastical, but also civil and criminal, yea capital, having the authority of the sword and power of life and death. Whereby they adjudged malefactors convicted of capital crimes to one of these four kinds of death, stoning, burning, killing with the sword and strangling; having also authority to ordain Sanedrioth, that is, the consistories of judges in other cities; to whom alone it appertained to judge the cause of a tribe, of a false Prophet, of the high Priest, &c. And howsoever their power was much restrained after Jewry became a province subject to the Romans; notwithstanding the Romans having granted the Jews 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 liberty to live according to their own laws, permitted them to exercise authority both in judging not only Ecclesiastical but also civil and criminal causes, and also in punishing by stripes and imprisonment, and sometimes by death. Moreover, by the law of God, he that disobeyed the sentence of this counsel, was not, as our Savior Christ here saith, to be held as an heathen or Publican, but he was to die the death. Finally there was but one Synedrion for the whole estate of the Jews by the appointment of God, and that in the place which he should choose, either ordained by Moses, or restored by Jehoshaphat, or renewed by the Jews after their captivity. Wherefore our disciplinarians might as well desire to have a parliament or high counsel of state in every parish, as such a consistory as this was.
To conclude this place: Though it were true, that the Jews had an Ecclesiastical Senate consisting of Priests and Elders of the people: yet it cannot be proved, that in this place of Matthew Christ alluded to it, and much less that he ordained the like in his Church. But now I have shown, that the Jews had no such Ecclesiastical senate: and therefore out of this place nothing can with any show of probability be concluded for Lay-Elders.
The second testimony T. C. urgeth thus:
Diuerse Ministers were not ordained in every congregation:
Diuerse Elders were ordained in every congregation: therefore there were Elders which were not Ministers.
The proposition he proveth, because it was not like that they had diverse Ministers for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached unto. I distinguish of the word congregation, which T. C. useth ambiguously: for in the assumption it signifieth the Church of a whole city: in which sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all one: and so it is true, that diverse Presbyters were placed in every Church, In the proposition, as appeareth by the prosyllogisme, it signifieth every particular congregation, which T. C. seemeth to acknowledge to have been diverse in every city or Church, contrary to our refuter, as we shall hear in the second book. And in this sense it may be true, that not every congregation had diverse Presbyters: as with us every city or Church hath diverse Presbyters, yet every congregation hath not. I say then, what Paul required Titus to do in Crete, the same he and Barnabas performed in these countries: that is, they ordained Presbyters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in every city or Church; which Presbyters were also such as the Apostle Tit. 1. calleth Bishops, and requireth in them ability to preach. And although in every city or Church there were diverse of them, yet not diverse for every meeting. There is no necessity therefore, nor yet probability, that by Presbyters in this place we should understand any but Ministers, contrary to the perpetual use of the word: Neither can any interpreter be alleged old or new, that is not a party, which doth understand the word of Lay-Elders. Zanchius, though a favorer of the Presbyterie, reckoneth this place among those, wherein Ministers of the word are called Presbyters. Aretius, though he acknowledgeth the distinction of Presbyters into two sorts, yet he confesseth this place is, as you heard before, to be understood of Ministers. Calvin himself the principal Patron of the Eldership, understandeth by Presbyters in this place Ministers, and Preachers. Prebyteros his vocari int • rpretor, quibus iniunctum erat docendi munus: Presbyters here I interpret those to be called, to whom the office of teaching was enjoined. Yea but saith T. C. though Calvin say Ministers; here be called Presbyters, yet he doth not say that they only: yea he must be understood (as implying Lay-Elders under Presbyters) seeing he avoucheth the place of Titus, which to us seemeth all one with Act. 14,) for the establishment of these Elders, and quoteth instit. lib. 4. c. 3. s. 8. where he writeth thus. Whereas I called those who govern the Churches indifferently, Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, Ministers, I did according to the use of the scripture, which confoundeth these words: for whosoever exercise the ministry of the word, it giveth the title of Bishops to them. So where Paul commandeth Titus to ordain Presbyters in every city, he straightwaies addeth, for a Bishop must be unreprovable, Tit. 1.5.7. so Phil. 1.1. & Act. 20.17.28. here now it is to be observed, that hitherto we have reckoned those officers only, which consist in the ministry of the word. You see then, how Calvin in his institutions, urged this place in the Epistle to Titus for Lay-Elders. Will you also hear his judgment in his commentary upon the place? although we gather saith he out of the 1. Tim: 5: that there were two sorts of Presbyters, yet the context here will straightwaies show, that no other then Doctors are here understood, that is who were ordained to teach; becàuse by and by he will call them Bishops.
But for all this T.C. seeth not, why it may not be referred to Elders, meaning Lay-Elders, as well as too BB: meaning Ministers. But say I, you must see that Lay-Elders not only may, but must necessarily be understood in this place, or else it is absurdly alleged by you to prove them. Yes, he and the Author of the counter poison will prove, that they are meant here: for the word Elders is set down generally signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers, therefore Paul and Barnabas ordained Lay-Elders as well as Ministers. To the consequence I first answer, that if Elders were a general name comprising more sorts then one, and if Luke had said, that they ordained all sorts of Elders, this consequence would have held: for from the Genus universally taken, we may affirmatively conclude the special sorts. But Luke not speaking so, it is sufficient for the truth of the history, if they ordained any sort of Elders. Now it is confessed of all, that they ordained Ministers, therefore though Elders were the Genus, yet this were a very weak argument. Yea but saith T.C. S. Luke there setteth forth, how they set a full order in the Church: and his purpose was saith another to declare how the Apostles brought the Churches to a perfect and full order of Church government, Whereunto I answer first, that the Church might have a perfect and full order of government without them, And secondly that Luke's meaning was not to signify that they brought those Churches to a full and perfect order of government at their first conversion, which was not to be expected; but that now they began to establish Churches, placing among them Presbyters or Ministers, as being necessary for the very being of visible Churches, without mention (I say not of Bishops, who notwithstanding were added before they were brought to the full and perfect order of government, but even) of Deacons.
The consequence therefore were naught, though the antecedent were true, that is, though Presbyter were the Genus, or general word, signifying as well Lay-Elders as Ministers; for it were only an argument from the Genus to the Species affirmatively. But the antecedent I have before proved to be most false: there being not any testimony to be produced out of scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, or histories of the Church where Presbyter signifieth an Ecclesiastical function in the Church of Christ, doth signify any other but a Minister of the word. And therefore it is absurd to imagine, that Luke Act. 14. doth by Presbyters mean any other then Ministers.
The third testimony, I find not urged anywhere, but in the counterpoison. Where it is said, that James willing them, when they be weak, to send for the Elders of the Church, thereby plainly declareth, that the Church ought not only to have a pastor and a doctor, whose chief attendance must be on reading exhortation and doctrine; but also many, who ought always to be ready at an instant calling of diverse and many at once, that none in that necessary work be neglected. It followeth thereby that besides them, there ought to be such other Elders as may admonish the unruly, comfort the weak minded, and be patient towards all.
If all this were granted as it is propounded, it would not follow thereupon, that therefore there should be any Lay-Elders, but many Ministers in every Church: for such were those in the place cited, and it is the duty of those, whom James would have sent for, to attend unto reading, doctrine and exhortation.
But his meaning (no doubt) was this: There ought to be many Elders in every Church, therefore some Lay-Elders. The consequence he taketh for granted: the antecedent he proveth thus. There were many Elders in every Church in S. James time, therefore there ought to be many now.
For answer to his antecedent and proof thereof, we are to distinguish of the word Church. For if thereby he mean the Church of a whole city and country adjoining, there were, and are many Presbyters in every Church: but if thereby he mean every several congregation, meeting, or assembly of Christians: there neither are, nor were many Presbyters appointed to every such Church. In S. James time, though in each Church there were diverse assemblies of Christians meeting as they could; yet were not parishes distinguished, nor Presbyters severally and certainly allotted to them; but to the Church of a whole city and country adjoining, there was one Bishop, and many Presbyters provided. But when parishes were distinguished, to each of them severally a Presbyter was assigned out of the Clergy or Presbyterie of the city; the residue of the Presbyters remaining with the Bishop, who (as before the division of parishes) retained still the charge of the whole Diocese, as I will God willing show in the next book. Wherefore, though in S. James time, before the division of parishes, there were in every Church (that is Diocese) many Presbyters; yet it doth not follow, that therefore in every parish there should be diverse Presbyters.
But his consequence is especially to be insisted upon: for though there were in each Church many Presbyters, as at Ephesus Act. 20. and at Jerusalem where James himself was Bishop Act. 15. &. 21. of which number James would have the weak to send for some; yet in that number there was not one, who was not a Minister. Neither can any sound reason be alleged, why we should conceive these Presbyters, of whom James speaketh, to have been any other then Ministers. First the title which is given them, viz: Presbyters of the Church as Act. 20.17. is peculiar to Ministers, not one instance to be given to the contrary. Secondly, the function, for the performance whereof they were to visit the sick, chiefly, if not only pertaining to Ministers, and that was not only to pray over the party, and that (as it seemeth by the phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) with imposition of hands, but also to anoint him with the oil in the name of the Lord, that by the oil, as an outward, though temporary Sacrament, annexed to the temporary gift of healing, granted for a time not only to the Apostles, but also to their successors in the ministry of the word, the sick might be restored to health; and by prayer joined with imposition of hands, the sins of the party might be remitted, and so the cause of the sickness be removed.
Wherefore I make no question, but the speech of Saint James is to be understood, according to the perpetual use of the word, the general interpretation of all writers both old and new, (excepting not all that be parties in the cause,) and the general and continual practice of the Church, expounding him, as if he had said, let him call for the Ministers, &c.
The fourth testimony is thus urged. If the Apostle setting down the ordinary members of Christ his Church, which differ in their proper action, do set down the Elder to be over the people with diligence, and not to be occupied in the ministry of the word either by exhortation or doctrine, but to admonish them and rule them; then the only-governing Elders were ordained by the Apostles: but the first say they is manifest, Rom. 12.6.7.8. therefore the second.
But the first, say I, is so far from being manifest, that it cannot so much as obscurely be gathered out of the text. It is true, the Apostle speaketh of the members of the body of Christ, and of the diverse gifts bestowed upon them, which the Apostle exhorteth everyone knowing his proportion, or measure, in all humility and modesty to employ to the common good of the whole body. But you must understand, First, that the members of Christ are not only officers in the state Ecclesiastical, but all Christians whatsoever, as well in the body political, as Ecclesiastic, whether public or private. Secondly, that the Apostle doth not speak of distinct offices which are not coincident to the same persons, but of the diverse gifts, and graces of God's spirit: for so he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c: having diverse gifts according to the grace which is given unto us, of which all or most may concur in the same subject. As for example, a good and faithful Minister, hath as a Minister: First, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gift of expounding the scriptures and of prayer, Secondly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a function to Minister and serve God in the edification of the church, Thirdly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gift of Teaching. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gift of Exhortation: 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the gift of government: and as a good Christian. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the grace to distribute, and to communicate to to the necessities of his brethren, in simplicity and cheerfulness. 3. That these gifts are not proper to Ecclesiastical persons, but common to others.
But if the Apostle had here propounded distinct offices, then might 7. be distinguished, and those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or in-compatible in the same person. But neither are there according to these branches. 7. distinct offices; And besides, they are, or may be all, or diverse of them, coincident to the same person. As for Lay-Elders, they are neither particular, lie expressed, nor in the general implied. The speech is general, he that governeth, in diligence, appartaining to all, that have authority, not only in the church, but also in the family or common-wealth. Indeed, if it were presupposed, (which will never be proved by them, nor granted by us) that among governors, Lay-Elders had a place in the primitive church; then this general might particularly be applied to them, after this manner; all governors ought to be diligent, therefore they. But seeing there were none such, for men to argue from the general, to a feigned special, and that affirmative, in this manner; the Apostle speaketh of governors, therefore of Lay-Elders: It is an argument like all the rest, not worth the answering.
Yea, but the disputer allegeth Calvin, who in his institutions affirmeth that this place cannot be otherwise understood. I would be loath to contest with Calvin, whose name is reverend, and whose memory is blessed. Neuertheles, it is evident by that which hath been said, that it may and ought otherwise to be expounded.
Yea Calvin himself confesseth else-where, that howsoever this place do seem especially to be understood of Ecclesiastical Governors or Seniors; tamen dubium non est, quin omne iustae prefecturae genus nobis commendet; Yet it is not to be doubted but that the Apostle doth commend unto us all kinds of just government.
