A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Prouing the third point of the Sermon, that the Bishops of the primitiue Church were Diocesan Bishops.
(Serm. sect. 1. Now these Presbyteries in the Apostles times, as the Presbyterians confesse, had, &c. ad lin. a fine 4.)
THe Refuter hath acquitted himselfe, in his owne conceit, so valiantly and victoriously in subuerting my former assertion concerning dioceses, which he supposeth to be the foundation of my building; that as he lookes for no strength in the rest of the building to resist his forces, (the foundation it selfe being so weake and tottering) so he promiseth to himself assured successe in ouerthrowing the rest. But if my building be founded, as it were, on a rocke, against which his maine forces could not preuaile at al, but like the waues and billowes of the sea, though they beate against it with great noise, returne backe with froth and fome, (as I hope it appeareth to eueryevery indifferent and iudicious Reader) then may I promise to my selfe the like successe in withstanding his future assaults. And the better hope J doe conceiue hereof,Ad page 70. because he seemeth to confesse that if I can demonstrate that the ancient Churches, were dioceses, that then the other points will follow of their owne accord. But, that I hauehave so demonstrated, that I neuer expect any sound answere thereto. As for this point which now I hauehave in hand, it is not onelyonly demonstrated already, in the proof of the former, but is also by necessary consequence deduced therefrom. My purpose therefore is to bee as briefe in propugning this truth, as hee is in oppugning the same.
J will therefore omit his friuolous cauill, which now the fourth time he repeateth for my not concluding, what he, according to his forced Analysis, would hauehave concluded: because the Reader cannot but discerne, that I directly conclude what before was propounded, viz. that the Angels or Pastors of the primitiue Church were diocesan Bishoppes, which I proue in the Sermon by degrees: first seuerally, before the diuision of parishes, and after the distribution of them, both in the city and in the country: then iointly, both before and after. For hauing concluded the former point with these words, that the Churches contained many particular congregations, vntounto all which there was but one Presbytery, or Colledge of Presbyters assigned: and hauing here signified, that by the confession of the most learned Disciplinarians, each Presbytery had a President, which S. Iohn calleth the Angell of the Church, and the Fathers, a Bishop; I proue from that which hath already been proued, that the President of the Presbytery, the Angell, of the B. of the Church, was not a parishionall, but a diocesan Bishop.
But before I come to the proofe contained in this section, I am to note, how those last words of the former part, which are very materiall, are by this refuter passed ouer in silence. For it would be knowne, whether there were in Cities (where were many congregations) yea in whole dioceses, any more Presbyteries or Colledges of Presbyters, then that one belonging to the mother Church in the Citie. If to shew either his ignorance, or want of good conscience, he shall say there were (as indeed that is their assersion, that in eueryevery parish both in citie and country, there ought to bee a Presbytery or senate of ruling Elders) let him giuegive but one approued instance to proue his assertion in the first foure hundred yeeres, and I will yeeld, that where was a parish Presbytery, there was a parish Bishop. If Calum and the reformers of other Churches, according to the pretended discipline, had been of that iudgement, they would not hauehave appointed one onelyonly Presbytery for many parishes. If he shall confesse that in a whole circuit, which wee call a diocesse, there was but one colledge or senate of Presbyters, consisting of those who were called the Presbyters of the citie, (which is a most certaine and vndeniable truth) then must he confesse his platforme of parish discipline to be a meere nouelty, and an vndisgested fancy, hauing no warrant of scriptures, nor testimony of antiquity; and contrary wise, that there was but one Presbytery, and one Bishop set ouer a whole diocesse. Hee that catcheth at eueryevery word, yea at the least letter whereat hee hopeth to hauehave the least aduantage, (as at the terme pagani in this passage, and at the little letters, in the word Cretians) would not swallow vp in silence such pregnant arguments, if silence were not his best answere.
§. 2. This third point deduced from the second.But though he would not see that argument, yet in my propounding of the question here to bee concluded, hee hath spied a syllogisme, which I did not intend, out of that which I propounded in axiomaticall disposition, as taking it for granted. But the Refuter maketh me reason thus:
The presidents of the Presbyteries were diocesan BB. The Angels of the seauen Churches were presidents of the Presbyteries.
Therefore the Angels of the seauen Churches were diocesan BB.
Which is the hansomest syllogisme he hath bestowed on me as yet, neither wil I refuse to maintaine any one part of it, if he will be pleased to take notice of that, which euen now was proued; that there was but one Presbytery for a whole diocesse. So the proposition will be manifest, that the presidents of Presbyteries (which were prouided