And again, although properly he call the Church-Governors, and namely the Seniors, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , notwithstanding what he saith of them, may universally be extended to gouernements of all sorts. By Calvin's own confession therefore, the words may generally be understood. And if they may, then also they must. For who shall dare without good warrant, to restrain the general sense of the holy Ghost to one only particular; Especially, that being but a counterfeit; as if the Apostle when he saith, he that governeth, in diligence, had said, let the Lay, or only governing Elders be diligent in their office.
Yea but the Apostle speaketh of such a Governor, as might neither teach nor exhort: and therefore being neither Pastor nor Doctor, it must needs be the only governing Elder. Of this Enthym • me both the antecedent is false, and the consequence unsound. For if the Apostle speak of such a Governor, as might not teach, nor exhort, then neither distribute, nor show mercy; and by the same reason, the teacher, and exhorter, of whom he spake before, may not govern.
But as I said, the Apostle doth not speak of distinct offices, but of diverse gifts, which many times concur in the same person. So that, as he that teacheth and exhorteth, may also govern, and distribute: so he that governeth, as the Pastor, may teach and exhort, and not only he, but the Father is to teach and exhort his children, the master his family; yea, private Christians are to instruct and exhort one another. Neither doth it follow, if he which governeth be neither a Pastor nor Doctor, that straightwaies he should be an only governing Elder. For husbands, parents, masters, and magistrates, masters of Colleges and hospitalls, are governors, though neither Doctors nor Pastors, and yet are they no Ecclesiastical Lay-Elders. To conclude, D. Fulke understandeth this place chiefly of Bishops, whom he supposeth here to be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Heb: 13.17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
The fifth and last testimony, is thus enforced by them. If God hath set in his Church Governors distinct from the Ministers of the Word, then hath he ordained Lay or only governing Elders. But the first is testified by the Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. therefore God hath ordained lay or only governing Elders.
In this Syllogism no part is sound: for first the consequence of the proposition is naught: for by Church as it is taken in the assumption, citing 1. Cor. 12. is meant the whole body of Christ, and by the members of his body, all Christians; among whom God hath established degrees of superiors to govern, and inferiors to obey in all societies, as well in the family & cōmonwealth, as in the Ecclesiastical state.
Secondly, the assumption is false: for, although it be true that in Christ's body there are governors Occonomicall & political distinct from the Ministers; yet Paul doth not in this place testify, that Christ hath set in his Church governors distinct from the Ministers; and much less doth he testify, that in the Church, that is the state Ecclesiastical, he hath ordained governors which are not Ministers. Nay, which is more, the Apostle doth not once mention governors in this text: for it is the fault of the translation, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is helps and gouernements, to read helpers and governors: it being the purpose of the holy Ghost in all the 12.13. and 14. chapters, to discourse of the diverse gifts wherewith God doth adorn the membes of his Church: & in this context, in the midsts of other gifts, which are expressed in the abstract, he placeth these two, for so he saith, powers, gifts of healing, helps, gouernemēts, kinds of tongues. Now it is no better reasō to make two distinct offices of helpers and governors out of these words, then to raise three others out of the other three, powers, gifts of healing and kinds of tongues. But it were ridiculous to make three distinct offices of these three; so is it of the other. And if the other three are to be accounted as gifts, and not as offices; why should we not so conceive of helpings and gouernings, that is to say, the gift of helping and governing? Yea I say further, that although in the beginning of the verse, the Apostle doth reckon three offices, Apostles, Prophets, Teachers: yet his purpose was not exactly to distinguish Ecclesiastical functions, but to enumerate the diverse gifts of God's spirit, wherewith the members of Christ's body are adorned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the common good of the body: Some being honored with the gift of the Apostleship, some with the gift of Prophecy, some with the gift of teaching; some with the gift of working miracles, some with the gift of healing diseases; some with the gift of helping and relieving those that be distressed, as Chrysostom expoundeth it, and as the word is used, Act: 20. some with the gift of governing, some with the gift of tongues.
For if the Apostle had meant in this place to distinguish the Functions and Offices of the Church: then from this Text should eight distinct offices be collected; neither should these gifts have been coincident into the same persons; so that teachers might not govern, and governors might not teach, &c. whereas contrariwise, it is evident, that the Apostles had all these gifts, as Chrysostom also saith: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Prophets and Teachers had diverse of them, &c.
It is plain therefore, that the Apostle did not distinguish the offices of the Church, but orderlie recount the gifts and graces, wherewith the Lord doth beautify diverse members of the Church.
And whereas the Corinthians were proud of their gift of tongues, and despised others; the Apostle showeth that among all these gifts which he reckoneth, that of tongues deserveth the last place: And therefore exhorteth thē to be zealous of the better gifts, chiefly to follow after love, and to covet after spiritual gifts, but among them to desire, rather to prophecy, that is to preach, then to speak with tongues.
And whereas the holy Ghost doth marshall in order the gifts of God, according to their worthiness, saying: First, second, third: if by helps he should mean Deacons, and by governments Elders, then must we hold Deacons to be preferred before Elders, which will not be granted. If any man doubt whether helps and governments are to be accounted gifts, Chrysostom may resolve him: who as of the former he saith, that is in especial manner y e gift of God, so also of the latter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be fit to govern, and to administer spiritual things: and he addeth, that our duties are called God's gifts, to teach us, that our ability in performance of our duty, is the gift of God. So Oecumenius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which also he calleth a gift, though it require our labor also and industry.
Nazianzen also reckoneth them among the graces of the spirit. For the spirit (saith he) is one, but the graces are not equal, nor yet the receptacles of the spirit. For to one, by the spirit is given the word of Wisdom and contemplation; to another, the word of knowledge or revelation; to another, firm & undoubted faith; to another, the inoperations of powers, & high wonders; to another, the gifts of healing▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , helps, that is, Presidencies▪ or Patronages; Gouernements, that is, Poedagogies of the flesh, kinds of tongues, interpretations of tongues.
I am not ignorant, that some before our time have understood diverse of these members to have been Ecclesiastical functions. But yet their exposition wholly agreeth with the government of our Church, not with the pretended discipline. For by Apostles, they understand, not only the 12. Apostles, but their successors also in the government of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops ; and by helps, they understand them, who help the Bishops in the government of the church, as the Deans and Archdeacons; and by gouernements, the governors or rectors of several parishes.
These with 1. Tim: 5.17▪ are the testimonies of Scripture, which usually be alleged by the patrons of the presbytery, not one of them almost either omitting any of them, or adding any other. So that this Disputer might truly conclude, that this is the strength, and indeed all the strength they have out of the Scriptures. Which how strongly or strangely rather, they have concluded for the Lay-Elders, it doth sufficiently appear to them, that have not either a strong prejudice, or a weak judgment. Assuredly, if the Fathers be no stronger for them, then the Scriptures, then is the cause of the Lay-Elders very weak and languishing.
CHAP. XI. Answering the Allegations out of the Fathers, for Lay-Elders.
O F the Fathers he also braggeth, as he did before of the Scriptures. But in the upshot, all the force of his arguments, either out of Scriptures or Fathers, relieth upon the authority of certain new writers, who are the most, & almost all of them, parties in the cause. Which is a kind of arguing, devised to retain the unlearned in their former opinion; that because so many late Divines understand the Scriptures and Fathers, according to their received opinions, they may be confirmed therein.
But is not this a strange kind of reasoning: Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, (which are all the Fathers he nameth, & but nameth, as though with their names he hoped to overcome us) give testimony to Lay-Elders; therefore Lay-Elders were in use in the primitive church: & when we quietly grant this consequence, & only desire them to prove the antecedent : Is it not strange, I say, that this disputer should not produce the testimonies themselves, & endeavor by necessary evidence to demonstrate, that they are to be understood as speaking of Lay-Elders? but to bring in a sort of new writers, the most whereof are parties, to depose, that these, ancient Fathers say as they would have them.
Did they hear them say so, or did they read their writings? If they read their testimonies ; are they y e same which we have in print, or some special manuscripts, which yet are not come to light? if such, why are they not produced? If their testimonies be upon public record, & in print, why should not we examine the records thenselves, & trust to our own eyes and judgments, rather thē to the opinions of them, who are partial in the cause? Or if these new writers had reasons to persuade us, that these Fathers do speak for Lay-Elders, why are not their reasons produced?
By your leave, I will produce their testimonies for you. And because it pitieth me the to see well-meaning people abused (I had almost said guld) with glorious shows: I will let them see, that not any one testimony, which you do use to produce out of the Fathers, doth conclude for Lay-Elders.
And first, as touching Ignatius, whom he first nameth: because his testimonies were (belike) too hot to be handled▪ yet, he putteth him off fairly, saying that
But I quote him not in the question of Elders, but among my proofs for Bishops. And if he have no stronger proofs out of Ignatius for elders, then the self-same that I allege for Bishops, may you not think that he is very strong for them? The truth is, he perceived they were too weak to be urged by him as an opponent, and therefore chose to speak to them as an answerer, hoping to persuade the simple reader, that Lay-Elders are sufficiently proved by Ignatius his testimony, if they be not disproved thereby, as hereafter you shall hear.
T. C. and after him the author of the counterpoison, the demonstrator of discipline, & almost who not? cite this sentence of Ignatius. There is no Church which can stand without her Eldership or counsel. Unto which, H.I. addeth 2. more, out of his epistles to them of Tarsus & Smyrna. In the 1. of these Epistles, Ignatius saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be subject to the Bishop as to the Lord: & a little after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & to the Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope. Of the Deacons in the next words he saith, that they be ministers of the mysteries of Christ Jesus, and not of meat and drink. A reason of the former speech he rendereth in these words, the Bishop is the type of the Father of all, the Presbyters are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Consistory of God, and a band or College of the Apostles of Christ. Then followeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , without these, that is, BB. Presbyters, Deacons, no elect Church is, no holy congregation, no assembly of Saints.
This testimony proveth, that as each Church had a Bishop and Deacons, so also Presbyters and a presbytery. But what manner of presbyters they were, it appeareth: 1. by the Bishops and Deacons, between whom they are usually ranged by Ignatius, as the second degree of the Clergy, willing the Lay-men to be subject to the Deacons, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the Presbyters to the Bishop, and the Bishop to Christ: which by the way is H. I. third testimony, and in effect the same with the second.
And again, let the Presbyters, and the Deacons, and the rest of the Clergy, together with all the people, be obedient to the Bishop.
By which it is plain, they had not in those times, either Lay-Elders, or Lay-Deacons: For the very Deacons are by him called the ministers of Christ unto the word of God, and ministers of the mysteries of Christ.
As for the BB: they were not parish Bishops assisted, according to the new conceit, with Lay-Elders, but BB: of Cities (such as Ignatius himself, who was Bishop of Antioch, the chief City of Syria, ) having the assistance of diverse Presbyters, who were Clergy men, or ministers; and so are in express terms reckoned by Ignatius, as one of the degrees of the clergy, whom in the words before alleged, and in other places, he resembleth to the Apostles of Christ, and would have them so obeyed: exhorting them with the words which Saint Peter useth to ministers, 1. Epist: 5.2. to feed the flock, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.
This is also proved by the universal consent of the most ancient Councils, Canons, and Fathers, who in innumerable places, mentioning Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, never conceive of them otherwise then of 3. degrees of the clergy, in that very sense wherein our church doth use & retain them.
And thus much concerning that most worthy martyr, and Bishop Ignatius: saving, that I would commend a few sen • ences of his, to this disputer and his consorts. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be you united to the Bishop, submitting yourselves to God by him in Chirist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for whosoever are Christ's, they are with the Bishop. And again, do not think that I speak this, as having understood the separation of some, he is witness to me, for whose sake I am bound, that I have not learned this from the mouth of man, but the spirit hath preached unto me, saying these things, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without the Bishop do nothing, love unity, avoid divisions.
The testimony, which is usually cited out of Tertullian, is in his Apologetico. Where, having said that Christians did use to meet in assemblies and congregations to prayer, and to the hearing of the word, he addeth there are also exhortations, chastis • ments and divine censure: judgment is exercised with great advise, as among those who are certain that God doth see them: and it is a great foreshowing of the judgment to come, if any shall so offend as that he shall be banished from the communion of prayer, and of the assembly, and of all holy fellowship. Praesident probati qui{que} seniores honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti, the presidents of our meetings are approved Seniors, having obtained this honor, not by reward, but by good report. By which testimony it is apparent, that the same parties were the presidents of the assembly as well in prayer and in the ministry of the word, as in the exercise of discipline and censures. But Ministers and not Lay-Elde • s were presidents and Rulers of the meetings in public prayer and ministry of the word, therefore also in the exercise of discipline. Who these presidents were, Tertullian himself showeth else where, testifying that the Christians received the Sacrament both in the time of their meals, and also in their meetings before day, nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus Neither do we receive it at the hands of any others then of our presidents. On which words Beatus Rhenanus writeth thus, Presidentes voc at presbyteros etiam alibi, the Presbyters he calleth presidents also in another place, and quoteth the place alleged out of the Apologeticke. And whereas Tertullian imagined (though erroneously) that the husband of a second wife could not be a Bishop or Minister, his opinion he vttere • ▪ in these words, how derogatory from faith, and how opposite to piety second marriages are, the discipline of the Church and the prescript of the Apostle doth declare, cum digamos non siuit presidere, when it doth not suffer twice married men to be presidents that is Ministers. And whereas the Catholics, whom he endevoreth to refute, understood that rule of the Apostle as peculiar to Bishops & Ministers, he chargeth them also with the breach thereof even in that sense. Quot enim & ex digamiae president apud vos, insultantes vti{que} apostolo? for how many after their second marriage are presidents among you, even insulting over the Apostle and blush not when these things are read before them? It is plain therefore, that the Seniors which were presidents in the assemblies of Christians, of whom Tertullian speaketh, were Ministers, whatsoever some new writers whom he quoteth, do say to the contrary. For whereas among others who were parties in the cause, he quoteth B. Jewel, who indeed is no party, I answer, if he have alleged the rest no better then him, (as for my part I mean not to search, especially seeing the chief of his Authors are quoted at Random, ) he will gain the opinion of a notable falsifier of Authors. Harding blamed the translator of the Apology into English, for translating Presbyteri Elders and not Priests ; The translation Bishop Jewel defendeth, saying that Presbyter a Priest is nothing else but Senior, and that a Priest and Elder are both one thing. And whereas Harding affirmed, that Priests and Deacons waited only upon the Bishops but gave no sentence in counsels (which in respect of provincial counsels, is evidently false) he disproueth that assertion. First by Act. 15. Secondly, by Nicephorus. Thirdly, by this testimony of Tertull • an, president probati qui{que} Seniores the judges in such Ecclesiastical assemblies be the best allowed Elders, that is according to Bishop Jewels interpretation, Priests, for to that end he citeth the testimony, and before he had said that Senior and Priest is all one.
D. Whitgift conceiving, as Bishop Jewel did, that these Seniors were Ministers; T. C. objecteth, (and it is the only thing he objecteth) that it is incredible, that all the Churches, whose defense Tertullian taketh upon him, and whose usage he doth describe, had such a college of Seniors that were Ministers. Whereunto the answer is easy, that Tertullian speaketh of the Churches in cities, in which only were Presbyteries (unto which the parishes of the country adjoining, so soon as there were any, were subject) and those wholly consisting of Minist • rs. Neither can any testimony or example be alleged, either of Presbyters that were not Ministers, or of Presbyteries in villages or country parishes.
As touching Cyprian : the disputer might have cited some testimony, or at least quoted some place in his writings, before he had labored to prove what was his meaning. But his concealing of the place it self, and his producing of witnesses (who are all parties) to depose that Cyprian speaketh for Lay-Elders, is a plain argument that he trusteth to his witnesses, more then to Cyprian himself. For my part, I know not what place he meaneth: if he will approve his sincerity, let him name one place if he can, which even in his own conscience doth seem indeed to make for Lay-Elders. The Demonstrator of discipline and H. I. in his book though they take together such testimonies of the Fathers as they thought favored Lay-Elders; yet they durst not mention Cyprian, as reposing any of their strength in his testimony.
T. C. citeth Cyprian, as noting a piece of the office of these Elders by dividing the communion bread into equal portions, and carrying it for the assistance of the Bishop in little baskets or trayes, where by placing their office in this assisting the Minister, he doth manifestly shut thē out from the ministering of the Sacrament, &c: whereof also it cometh that in another place he calleth them brethren which had care of the basket.
When I consider T. C. his learning and professed piety, I cannot sufficiently wonder at his allegations out of the Fathers, and at this among the rest. Cyprian, being himself absent in time of persecution, writeth to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Carthage, signifying that he and some other Bishops (whom he calleth his colleagues) had received Celerinus, and Aurelius, two notable young men into the Clergy, and ordained them Lectores Readers, with purpose, that when they should be of age, to ordain them Presbyters. In the mean time, know ye saith he, that we have already designed to thē honor̄ Presbyterij, the honor of Priesthood, vt sportulis ijsdem cum. Presbyteris honorentur that they may be honored with the wages (or as it was afterwards called canonical portion) equal with Presbyters, sessuri nobiscum, being hereafter to fit with us (namely as Presbyters) when they shall be grown in years. And that this was Cyprians meaning, the other place by him cited doth prove. For whereas one Geminius Victor had by his will named Faustinus a Presbyter to be a tutor or gardian; Cyprian doth reprove it as contrary, not only to the Canons of the Church, but also to the word of God, which would have none that is a Soldier to God to be entangled with worldly business. To which purpose he allegeth the example of the Levites, who for the same cause had no possession like the other tribes. The which manner and form saith he, is still retained in the Clergy, that they who in the Church of God are preferred to the order of Clerks, should by no means be called away from the divine administration, nor be tied to worldly cumbers and employments, sed in honor sportulantium fratrum tanquam decimas ex fructibus accipientes, but that receiving the honor of brethren, who have wages of the Church, as it were tithes of fruits, they should not depart from the Altar and service of God. Those, whom he calleth sportulantes fratres, were afterwards called Canonici, a Canon, that is from the ordinary and certain pension or prebend which was allotted to them.
And where he saith the Presbyters were excluded from ministering the communion, it is apparent in the writings of Cyprian, that usually they did administer that Sacrament, and in diverse of his Epistles are reproved by him, for giving the communion to some, which had fallen in time of persecution, without his consent.
The Author of the Counterpoyson citeth another testimony of Cyprian, writing to the Presbyters and Deacons, signifying unto them, that in the want of diverse of the Clergy, he had ordained new. Know ye saith he that I have made Saturus Reader, and Optatus subdeacon, whom we heretofore had made next the Clegie, when either to Saturus on Easterday we granted once or twice leave to read, or when with the Presbyters Doctors Readers we appointed Optatus the Teacher of the he • ers, examining whether all things did agree to them, which ought to be in those who are prepared for the Clergy. Where, because Presbyters are mentioned as distinct from Doctors, (which he supposeth to be Ministers) and Readers, he inferreth they were Lay-Elders. To omit his mistakings, and not understanding the place, it is evident that Doctors audientium were Catechists, (for audientes were the inferior rank of Catechumen ) who were so far from being chief in the Clergy next to the Bishop as Presbyters, that Cyprian signifieth, when he and the rest had appointed Optatus doctorem audientium, they had made him next to the Clergy, that is at the next election to be chosen into the Clergy, examining whether all things did agree to him which ought to be in them who are prepared for the Clergy. Neither should this seem strange, seeing Origen was Catechist at Alexandria, when he was but eighteen year old: Who afterwards coming into Palaestina, was permitted by the Bishops there, publicly to expound the scriptures. Which when Demetrius the Bishop of Alexandria understood, by letters he reproved those Bishops; asking them, if ever it were heard, that Lay-men, such as Origen then was, should preach in the presence of Bishops. Therefore the distinction of Presbyters from such Teachers, doth not prove that themselves were not Ministers.
Such Teachers in Alexandria after Origen, were Dionysius and Heraclas ; whom notwithstanding, the Presbyters, who till then were wont to choose their Bishop out of their own order, elected Bishops, as hereafter we shall show. But what manner of Seniors the Presbyters were, whom Cyprian so often mentioneth, may sufficiently appear by this one testimony, where he saith, cum episcopo Presbyteri sacerdotali honor coniuncti, the Presbyters were joined with the Bishop in the honor of Priesthood.
What other allegations they have out of Cyprian worth the answering, I know not. But this I protest, that I have read over Cyprian, having always an eye to this present question; but I never met with any one testimony, that (in my poor judgment) did seem to sound for Lay-Elders.
As for those other places, which are in a petition directed to Q. Elizabeth, and in a protestation which lately came out of the North, quoted out of Cyprian, and other ancient writers; I find them all more then sufficiently answered by the learned and reverend B. Bilson, to whom I refer the Reader, having myself insisted longer on this question then at the first I intended.
Neither will I vouchsafe an answer to his new supply, either of testimonies of new writers (though I know some of them to be falsified) or examples of other reformed Churches, whereby he seeketh to blear the eyes of the simple. For if this cause were to be tried by plurality of voices for witness to the truth, or of examples for practice of it, who knoweth not, that we are able to ouersway them without comparison, no writer till our age giving testimony, no Church since the Apostles times until this present age giving approbation to Lay-Elders; but all writers and Churches before our time, giving testimony and approbation to the government of Bishops.
To omit that as in the number of learned men we are not inferior, so in the multitude of Churches at this day, which do not admit the Lay-Elders, we are far superior, as hereafter shall be shown.
LONDON Imprinted by Thomas Creed. 1611.
THE SECOND BOOKE, PROVING That the Primitive Churches, endued with Power of Ecclesiastical Government, were not Parishes properly but Dioceses; And that the Angels of the Churches, or ancient Bishops were not Parishonal, but Diocesan Bishops.
The First Chapter entreating of the diverse acceptations of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Church, Diocese, and that which is translated, Parish.
I N this second conflict I find the Refuter very confident, like the men of Ai, (though not upon the like occasion) as though my forces were not able to stand before him. But forasmuch as in the former assault I have taken the Acropolis & chief hold of the Presbyterian Discipline, I doubt not, but that when he shall with the men of Ai look back, and see the chief Tower of his defense, I mean the Presbytery, vanishing as it were a smoke, his courage will be abated. For the Presbytery being down, what hath he wherewith to hold out Bishops? For seeing the Primitive Churches were governed either by Diocesan Bishops, as we hold, or by Pastors of Parishes, assisted with Lay-Elders as they imagine, who seeth not that upon the overthrow of the Presbyteries, the government by Bishops is necessarily inferred? Having therefore proved the first point of the five, with such evidence of truth, as I am well assured all the gainsayers thereof will never be able soundly and substantially to confute, I need not doubt of prevailing in the rest. As for the 2. next points which I handle, concerning Dioceses, and Diocesans; the refuter thinketh they be
, and thereupon would take occasion to cavil at my order, (as if I were to learn Method of him) whereas indeed his imputation of weakness to these 2. parts, if it were true, would commend my disposition of them as Homericall, seeing I have marshalled them Nestorio more, after the manner of Nestor, in medio infirma, placing the weakest in the midst. The chiefest points in my estimation being the first, and the two last. The truth is, I did more lightly pass over these two then the rest, but not out of an opinion of weakness in the points themselves, but partly in a conceit of their evidence, and partly in consideration that they were not either so worthy or so needful to be insisted upon as the rest. For first, I supposed them to be so evident, that howsoever T. C. in whose steppes our new Disciplinarians tread, upon weaker grounds then a man of learning & judgment should have stood upon, doth deny them; yet scarcely any other man of learning & judgment besides him would gain-say them. Secondly, that the three weightiest points which are most contradicted, and in which these 2. are presupposed, were most worthy in that brevity (whereto I was confined) to be stood upon. And thirdly, that J needed not to be so careful in proving of them, seeing the chiefest patrons of the pretended Discipline, as Calvin and Beza, &c. do herein ioin with us against our new sect of Disciplinarians, as hath already been proved.Now whereas I brought forth these forces, intending only a light skirmish, & velitationem quandam tanquam leuis armaturae ; my adversary bringeth his main battle into the field, as if the event of this whole warfare depended upon this encounter. I will therefore not only bring a new supply like those of the Israelites which came upon the men of Ai, as they were pursuing the other companies of Israel; but also cause these Arguments, which now like the troupes of Israel seem in his conceit to fly before him, to return upon him a fresh.
And forasmuch as here we are to entreat of Churches, Parishes, and Dioceses, it shall not be amiss to begin with the names which are diversely taken. And first with the word Ecclesia ; which signifying generally , any assembly, company or congregation of men whatsoever, civil or ecclesiastical, holy or profane, is in all the places of the New Testament (excepting Act. 19.) appropriated to the Companies of the faithful. For whereas all mankind is to be divided into two Companies; the one is the world, which is the kingdom of darkness, containing many particular companies which are all the Synagogues of Satan, the other, the Kingdom of God; this latter is called Ecclesia, signifying a Company of men as redeemed, so also called out of the world, as the Greek word importeth. Ecclesia therefore is a company of men called out of the world unto salvation by Christ, that is to say more briefly, the Church doth signify a company of Christians.
And thus it is used in the Scriptures either more
-
Generally, to signify either the
- Vniuersal company of them that are elected in Christ, or called to be Saints, as Ephes. 1.22. & 3.21. & 5.23. 24.25.27.29, 32. Act 2.47. Colos. 1.18.24.
-
The two main parts of the universal Church
- Triumphant in heaven, as Heb. 12 23.
-
Militant on earth, as Mat. 16.18. 1. Cor. 12.28. Eph. 3.10. 1. Tim. 3.15, and that either
- dispersed in diverse nations and Countries throughout the world, 1. Cor. 10.32. & 15 9. Act. 8.3. Gal 1.13. Phil. 3.6.
- Congregated in an universal or O • cumenicall Synod
-
Particularly, & that either
-
Definitely, to signify the Church of a
-
Nation in the mumber
- Singular. Act. 7 38.
-
Plural. Rom. 16.4. 1. Cor. 16.1.19. 2. Co. 8.1. Ga. 1.2.22
-
And these either dispersed or cōgregated into a
-
Synod or consistory.
- Mat. 18.17
- Act. 15.22
-
Congregation, whether set: or uncertain as
- Act. 11.26. & 14.27. 1. Cor. 11 18 22. & 14.5.12.19 23.28.34.35.3. John. 6.
-
Synod or consistory.
-
And these either dispersed or cōgregated into a
- City and Country adjoining. Act. 5.11. & 8.1. & 11.12. & 12.1.5. & 13.1. & 14.23. & 20. 17.28. 1. Cor. 1.2. 2 Co. 1.1. & 8.23. Col 4.16. 2. Thes. 1.1. 1. Tim. 5.16. I am. 5.14. Apoc. 1.4. 11.20. & 2.1.7.8.12.18. & 3.1.7.14.
- Village or town. Rom. 16 1.
- Family, Rom. 16.5. 1. Cor. 16 9. Col. 4.5. Philem. 2.
-
Nation in the mumber
-
Indefinitely, signifying any company of Christians, not defining either the
-
Place, Society, whether of a Nation, City, &c. quantity, whether an entire church or but a part, as
- Act. 9. • 1. & 15 3.4.41. & 18.22. Rom. 16.16 23.1. Co. 4.17. & 6.4. & 11.16. & 14. 33. 2. Cor. 8.18.19.24. & • 1 8.28. & 12.13. Phil. 4.15. 1. Thes. 2.14. 2. Thes. 1.4. • . Tim. 3.5.3. John. 9. 10. Apoc. 2.7.17.23.29. & 3.6.13.22. & 22.16.
-
Place, Society, whether of a Nation, City, &c. quantity, whether an entire church or but a part, as
-
Definitely, to signify the Church of a
The significations of the word Church being so manifold in the Scriptures, it may be demanded what is truly and properly a Church upon earth. Whereunto I answer by warrant of the word, that every company of men professing the true faith of Christ, is both truly a Church, and also a true Church. So is the whole company of the faithful upon earth the true Church and spouse of Christ, the pillar and ground of truth.
So is the company of Christians professing the true faith of Christ in any Nation or part of the world to be termed by the name of a Church. For even as the whole people of Israel professing the true religion, were one Church, though containing very many particular Congregations or Synagogues, which also were so many Churches: even so the whole people of England, professing through God's mercy, the true Catholic and Apostolic faith, is to be called the Church of England. For whereas some allege, that the Church of the Jews was one, because it was under one high Priest, who was a figure, and therefore ceased: it is evident that it was one Church, because it was one people or commonwealth, ruled by the same laws, professing the same religion, both before there was one high Priest, and after there were through corruption more then one. Neither was the high Priest in respect of his preeminence and government over the priests and people a type of Christ (for then had he, as well as Melchizedek, been a type of Christ's government and kingly office, as well as of his priesthood, and consequently Christ might have been a priest of the order of Aaron, as well as of Melchizedek but in respect of his sacrifice for the whole people, and intercession for them, and his entrance alone within the sanctuary, bearing the names of the twelve Tribes: for Christ's government appertaineth to his kingdom, and not to his priesthood.
Likewise the Christian people of any City and Country adjoining, whether that which we call a province or diocese, though consisting of many particular congregations, is rightly termed a Church, as the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardes, Philadelphia, &c.
Jn like manner, the Christian people of one Town or Village, containing but one congregation, which we call a parish, is truly called a church, as perhaps that of Cenchreae. And to conclude, the company of faithful in one family do deserve the name of a Church, as hath been shown. Indeed that any particular Church of a whole Nation, City and Country, Town, Parish, or family, (family I say being alone, and not a part of a congregation, but as an entire Church or parish by itself) may be accounted a true visible Church, there is required besides the profession of the true faith, wherein the life and being of a Church consisteth, the ministry of the word and sacraments, and eutaxy, or some good order of government. Not that all governors are to be placed in every society or Church, but that the effect and benefit of the government is to redound to every particular. For as well might an high Council of State, or Parliament, such as was the synedrion of the Jews, which was but one for the whole Nation, be required in every City, and a Major and Aldermen (such as be in London and other chief Cities) in every village, as a Bishop and Presbytery in every parish.
All which J have the rather noted, because some having first strongly conceited, that there is no true visible Church but a parish, nor lawful church-officers but parishional, have hailed the places of Scripture, where Ecclesia is mentioned, to the confirmation of their conceit: and thereupon, as their chief foundation, have built their newfound parish discipline. Whereas in very truth, scarce any one testimony of such a congregation of Christians, as we call a parish, can be alleged out of the Scriptures. Indeed at the very first conversion of Cities, the whole number of the people converted (being sometimes not much greater then the number of the Presbyters placed among them) were able to make but a small congregation. But those Churches were in constituting, they were not fully constituted, until their number being increased, they had their Bishoppe or Pastor, their Presbytery and Deacons; without which Ignatius saith, there was no Church: meaning no accomplished or fully constituted Church. Neither was the Bishop and the Presbytery, which at the first was placed in any City, provided only for that set number which was already converted; but they were there placed for the conversion of the whole City and country thereto belonging: their ministry being like to the leaven put into three pecks of meal, which by degrees seasoneth the whole lump. Neither was it meant, that the whole number of Christians of each City and territory, being much increased, should continue but one particular ordinary congregation assembling in one place; but that upon the multiplication of Christians, division should be made of the whole Church into diverse particular congregations, which after happened in all Churches accordingly. But upon this division, there was not to every several congregation allotted a Bishop and a Presbytery, but only several Presbyters assigned, singuli singulis, some of the Presbyters continuing with the Bishop. The Bishop himself remaining, as it was first intended, and as the Church of God everywhere throughout the world expounded that intent, by their practice, the Pastor or Superintendent of the whole City and country adjoining. Neither are all the Disciplinarians in the world able to show, that there were, or ought to have been, after the division of parishes and assignment of several Presbyters unto them, anymore then one Bishop and one Presbytery for a whole diocese. But of this more hereafter.
In the mean time, having shown that the use of the word Ecclesia in the Scriptures doth not savor their conceit, who imagine there is no true Church, but a parish, the word signifying (according to the usual phrase of the holy Ghost) any company of Christians, whether great or small; I am now to declare the use of the word Ecclesia, paroecia, dioecesis, (which are commonly translated, Church, parish, diocese,) in ancient Writers. Where I am to note, that setting aside the general significatiō of the word Ecclesia, signifying either the whole Church in general, or the two main parts of it in heaven and earth: in which sense paroecia and dioecesis are not used, as also the largest signification of dioecesis, containing the whole circuit of a patriarchall and archepiscopal jurisdiction, (as the diocese of the Patriarch of Alexandria contained all Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, the diocese of Antioch, the East Countries, &c.) In which sense, the word paroecia is not used, setting aside I say these large significations of ecclesia and dioecesis: otherwise these three words, ecclesia, paroecia, and dioecesis, are for the most part used as words of the same signification. For as in the singular number, commonly each of them doth signify a diocese, excepting wherein the distribution of the diocese paroecia is opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for then only it signifieth the city and suburbs, and excepting where some addition restraineth the word paroecia or ecclesia, to the signification of a parish, as ecclesia or paroecia cui presbyter praest: so in the plural, if they be referred to one diocese, they signify parishes, or some parts of the diocese (though with this difference, that dioceses do note Parishes only in the Country, but ecclesia and paroecia, commonly, as well those in the City, as in the country) but referred to whole Nations, or larger parts of the world, they signify dioceses.
But I will speak of them severally, beginning with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 paroecia: the rather because our Refuter, and others of his feather, finding in Eusebius the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. to be termed paroeciae, straightwaies conclude, that they were such Churches as we call parishes. Which, if they write as they think, is a very unlearned collection. For whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is diversely used, sometimes with reference to a Bishoppe, sometimes with relation to a Presbyter; in the signification of a parish, it is never used as the whole Church, subject to the Bishoppe, but in that sense is either referred to one Presbyter, as his proper charge: or if it be referred to the Bishoppe, it doth signify but one parish among many belonging to his Bishopric. But most usually, and almost always in ancient Writers, yea and many times, both in those of the middle, and also of the latter age, it is taken either for the whole diocese, or for the city and suburbs; whereto as the Bishops see, the rest of the diocese doth appertain.
And because my adversary shall not say I speak without book, I will bring pregnant testimonies to make good my assertion. First therefore, whereas one of the ancient Canons, called the Apostles, forbiddeth a Bishop to leave 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his own charge, and to leap into another: and wh • reas Eusebius the author of the ecclesiastical history, being the Metropolitan Bishop of Cesarea, and much importuned to remove to Antioch, which at that time was the seat of the third patriarch, refused that offer: Constantine the great doth greatly commend him for keeping 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Apostolic • canon. Which canon the Council of Nice hath reference unto, when it saith that Bishops removing from one City to another, or as we speak, from one See to another, did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , contrary to the Canon. The meaning therefore of the Canon forbidding a Bishop to remove from one paroecia to another, was to forbid him to remove from one Diocese to another. The council of Antioch, speaking to the same purpose, retayneth the same words, forbidding a Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to be translated from one paroecia to another ▪ Where it were absurd to understand the council as speaking of a parish, because this council being latter then the council of Nice, it is evident that at that time, there were not only Bishops of Dioceses, and Metropolitans over Provinces▪ but also patriarches dividing among them the Christian world. And to the same purpose, the council of Serdica noting the breach of these canons, among other unlawful practices of the Arians, expresseth it in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , translations from less Cities to greater paroecias, that is, dioceses, or Bishoprics In the same Council it is decreed , that if any Bishoppe will ordain in any degree of the clergy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of another paroecia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Minister belonging to another Bishop, without the consent of his own Bishop, the ordination shall be void. The councils of Ancyra and Antioch speaking of Bishops, the one, not received 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the paroecia, or diocese, the other, not accepting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the paroecia or bishopric unto which he was ordained, most plainly by paroecia understand the charge of a Diocesan Bishop. Epiphanius excusing himself to John the Bishop of Jerusalem, who was offended with him, for that he had, as was supposed, ordained a Presbyter in his diocese, answereth among other things, that diverse Bishops had ordained in his diocese, without his offense. Yea, he had exhorted Philo & Theoprobus, two Bishops, that in the Churches of Cyprus, which were near to them, ad mea autem paroeciae videbātur ecclesiā pertinere, eo quod grandis esset et lat a prouincia, ordinarēt presbyteros, et Christ's ecclesiae prouiderent, but seemed, faith he, to belong to the Church of my paroecia, that is, Bishopric, they would, because it was a great and large province, ordain Presbyters, and provide for the Church of Christ. Where it is testified, that the Churches throughout a large Province, were but part of his paroecia, that is, diocese.
But I will descend to latter times, wherein it was provided, that a Bishop of another City , should not contrary to the canons, invade parochiam cuiuslibet episcopi, the paroeciae, mening diocese of any other Bishop. The third Council of Toledo hath these words; Si quid episcopi ecclesiis ad suā parochiam pertinentibus dederint, &c. If Bishops shall give anything to Churches belonging to their paroecia, that is, Bishopric. Gregory the Great when he would signify, that the ancient canons commanded that provincial synods should be held twice a year, saith , they had taken order, de habendis per parochias concilijs. The synod held in England An. 673. decreed, that no Bishop should invade the paroecia of another: and that Bishops and other clergy men, being strangers, may not exercise any priestly function without the leave of the Bishop, in cuius paroecia, in whose diocese they are known to remain. In the Council of Arles , it was ordained, that once a year every Bishop should go about parochiam suam, that is, his diocese. The Council of Mainz appoint, that every Bishoppe in sua parochia, that is, in his own diocese, should make diligent inquiry, whether there were any Presbyters or Deacons therein, that belonged to another Bishop, that they might be returned to him. In the Council of Rhoan , the Bishop is forbidden principalem cathedram s • ae parochia negligere, to neglect the Cathedral Church or chief seat of his paroecia, that is, Bishopric. To conclude, the Council held at Wormes , forbiddeth Bishops, qu • parochias non habent, which have no charge of their own, to exercise their function, or to ordain in alterius parochia, in the paroecia of another Bishop, without the appointment of the Bishop in • uius parochia, in whose diocese they be. Whereby it doth evidently appear, that the word paroecia, being attributed to a Bishop, as his whole charge or circuit of his episcopal jurisdiction, doth signify a diocese, consisting of many parishes. And that in Eusebius it is so to be understood, it is most manifest, because he calleth great Churches, after the division of them into many parishes, not only in the Country, but even in the Cities, by the name of Paroecia. To which purpose, let us confer a few places in Eusebius, concerning the Church of Alexandria: whereby his meaning, when he speaketh of this argument, will easily appear. For having said, lib. 6. cap. 1. that Laetus was the president of Alexādria & the rest of Egypt, he addeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but the Bishopric of the paroecia or Churches there (in Alexandria and Egypt) Demetrius had lately received. In the eight chapter he saith, that Demetrius was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the president or Bishop of the paroecia, that is, the Church there. For so he explaneth himself chap. 26. calling him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Bishop of the Church of the Alexandreans: and what he meaneth by that speech he showeth chap. 35. Where speaking of Dionysius his next successor but one, he useth these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he taketh upon him the Bishopric or charge of being president of the Churches belonging to Alexandria. So that when he saith Bishop 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the paroecia, or church, his meaning is all one as if he had said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, of such a Bishopric as contained many Churches. And in the same sense he speaketh (though in the plural number) when he mentioneth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. the paroeciae or churches of Pontus, the churches of Asia, the paroecia of the holy catholic church. Thus then we see, that in ancient writers the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, and paroecia (corruptly parochia ) in Latin, is usually taken for the whole diocese consisting of many parishes, when it betokeneth a Bishops whole charge.
§. 8. Sometimes it signifieth but a part of the Bishopric, as whē the whole diocese is divided into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying the city or chief seat, or see of the Bishop: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the rest of the diocese in the country or countries thereto belonging. For manifestation whereof, those two places mentioned in the sermon are sufficient. The former is one of the ancient Canons called the Apostles, in these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The Bishops of every nātion it behooveth to agnize him that is Primate or first among them, and to esteem him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as their head or chief, and to do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nothing that exceedeth the bounds of their own charge or jurisdiction, without his consent, and that everyone do deal in those things alone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which belong to his own Paroecia, that is, see or Church & the coū • ries which be subject onto it. Neither may he (that is, the Metropolitan,) do anything without the consent of all. So shall there be concord, and God shall be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Ghost: Which canon is renewed and explained in the council of Antioch, the canons whereof were part of the ancient code or book of canons received in the ancient church, recited some of them in the great council of Chalcedon, and ratified all of them in the general council of Constantinople held in Trullo the Emperors Palace. The canon is this: It behooveth the BB, of every Province to acknowledge the Metropolitan B. and that he taketh vpō him the cure of the whole Province because there is a concourse of all men who have business from all places unto the Metropolis on mother City. Wherefore it hath been thought good or decreed, that he should excel in honor, and that without him the rest of the Bishops should do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nothing exceeding the bounds of their own charge, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the ancient received Canon of our Fathers, (meaning the afore cited Canon of the Apostles, which it reciteth, as you see, word for word) but those things alone which concern his own Pa • oecia, that is, his own See or City, and the Countries which be under it. For every Bishop hath authority over his own Paroecia, and doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , administer according to the fear (of God) wherewith he is endued, and hath a provident care, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the whole region (or country) which is under his City (using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, Paroecia and City, indifferently) so that he may ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with judgment: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but beyond his bounds he may do nothing without the Bishop of the Mother City: neither may he without • he consent of the rest. Then which testimonies, nothing can be alleged more pregnant, either for the signification of the word, or for the proof of our assertion, that the Churches or charges of Bishops were not parishes, but dioceses.
Sometimes indeed the word Paroecia doth signify that which we call a parish: but then either it is used with such reference to a Bishop, as it is plainly noted to be but one among many belonging to his charge, and is commonly uttered in the plural number; or else it is referred to a Presbyter as his proper charge. To which purpose consider these testimonies. The Council of Carthage, which is so much alleged by the Disciplinarians, speaketh, as of the Bishop of the diocese, so of a Presbyter, qui Parochiae praeest, who is set over a parish. The Council of Toledo speaketh of Presbyters ordained in parochijs & per parochias. Innocentius the first writing to Florentius a Bishop, blameth him for usurping a parish which belonged to the diocese of Vrsus another Bishop. And elsewhere he speaketh
••As for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or dioecesis, I hope I shall not need to prove, that it also signifieth a diocese. Neither do I greatly need to show, that in the signification of a diocese, it is given to Bishops; seeing the sense of it being diuersified according to the variety of the persons to whom it is attributed; in the sense of a diocese, as we term it, it is properly ascribed to Bishops. The word indeed seemeth generally to signify the circuit of any man's charge or administration, who hath government in the Church. For as there is Ecclesia, a Church of a Patriarch, and of a Metropolitan, of a Bishop, and of a Presbyter; so there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or dioecesis, of a Patriarch, which we may call a Patriarchal diocese; of an Archbishop, which we call a Province; of a Bishop, which we call a Diocese; and of a Presbyter, which we call a Parish.
For the two first, these few examples may suffice. The Emperor Justinian appointeth, that a Clergy man should not be accused at the first before the Patriarch of the Diocese ; but first, according to the sacred constitutions, before the Bishop of the City, in which the Clergy man liveth: then, if he be suspected as partial, let him bring the party accused before the Metropolitan Bishop. But if he also shall not allow of the accusation, let him bring him before the Synod of that province &c but if still he think himself wronged, let him appeal to the Patriarch of the Diocese, from whose sentence there lieth no appeal &c. Afterwards he addeth this exception; that whereas there are two sorts of Patriarchs, some, who in the Provinces wherein they are, bear the office of Metropolitans, (their See being of ancient time the Metropolis of the Province, such were the Bishops of Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria,) others per totam Diocesin, throughout the whole Diocese, do ordain the Metropolitans and other Bishops who are under them, as the Bishop of Constantinople , and perhaps Jerusalem; ) therefore the causes, which happen in the Provinces of the former sort, are immediately from the Bishops to be brought to them as to Metropolitans.
In the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or disposition of the Churches, subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, made by the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, it is noted, that seven Metropolitan Churches, were withdrawn from the Roman Diocese, with the Bishops under them, & one also, viz. Sele • cia in Pamphylia from the Diocese of the East, (meaning of the Bishop of Antioch, for he, as Theodoret saith, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the ruler or chief of the Bishops in the East, ) together with 26. Bishoprics subject thereto. Epiphanius , as you heard before, testifieth this to have been the custom, that the Bishop of Alexandria should have the Ecclesiastical 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Diocese, or Administration of all Egypt & Thebais, Mareot, Libya, Ammoniace, Maraeotis, and Pentapolis. It is said of Gregory the Great , that unto the Bishoprics of his Diocese, he invited Bishops of another Diocese, vacantes, being voided of their Bishoprics, as the Bishop of Smyrna, he invited to a Bishopric in Sicilia.
The circuit also of an Archbishops jurisdiction is sometimes called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Dioecesis, and the Archbishop himself , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as in the Council of Chalcedon, where Archbishops are reckoned as a middle degree, between Metropolitans and Patriarchs; the name of Patriarch being also given sometimes unto them. If any have a controversy with the Metropolitan of the Province, let him go unto, either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Primate of the Diocese, or to the patriarch of Constantinople. The same Council appointeth the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thracia to be ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the BB. of every province in those Dioceses to be, as they were wont, according to the Canons, to be ordained of their Metropolitans. So that according to this sense a province is but part of a Diocese. Socrates speaking of the first Council of Constantinople, saith that they established Patriarchs, meaning Archbishops, dividing unto them provinces. Thus of the Diocese of Pontus, Helladius the Bishoppe of Cesarea, Gregorius the Bishoppe of Nyssa, Otreius the B. of Metileno obtained the Patriarchship. The Patriarchship of the Diocese of Asia was assigned to Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia and Gregory writing to Constantius the Archbishop of Millaine, mentioneth diverse BB. of his Diocese, as you heard before.
But we are briefly also to show that a Bishops charge is called Dioecesis. The first Council of Constantinople decreeth , as it is commonly understood, that BB. should not go out of their Diocese unto Churches without their bounds, and that they should not confound the Churches. Where a Diocese is attributed to a Bishop, as the circuit and bounds of his jurisdiction; and Churches, which the Council forbiddeth to be confounded, are confounded with Dioceses. Again, that BB. being not called, may not go without their Diocese, to ordain Ministers, or to exercise other ecclesiastical administrations.
In the Council of Afric it was decreed that those people which never had a Bishop of their own, should not have a Bishop but by the decree of the whole Synod of the province, and the Primate, and by the consent of him in whose Diocese the said Church is. Again, that one Bishop do not invade the Diocese of another. Thus Dioecesis signifieth the whole Diocese. But where we find it opposed to the City, or to the Cathedral church, then doth it signify the rest of the Diocese; as in the African Council it was ordained that the Churches in the Diocese converted from Donatism, should belong to the Cathedra or See of the Catholic B. Again, the BB are forbidden to leave their chief seat or See, & to remove themselves to another church in their Diocese.
Thus in the plural number, it signifieth sometimes all the churches in the Diocese, meaning the country, & sometimes any of thē severally. It was concluded upon in the Council of Carthage, that the BB. which live in the unity & communion of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that he should not only justly retain his own See, but also possess such Dioeceses, that is parts of the Diocese, as had gotten to themselves a a schismatical Bishop of their own. Again, it was decreed that Dioceses (that is, parts of the Diocese in the country) which never had a Bishop, should not have any: and that Diocese which sometimes had, should have their own B. And if in process of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to have a peculiar governor, with the consent or liking of him, in whose power the Diocese is, let them have a Bishop. We have heard it ordained (saith Honoratus and Urbanus in the 3. Council of Carthage,) that Dioceses (meaning but parts of the Diocese in the Country) should not obtain a Bishop, but with the consent of him under whom they are placed. But perhaps some in our Province when they have been ordained Bishops in such a Diocese, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the grant of the B. who originally holdeth the Dioceses, have challenged other Dioceses, this ought to be amended. Epigonius answered, that which is meet, is reserved to every Bishoppe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that out of the company or combination of Parishes jointly possessed, no part should be taken to have a Bishoppe of her own, but by the consent of him, who hath authority, meaning the Bishoppe of the City, unto which the Country belongeth. But if he shall grant that the Diocese (meaning part of his own Diocese) permitted shall enjoy a Bishop of their own; he that is so preferred may not encroch upon other Dioceses, (that is, other parts of the Diocese,) because that one being taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the body of many was vouchsafed alone to receive a Bishopric of their own. The which sentence when Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, and president of that Council had consented unto, was decreed by the whole Council.
And that we may know the Parishes in the Country together with the several Presbyters set over them, belong to the Diocesan Bishop, even they also sometimes are called by the name of Diocese. In the council of Toledo Bishops are required, per cunctas Dioeceses parochiasque suas, to go yearly through all their Dioceses and Parishes. And again , so to rule their Dioceses, that is, Parishes, that they do not presume to take anything from their right, but (according to the authority of former Councils) they take only a third part of the offerings and tithes. But in another Council it was determined, that no B. walking per suas Dioeceses, through his Dioceses, shall take anything besides the honor of his chair, that is, 2 • shillings, or require the third part of the oblations in the parish churches. Sometimes it is used for a parish Church. In which sense, a parish Presbyter is said in the Council of Agatha, Dioecesin tenere. In the Council of Orleans dioecesis & Basilica are used promiscuously, as Synonyma. To which purpose it is said , that if any man hath, or desireth to have Dioecesin, that is, a Church, in his ground, he must assign sufficient land unto it, & provide a Clerke for it.
CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops, were not Parishes, but Dioceses.
A Nd thus much may suffice to have spoken of the names, about which the testimonies which I have brought, have been almost so many evidences for the Diocesan, and against the parishional Bishops.
Now I proceed to other arguments; desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches, as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical government and jurisdiction, to wit, whether in the Apostles times, and the ages following, they were Parishes, as we cal them, or Dioceses. And first I will show they were not Parishes, and after, that they were Dioceses.
For, if Parishes, then the Parishes either in the Countries, or Cities were such: but neither the parishes in the Country, nor in the City, had a Bishop of their own and a Presbytery. Which is so evident a truth to them that have read the Councils, Histories, and Fathers of the ancient Church, that it is to be wondered, how men of learning and reading, being also men of conscience, can deny it. But seeing it is denied, I must be content to prove it, viz. that regularly, lawfully, ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the several parishes. For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leave, seeing neither it can be preiudicious to me what was at any time unlawfully done, nor advantageous to him, unless he will urge a reformation, according to the pattern of the Churches (if there were any such) which were irregularly, extraordinarily, and unlawfully governed.
First therefore for Country parishes, because I maintain the negative, and the proof of the affirmative lieth upon my adversary, I challenge him to produce some proof, if he be able, within 400. years after Christ, of Country parishes lawfully, regularly, ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiastical government, and governed by their own Bishops, such as they speak of, assisted with their Presbyteries. Which if he be not able to perform, (as I am well assured he is not) he must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to be of the same stamp. with his lay-presbyters, that is to say, a mere counterfeit. But not expecting his proof, J will prove, that neither they had Bishoppe of their own, nor yet Presbyteries. As touching the former, it cannot be denied, but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious, have desired to be Bishops of their parish, and their people vain glorious have seconded their desire. But in all well ordered Churches, their presumption hath been resisted, and their vain desires frustrated. I do confess, that in Afric, which always bringeth forth some novelty, and from whence all T. C. his news in this cause do come, some parts of the diocese being very populous, have obtained a Bishoppe of their own. But when? when the charge was so great, as that by it self it seemed to deserve a Bishop. And how? First, with the leave of the Bishop of the city, in whose diocese it was. Secondly, with the approbation of the Metropolitan and the provincial Synod. Thirdly, he which obtained the honor of being a bishop was advanced to a higher degree, then himself had before, or other country pastors have, and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least.
But it shall not be amiss both to recite the decrees of the African councils in this behalf, though, touched before; and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishops, and canons of holy Councils elsewhere.
In the second council of Carthage it was decreed, that the Dioceses (meaning, as I have said, parts of any diocese in the Country) which never received Bishops of their own, may have none; and that diocese which sometimes had, may still have a Bishoppe of their own. And if in process of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to have a governor of their own, that then they may have a Bishoppe with his leave, in whose power the diocese is.
In the third Council of Carthage it is said, that it had beeen determined in many Councils, that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishops, which never had a Bishop of their own, should not receive governors of their own, that is to say, Bishops, but with the consent of the Bishoppe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by whom from the beginning they have been inioied. But forasmuch as some having obtained this honor abused it tyrannically, and withdrew themselves schismatically from the communion of other Bishops: and forasmuch as also certain Presbyters lifting up their necks against their BB. used indirect means to allure their people, that themselves might be made Bishops; therefore it was ordained, that such a people in the paroecia ▪ or diocese, which is subject to the ancient Bishoppe, and never had a Bishoppe of their own, should not obtain a proper Doctor, meaning Bishoppe. And as touching those which had attained to this honor unlawfully, and withdrew themselves from the synods of Bishops, it was determined that they should not only lose their diocese, but also their own Church. For it is fit the Bishops which are united to all their brethren, and to the whole synod, should justly retain not only their own Cathedra or See, but also that they should possess such dioceses. And whereas some being made Bishops in part of other men's dioceses, with their leave and consent, did encroach upon parts of the diocese not granted unto them, it was concluded, that he which in the diocese is preferred to be Bishoppe, by the consent of the ancient Bishoppe, who holdeth the mother or cathedral Church, shall only retain that people unto which he was ordained. Finally, in another Council of Afric, it was decreed, that such people as never had B. of their own, should in no wise obtain a B. unless it be by the decree of the whole synod of every province, and of the primate, and also by the consent of him under whose diocese the said Church is placed.
Out of which canons, we may observe these things. First, that the Country churches belonged to the jurisdiction of the Bishop in the City.
Secondly, that ever from the beginning, they have belonged to the Bishop of the City.
Thirdly, that those parts of dioceses, which then had no Bishop of their own, never had.
Fourthly, that the number of Bishoprics was not wont to be diminished, or the circuits of them enlarged, but contrariwise, if there were cause, the number was increased, and the circuits or dioceses lessened.
Fifthly, that when a new Bishopric was to be erected, it was erected in some Bishops diocese, but not without his leave and liking, and also approbation of the Primate and Provincial synod.
Sixthly, that when a new Bishopric was erected, that part wherein it was erected, was taken, as before I noted , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from all the parts jointly possessed, and as it were from the body of the rest.
Seventhly, that he which was preferred to such a Bishopric was not a parish Bishoppe. For besides his own Church, he had a diocese. Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to every parish, but to such populous parts of dioceses, as might seem worthy of a Bishop.
Eighthly, that when a new Bishopric was erected, the Presbyter who obtained this honor, was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe, and so placed in a superior degree of the Ministry, then that which he had when he was the Pastor or Presby • er only of a parish.
To these canons we might add the decrees of Clemens and Anacletus, ordaining that Bishops should not be ordained in Villages or Towns, or small Cities, lest the names of Bishops should grow vile: but in such places Presbyters were severally to be placed in each of them. But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfeit: and yet it is to be confessed, that the Epistle of Clemens was above one thousand two hundred years ago translated by Ruffinus ; and that which in this point either of them decreed, agreeth with the general and perpetual practice of the Church, from the Apostles time to our age. But to let them pass: the Epistle of Leo the Great, is without suspicion, which he wrote to the Bishops of Afric, requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be observed, that not in any places or towns, Bishops should be consecrated, nor where heretofore they have not been, seeing where the less people or smaller companies are, the care of Presbyters may suffice. But episcopal government is only to be set over greater people and more frequent or populous Cities, lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God have forbidden, the height of priesthood should be given to villages and parishes, or obscure and solitary towns, and the episcopal honor whereto more excellent things ought to be committed, it self should grow vile or contemptible, by the multitude thereof.
The canons whereof he speaketh (that I may also come to them) were the Canons of the councils held at Serdica and Laodicea. The council held at Serdica not long after the council at Nice, assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constance and Constantius, celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith, among whom some of the chief had been present at the council of Nice, as Hosius and Athanasius &c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the council of Nice, at that time much oppugned by the Arians • this council, I say, determined that it is simply unlawful to constitute a Bishop in a village or small City, unto which even one only Presbyter doth suffice. For it is not needful that Bishops should be placed there, lest the name & authority of a Bishop grow into contempt. But the Bishops of the province (being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan) must ordain Bishops in such Cities as where before had been Bishops. But if there shall any Citty be found so abounding with multitude of people, that it may seem worthy of a Bishopric, let it have a Bishop.
For that of Laodicea, though it were but a provincial Synod, yet the decrees thereof were received into the ancient Code of canons, and were confirmed by the general council held in Trullo. In that council therefore it was decreed, that Bishops ought not to be placed in villages and country towns, but visitors: and that those which before that time had been ordained, might do nothing without the consent of the Bishop, who is in the Citty: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
The same hath Photios, Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus.
To these we may ad the decree of the council of Toledo : which though it were of latter times then the councils before mentioned, yet was held above 9. hundred years ago, being ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King: which I do the rather mention, because whereas the Bishop of Merida by the commandment of their late King Bamba, had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small town, the said council finding it to be a nouellous attempt, contrary to the canons of the councils and practice of the Church, decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopal See, neither should any Bishop afterwards be placed there. As for him, that was ordained not by his own ambition, but by the Kings compulsion; they grant to him this favor, to be removed to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing. And in the end they make this general decree: If any man shall cause a Bishop to be made in those places, where a Bishop never was, let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty: and moreover let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order, because he hath presumed to overthrow not only the decrees of the ancient Fathers, but also the Apostolical ordinances.
This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the country:
That which was judged unlawful by the canons of approved councils, and decrees of godly Bishops, was never lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practiced:
But the placing of Bishops in country parishes, was judged unlawful by the canons of approved councils, and decrees of godly Bishops, as I have shown:
Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was never lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practiced.
It may be, that my adversary, who is ready to catch at every syllable, will from the canon of the council held at Laodicea before cited, object, that before that time, there were Bishops placed in country towns: and thereupon conclude, that therefore there had been, before that time, parishional Bishops. To this objection I answer, by denying the consequence, or the proposition which is understood, viz. that the country Bishops (which had been before ordained) were parish Bishops. For those Bishops, because they were placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Countries, were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as you would say, Country-Bishops, to distinguish them from the other Bishops, whose See was in the City. Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses, much less in all parishes; nor assigned, where they were, to one parish (as they were Bishops) but where the Diocese was large, were ordained in some places remote from the city, to supply the absence of the Bishop, in some such circuits as our rural Deanries are, wherein diverse parishes were contained. These Chorepicsopi at the first, had Episcopal ordination, by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops, insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteen Bishops assembled at the Council of Nice, there were fifteeene Country-Bishops: For which fifteen, if all pastors of parishes had been Country-Bishops, there might have been, I doubt not, fifteen hundred, if not fifteen thousand: But when these Country-Bishops, being but the Bishops suffragans, and substitutes, placed in the Country to supply the Bishops room, and to exercise some matters of less moment appertaining to the Episcopal function, began to encroach upon the Bishops right, and to usurp Episcopal authority, and jurisdiction beyond their commission; they were by little and little restrained; and when they would not be kept within their compass, their order (at least as they were Bishops) being but an human-ordinance, devised for the ease of the Bishops in the city, was in most places abolished.
But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these country Bishops, doth give great light to this present controversy, it will not be unprofitable, nor, I hope, unpleasing to the reader, if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them.
First therefore in the council of Neocesaria, whereunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed, we find this difference between country presbyters & country Bishops: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Presbyters or Ministers of the country may not offer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the cathedral Church of the City, the Bishop or Presbyters of the city being present, neither may they at the time of prayer deliver the bread nor the cup: but if they be absent, and one of them alone be called to prayer, then he may, because he is of the same Church or Diocese, as some note. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but country Bishops, who are indeed after the manner of the 70. yet being honored as fellow Ministers, they do offer. Upon which words Balsamo noteth two things. First, where the council saith they were as the Seuentie, it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons. Secondly, that among other uses, for which they were appointed, they were ordained to distribute the money to the poor, which appertained to them. Besides, we may observe that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters, belong to the diocese of the Bishop in the city (which hereafter will more clearly appear) and that the country Bishop was in a degree of honor superior to country Ministres, and yet inferior to the Bishops.
The council of Ancyra which is more ancient thē the former, and both of them elder then the council of Nice, perceiving the country Bishops to encroch upon the Bishops right, determined it to be unlawful for country Bishops to ordain Presbyters or Deacons.
The council of Antioch, though it gave liberty to country Bishops which were blameless, to send canonical letters (as the manner of Bishops among themselves, in those times was) which it denied to country presbyters: yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi still presumed to ordain, alleging that they might lawfully do it, because they had been ordained as Bishops. Jt therefore determined, that Bishops placed in the Towns and Countries, called Chorepiscopi, although they had received the ordination of BB yet they should know their own measure, and govern the Churches subject unto them, and content themselves with the care and oversight thereof: and having authority to ordain Subdeacons and Exorcists, should satisfy themselves with preferring of them, and not presume to ordain Presbyters or Deacons, without the Bishop in the City whereunto both himself and the Country are subject. But if any shall presume to transgress this decree, he shall be deprived of that honor which he hath. And whereas they pretended that they had episcopal ordination, and therefore as BB might ordain Ministers; to take away that pretence, it determined also, that the Country B. should be ordained (not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops, as a Bishop, but as other Presbyters or Ministers) of the Bishop of the City, unto which he is subject. So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops, afterwards (according to this decree) they were but Presbyters in deed, though they had the title of Bishops; neither were they acknowledged for anymore by the Fathers and Councils of latter times.
There is an Epistle which goeth under the name of Damasus, the Author whereof supposeth, that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters, because they are found to have been ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessary in regard of their diligence towards the poor, and because they presumed above that which was lawful for them to do, therefore they are removed from Episcopal offices. We know (saith he) there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ, that is to say, of the 12. Apostles, and 70. Disciples: whence this third came, we know not; for neither are they Bishops, because they be not ordained of three Bishops, but only of one; neither may Bishops by the Canons be placed in Country towns; neither may they be in the City, because in one City there may be but one Bishop. Neither will they be called Presbyters, but will be accounted more then Presbyters. Whether Damasus were Author of that Epistle, I know not; but this I am sure, that Leo the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germany and France, doth show himself to be of the same judgment, a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle, which beareth the name of Damasus. And this judgment of Leo was so approved of the Council of Civil, whereof Isidore was President, that it followeth the same almost word for word.
Now because my Adversary shall not say, that what I have alleged concerning Country Bishops, is impertinent, he shall understand, that as the main question concerning dioceses in the primitive Church is from hence most manifestly proved, as you shall hear in due place; so this present question which we have in hand concerning parish Bishops. For surely if there were any parishional Bishops in the Country, then the Country Bishops were such: but they were not such, for they were set over diverse parishes. Again, if the Chorepiscopi were subject to the Bishop of the City, and the Country whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocese belonging to the Bishop of the City; then much more the Presbyters of parishes (who were inferior, and in some things subject to the Chorepiscopi, as the Bishops substitutes) were subject to the Bishop; and their parishes, being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops, were but a part of the diocese. So far were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops, or their parishes from being entire Churches, endued with the power of ecclesiastical government. But the former is true, as hath been proved, therefore the latter.
That the Chorepiscopi were superior to them, it is apparent, because not only they had some jurisdiction over diverse parishes, but for a time had episcopal ordination, and had authority to ordain Subdeacons, and to place Readers in parishes, as also they might send Formatas, or Canonical Epistles, which the Presbyters might not do. Likewise, when Bishops were at any time converted from heresy, though they were not permitted to be Bishops of the City, yet they were gratified with the name and authority of Chorepiscopi. In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian, a certain Bishop had been ordained by two Bishops only: but this ordination the Council of Rhegium pronounced void, and censured the ordainers. As for the party ordained, because he had of himself renounced the Bishopric, they thought good to follow the example of the Council of Nice, and to gratify him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus ; but so, as that he should not ordain, nor exercise any other episcopal function, but only confirm Novices, and consecrate Virgins, and in all things behave himself as inferior to a Bishop, and as superior to a Presbyter. And this was my second argument, whereby I have proved, that Country parishes had no Bishops.
Neither had each of them a Presbyterie, but several Presbyters assigned to them, as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Council of Serdica , and by the judgment of Leo . Yea not Presbyters only did severally govern parishes, as with us, but sometimes Deacons also were by themselves set over charges. You heard before diverse testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes, as namely that of the Council of Carthage, Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest, &c. the Presbyter which governeth the parish. The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Council of Eliberis, which is supposed to be as ancient as the Council of Nice: If any Deacon ruling a people, shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any, &c.
Again, if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery, then was it either of the Ministry, or of the Laity. But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities, and Cathedral Churches, and not any examples can be alleged of Presbyteries in the Country, no not to assist the Chorepiscopi, much less to assist the Presbyters of parishes: and Presbyteries of Lay men were never heard of till this last age: Therefore the several parishes had not Presbyteries.
Moreover, Churches endued with power ecclesiastical sufficient for the government of themselves, having also a Bishop and Presbyterie, had the power of ordination, as themselves also teach.
But Country parishes had not the power of ordination.
Therefore Country parishes were not endued with power ecclesiastical, neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their own.
For the Assumption, let the Refuter consider with me, what course was taken in Country parishes, when their Minister was departed. Among themselves they had ordinarily none; or if by chance they had, they could not ordain him, but were (as sometimes it happened in Cities) to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained. Universities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister: out of other dioceses they were not to be supplied, unless first it did appear, that their own Bishop was not able out of his Clergy to furnish them. To the Bishop of the City therefore they did resort, who out of the Clergy belonging to the Cathedral Church, (wherein, as the Nurserie of the diocese, diverse were brought up in the study of divinity) did supply their want, assigning someone of his Clergy unto them. But if there were none fit, (as sometimes their store was drawn dry, by supplying the wants of many) they might not ordain a Minister of another diocese, whom they called another Bishops Clerke, without his leave and dimissorie letters: for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong; and such ordinations were to be disanulled. If therefore the Bishop neither had of his own, nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbor diocese, with the consent of his neighbor Bishop, he sent to the Metropolitan, who either out of his own Clergy, or some other in the Province, was to supply them. And this, as it is evident to them who have read anything concerning the state of the ancient Churches; so is it confessed by Calvin. Each City (saith he) had a College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers; for both did they all discharge the office of teaching, &c. to the people, and also that they might leave seed behind them, they were diligently employed in instructing the younger sort of the Clergy. To every City a certain region was attributed, which should receive their Ministers from thence, and be accounted of the body of that Church.
It is therefore evident, that Country parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie, nor that power of ecclesiastical government which they talk of.
And much less had the parishes in the Cities. For it was never almost heard of, that there were at any time more Bishops (so properly called) then one in a City, where notwithstanding were many Presbyters, when schism or heresy was not the cause of setting up a second or third against the one only lawful Bishop: excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath been permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopal authority, or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first. And when there have been more then one by schism or heresy, yet neither the orthodoxal and Catholic Bishop, nor yet the schismatical or heretical Bishop, was a parishional Bishop, but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them, in the City and Country adioining, there having been diverse times in the Cities only more parishes then one, not only of the true Christians, but also of the heretics and schismatics, as before was noted concerning Antioch.
I shall have occasion to speak more of this point when I shall entreat of the singularity of preeminence which the Bishop in every diocese had for term of life. A few testimonies therefore shall suffice in this place. In the Church of Rome there were many not only Presbyters besides the one only lawful Bishop, but also diverse parishes and titles soon after the Apostles times, whereunto Presbyters were assigned severally, the Bishop being the Superintendent over them all. About the year 250. Cornelius being chosen Bishop of Rome, Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election, by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitive Bishop lately come out of Afric, not only broached the heresy of the Novatians, or Catharists, but procure •• three simple B shops fetched from the uttermost parts of Italy, to ordain him B • shop of Rome: having also inueigled by his subtleties, certain famous men, that had been Confessors to be of his party, and to join with him in the schism against Cornelius. Of this fact, what was the judgment of Cyprian, of Cornelius, and other B • shops, and finally of the Confessors themselves, you shall in few words hear. For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers, as to other chief B • shops, so to Carthage, to procure the approbation of Cyprian, he dissuadeth them from the schism, telling them that a B • shop being ordained, and approved by the testimony and judgment of his fellow B • shops, and of the people, another may not by any means be ordained. And writing to some of those Confessors, he signifieth his great grief, because he understood that they, contrary to the order of the Church, contrary to the law of the Gospel, contrary to the unity of Catholic discipline, had thought it meet, that another B. should be made, that is to say, which is neither right nor lawful to be done, that another Church should be erected, the members of Christ dismembered, &c.
Cornelius having called together diverse Bishops besides his own Clergy, deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus : and writing of these matters to Fabius the B. of Antioch, he saith, this Patron of the Gospel forsooth (meaning Nouatian ) did not know that in a Catholic Church 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there ought to be but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant, but that there are 46. Presbyters, and 108. more of the Clergy.
The Confessors afterwards acknowledging their fault, among other things in their submission confess, that as there is but one God and one Lord, so in a Catholic Church there ought to be but one Bishop.
Now whereas Cornelius testifieth, that there were besides the Bishop, who ought to be but one, 46. Presbyters in the City of Rome, and 108. others of the Clergy: if any man (notwithstanding it be also testified by diverse, that there were diverse Churches in Rome, whereunto several Presbyters were assigned) will needs hold, that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish, and that all these Presbyters and Clerks attended but one particular ordinary congregation; I cannot let him from being so absurd. Howbeit, this is certain, that in the next age, in Optatus his time, when there were in Rome above forty parish Churches, whereunto several Presbyters were deputed, there remained still but one only Bishop.
The like is to be said of Alexandria, wherein (as Epiphanius testifieth) were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches, all which (at least so many as were Catholic) were under one Archbishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and over them severally are Presbyters placed, for the ecclesiastical necessities of the inhabitants, who might each of them be near unto their own Church, &c. Now (saith Epiphanius ) besides the Church called Caesaria, which was burnt in Julian's time, and reedified by Athanasius, there are many others, as the Church of Dionysius, of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persaea, of Dizya, of Mendidius, of Amianus, of Baucalis, and others. In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, and Arius in another, namely, that which is called Baucalis.
The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates, affirming, that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subject to the B. of Alexandria, committed severally to Presbyters, as that which is called Baucalis, and those which have their names from S. Dionysius, Theonas, &c. and that Arius being the governor of the school in Alexandria, was by Achilles the B. (the predecessor of Alexander ) set over the Church called Baucalis. And although there be not the like evidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times; yet is it not to be doubted, but that in every City when the number of Christians was much increased, the like division of parishes was made, unto which, not BB. but several Presbyters were appointed: there remaining in each City but one Bishop, as the practice of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth invincibly prove.
But now suppose, that the Church of each City had been but one parish, which is most false; yet forsomuch as to every City there was as Calvin truly saith, a certain region allotted, which belonged to the Bishops charge, and was from the Presbyterie of the City to receive their Ministers; who seeth nor, that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish, but a diocese? And that is the second thing which J promised to prove.
For, Churches containing within their circuit not only Cities with their Suburbs, but also whole Countries subject to them, were dioceses.
But the Churches subject to the ancient B • shops in the Primitive Church, contained within their circuit not only the Cities with their suburbs, but also the whole Countries subject to them.
Therefore they were dioceses.
The assumption is proved by these reasons: first, The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently divided into these parts, the City with the suburbs, and Country subject to it. For proof whereof, you heard before two most plain testimonies: The former, in one of the Canons of the Apostles (so called) charging the Bishop with his own Paroecia, and the Countries which be under it: The other in the Council of Antioch, which reciting the same words, addeth this reason: For every Bishop hath authority over his own Paroecia, and doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, perform the duty of a Diocesan, having a provident care or superintendencie of the whole Country which is under his City, so that he may ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with judgment. To the same purpose is the division of Churches subject to each Bishop, into the Church of the City called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or N • trix Ecclesia, and all other parish Churches within the diocese called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subject to the same Bishop that others were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Presbyters of the city, or as in some Latin Councils they are called , Ciuitatenses, others 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Country Ministers, or dioecesan • , Ministers of the diocese.
Secondly, neither was the jurisdiction over the parishes in the Country by usurpation of the latter Bishops, but a right from the beginning, belonging to the very first Bishops of the City. For evidence whereof, call to mind what before was proved, that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged, or the number of Bishops lessened; but contrariwise those parts of the Country which ever had a Bishop, were still to retain him; and those which never had, if they were so populous, as that they seemed to deserve a Bishopric, a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the City, and the authority of the provincial synod, and the Metropolitan set over them. This is sure, that all Countries were under their several Cities, and whosoever were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities, were Bishops also of the Countries belonging unto them. Neither might the Bishop of one City encroach upon the Country, or parishes subject to another City; but they were to be governed by them, to whom they had belonged from the beginning. Jn the general Council of Ephesus , when complaint was made, that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached upon them of Cyprus, for the ordination of their Metropolitan, whoever from the Apostles times, were in that and other matters of greatest moment, ordered by their own prouinciciall synods, his attempt was censured as an innovation contrary to the ecclesiastical laws, and Canons of the holy Apostles. And therefore this general decree was made by the Council for all dioceses and provinces, that no Bishop shall take upon him any other province or country 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which for the time past, and from the beginning hath not been under him or his Predecessors. And again, that to every province or country their right should be kept pure and vnui • lable, which had belonged to them for the time past, and from the beginning, according to the custom anciently received. Likewise in the Council of Carthage , that the people in the Country which never had a Bishop of their own, should not receive a Bishop, but by the consent of the Bishop, by whom (and his antecestors) they have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from the beg • nning possessed. And where some had schismatically seized upon some part of a diocese, and being guilty of their wrong, would sequester themselves from the meetings and synods of the Bishops, it was decreed, that the lawful Bishop should enjoy, not only his See, but also such dioceses. And again, it was demanded , what course should be taken if a Bishopric being erected in a part of the diocese, by the consent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning, the new Bishop should encroach upon other parts of the diocese, which were not intended to him. Answer was made, that as that part which he had, was taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the company of parishes jointly possessed, and as a member 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the body of many by the consent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the Bishop who had authority or power: so the new Bishop should not encroach upon any other.
The great council of Chalcedon , determined, that country parishes should vnremoueably remain to the Bishops which held them. Which Canon was renewed in the council of Constantinople , with this addition, if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty years.
But nothing doth more evidently prove, that in the primitive Church dioceses were subject to Bishops, then the ancient institution of country Bishops , called ch • repiscopi. Who where the country seemed larger, then that the Bishop by himself could perform all episcopal offices, were for the more ease of the Bishops, and commodity of the country Churches, appointed in certain places as their suffragans or vicegerents, and to perform under them, and for them, some episcopal duties of less moment: but yet so, as the chorepiscop •• might do nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop, neither might he ordain without the Bishop of the city, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unto which both himself and his Country is subject.
Fourthly, this truth is also demonstrated, partly by the perpetual successions of Bishops in all the Apostolical Churches, singularly succeeding from the Apostles times, to the latter ages, plainly euincing that even in the greatest Cities and Churches, where there hath always been a great multitude of Presbyters, there hath been but one only lawful Bishoppe at once successively; and partly by the universal consent of all Churches, not only in former ages both catholic and heretical (for even the Novatians, the Donatists, the Arians, &c. retained the government of the true Church by Bishops) but also of all almost at this day being established in peace, retaining for the most part the ancient distinction of Churches, according to dioceses and provinces, which hath continued ever from the first conversion of them: not any one example being to be produced in the whole world, neither in, nor since the Apostles times, until our age, of any Church governed according to the new-found parish discipline. Yea the Church of Geneva it self, which hath been a pattern to others, though it hath abolished the episcopal government, notwithstanding it remaineth a diocese under their one only Presbytery, as well as it was wont under their one only Bishoppe: the authority and jurisdiction of their Presbyterie being not confined to any one parish (nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery) but is extended to all the parishes both in the city and territory thereto belonging, having the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to have.
Finally, it may be alleged, that as with us Bathe and Wels, Coventry and Lichfield, London and Co • chester, so in the primitive Church more cities then one, with the countries thereto belonging, have sometimes made but one diocese. For when to the general Council of Ephesus , petiton was made by certain Bishops; that whereas it had been an ancient custom in the provinces of Europe, that diverse Bishops should have each of them two cities under them, as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion, the Bishop of • yze had also Arcadiopolis, the Bishop of C •• la Callipolis, the Bishop of Sabsadia, A phrodi • ias, and the latter of these Cities never had a proper Bishop of their own, but ever from the beginning were subject to the aforesaid Bishops: and whereas now they feared some innovation, they referred the cause to the Council. The Council therefore determined, that there should not then, nor afterwards be any innovation, but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the ancient custom, which hath the force of a law, retain the said Cities. And likewise it may be added, that some whole nations in the primitive Church were subject to one Bishop, not as the primate or Patriarch, for that was ordinary (so was Ignatius Bishop of Syria, Liberius of Italy, Cyprius of Afric, Diodorus of Silicia, Basil the Great of Cappadocia, &c.) but as having one only Bishop: as the nation of the Scythyans having many cities, towns, and castels, had all of them by ancient custom one only Bishop, which was the Bishop of their chief city Tomis.
CHAP. III. Maintaining the first Argument in the Sermon, proving that the seven Churches of Asia, &c. were Dioceses.
T Hese testimonies and proofs hitherto produced, are so evident & demōstratiue for dioceses and diocesans, as that if no more could be said, they are sufficient, if not to persuade, yet at the least to convince the gainsaiers. But if besides these, the arguments which the Refuter hath in chase, shall be made to return upon him, and to drive him and his consorts like the men of Ai, upon these new forces; and if the forces which he bringeth to maintain his quarrel, shall be found to be of no force, and altogether unable to endure the least encounter; then do I hope, that our Disciplinarians themselves will be persuaded to speak no more for the new found parish Discipline. But before I enter into this second conflict, I am to take a survey of his forces, which I perceive are divided into 2. troops, the one encountering with my forces, the other fortifying their hold of the parish discipline.
In his encounter or refutations; first he findeth fault, that I do not conclude in this second part, what he would have me to conclude according to his forced Analysis. For answer whereof let my words be considered.
The assertion which I endeavor to prove in the four first points of my Sermon, was this, that the Angels or governors of the primitive Church, were Diocesan Bishops, and for the substance of their calling, such as ours be. This assertion, after I had proved it in the first point 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by disproouing their Presbyteries: in the three next points I endeavor to prove it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , showing that they were such as ours are, both in respect of the largeness of their authority; to which end I show that their Churches were Dioceses in the second point, and themselves Diocesans in the third: and in respect of the height of their authority and Preeminence, that they were superior in degree to other ministers &c. which I prove in the fourth. In this second point therefore, if I endeavor to prove that the primitive Churches, which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and were endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, were not parishes properly, but Dioceses; nothing could be more directly, and pertinently delivered. But the only thing, which I seek to prove and maintain in this part, as every man seeth, is, that the Churches which had Bishops and Presbyteries, &c. were not parishes properly, but Dioceses. And this I first prove by mine own arguments, and secondly maintain against theirs.
My arguments were two. The former grounded on the text, and is thus to be framed:
Churches, whose circuit contained not only cities, but also countries adjoining, were Dioceses.
The circuit of the 7. churches, whereof the 7. Angels were Bishops, (and whereto other Churches having Bishops, and Presbyteries, endued with power of Ecclesiastical government, were like) contained the cities and Countries adjoining▪
Therefore the 7. Churches &c. were Dioceses.
The proposition I did not express, but did presuppose it, and take it for granted. Likewise that part of the assumption (enclosed in the parenthesis) affirming that to the 7. Churches, all others which had Bishops, and Presbyteries, and consequently were endued with the power of Ecclesiastical government, were like, I also presupposed: because it is not to be doubted but that the primitive Churches endued with the power of Ecclesiastical government, were of the like nature and constitution. And upon this hypothesis, the only argument which this great disputer bringeth to make good his cause, is grounded: affirming that
Now that the 7. Churches within their circuit contained both the cities and Countries thereto adjoining, it is proved; first, jointly. For if the 7. Churches within their circuit comprised all the Churches in Asia, then all both in cities and countries: but the first is true; for our Savior Christ writing to the churches in Asia compriseth all under these 7. as being the principal, and containing within their circuit all the rest.
Then, severally: The church of Ephesus, contained a great and ample city (indeed a Metropolis or mother city) and the country subject to it: the church of Smyrna a mother city & the country belonging to it: the church of Sardes a mother city and the country adjoining: the church of Laoidcea, a mother city and the country under it: the Church of Pergamos, or Pergamū, a famous city, (which had been the fear of the Kings of Asia) and the country belonging to it: the churches also of Thyatira and Philadelphia contained a cities with their territories.
Now let us see how our refu • er cavilleth with these arguments. The first he frameth thus:
If the churches of Asia to which our savior Christ writ, were great and ample cities, and not the cities alone, but also the countries adjoining, then they were dioceses properly and not parishes:
But the churches of Asia were such. Therefore they were Dioceses &c.
Therefore the seven Churches were dioceses.
That which is presupposed in this consequence is the proposition of the syllogism which is understood: viz. Churches which within their circuit contained not only cities but the countries adjoining, were dioceses. Which being a certain and manifest truth, the consequence was necessary. But if I should say thus:
Churches whose circuit contained both cities and countries adjoining, were dioceses: Therefore the 7. churches were dioceses: in this consequence the assumption were presupposed, viz. that the circuit of every of the seven churches contained both the city, and country adjoining. Which parts of Syllogisms omitted in Enthymemes▪ if the refuter would add to make up a simple syllogism, either in his arguing or analysing, he might spare both himself and his adversary a great deal of superfluous trouble about his consequences. He must therefore vnlearne that art (if he would not be accounted a trifler) of flinging all arguments into a connexiue Syllogism, that he may have a consequence to cavil with.
But so far is the proposition which he propounded from presupposing that all Churches in the world were great and ample Cities, that it doth not so much as presuppose those seven in Asia, which it mentioneth, to be such. That is not presuppo • ed in the proposition, but is assumed or affirmed in the Assumption. Nothing is presupposed in the Consequence of the proposition, but the simple proposition, which I said was the hypothesis thereof. If it be • aid, that what I say of the seven churches, I would have understood of all other churches, and so seem to presuppose (though not in my proposition, yet in my argumentation) that which the Refuter doth object: I answer, that as in other places I am not to be blamed for concluding from other Churches to these seven: so neither here for concluding from these seven, to all others. For the form and constitution of all the Primitive Churches, being one and the same, as the Refuter confesseth; it is evident that what is truly said of other Primitive churches in respect of their constitution, is verified of these seven: And what is verified of these seven, may be truly affirmed of the rest. Not that all churches had within their circuit great and ample Cities, (that was spoken concerning five of these in Asia) it is sufficient that they had Cities with the countries adioining. And so had all Churches which had a Bishop and a Presbytery, or were (as you speak and mean) endued with power of Ecclesiastical government. Neither can you give instance in any one to the contrary. Yes, that they can. T. C. hath an instance: this disputer also hath one instance, pag. 57. and one in this place, and in some others. And yet all is but this: Some church was not a City, as for example, Cenchrea. He might have said Cenchrea. Their reason is thus explicated:
J distinguish of the word Church. For I deny not but the company of Presbyters in a family is a Church, much more in a village or town. But the question is of such a church, as had a Bishop assisted with a Presbytery, and had, as they speak, the power of Ecclesiastical government. Such a Church was seated only in Cities, or great towns answerable to Cities. And therefore, if they mean (as they do: or else they might as well hold their peace) that in Cenchreae was such a Church; I deny the assumption. Cenchreae was subject to the church of Corinth, as all other towns thereabouts, and never had a Bishoppe or a Presbytery of her own. Yea, but she had a Deacon. Suppose that were so, what then? several Deacons, and several Presbyters were placed in parish Churches, where was neither B. nor Presbytery, nor the power (which they speak of) of Ecclesiastical government. And yet their Deacon was but a Diaconisse, namely Phoebe. Of whom also it may be doubted, whether Paul calleth her 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one that ministered to the Church in Cenchreae, in respect of an office imposed upon her to minister to the needy, & to entertain strangers on the churches cost, or in regard of her voluntary ministering to the faithful there, of her own substance. For if she were, as Bullinger, and diverse before him report, nobilissima & ditissima foemina, a most noble, and most wealthy woman ; it is not like, that she was a widow maintained of the church; but one, which (like to Mary, Joanna, Chusa, & Susanna mentioned in the Gospel, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ministered to Christ of their goods) did maintain and relieve the poor of the Church there, and give entertainment to Christian travelers of her own cost. In which respect Paul saith of her, that she had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a patronesse of many, yea of the Apostle himself. Neither is it likely that a widow maintained of the church, as having little or nothing of her own, should have such business in Rome, or (as it is thought) at the Emperors Court, as that the Apostle should write to the faithful in Rome to assist her in her affairs. But it may be you desire to hear some further reason of his denial of that consequence: you shall hear it. For, saith he,
His second reason why the consequence is naught:
As touching his assertion opposed to my conclusion, that they were not Dioceses, because they were not divided. &c. it containeth three branches: First, that they were not divided into diverse ordinary assemblies. Secondly, If they were, yet they did not all depend upon someone as the chief. Thirdly, That they had the power of ecclesiastical government in themselves. These assertions would have been proved by them that are opponents, and will needs persuade us to admit of their parish Discipline. But I am well assured that they are notable to prove any one of them. And although it were sufficient for me to deny these assertions, and to put them to prove them: yet because I desire from my soul to satisfy our opposites in this cause, as Brethren; and because they contain the very grounds of the parish-discipline, I will briefly disprove them. For, as touching the first, I have often wondered what our brethren mean to argue from the example of the churches which were not divided into parishes; to those that be. Would they have the Church of a City, and country belonging to it, to be all but one congregation, assēbling ordinarily in one place? If they would, thē are they too absurd to be thought worthy to be confuted. But though they would, the ancient Christians would not; who when their multitude was increased, in all places of the world were divided into diverse particular assemblies. If they would have them divided, as of necessity they must: then let them tell me, whether we (that do, and of necessity must, consist of diverse congregations) are to follow the example of any ancient church, as it was before it was divided, or as it was after it was divided. If the former, then are they absurd again: If the latter, then have I that which I desire. They will say perhaps, that each congregation after the division, was as that one before. Nothing less: Let them prove that, and I will yield in the whole cause. The one before had a Bishop, and a Presbytery, as they will confess which were to attend the whole flock, but after the division, not each parish had a Bishop and a Presbytery, but one of the Presbyters assigned to it, the rest remaining with the Bishop, who (as before) assisted with his Presbytery, had a general superintendencie over them, as well divided as undivided, and was but one in every diocese, as well after the division as before. Which is so manifest a truth, so confirmed by testimonies before cited, so testified by the general consent and practice of the Christian world, not one instance to be given to the contrary, as that it cannot but convince the conscience, I hope also it will persuade. For tell me I pray you, were not parishes distinguished in Constantine's time and before, as well as now? Yes questionless. Were any other assigned to them severally, then several Presbyters, even as they be now? That also is out of doubt. Was it ever, or at any time otherwise, after the division of parishes? No without question. There remained but one Bishop, and one Presbytery for the whole city and country, as well after the division as before. And that is so evident a truth, by that which hath been said, that no man of learning can with a good conscience any longer deny it.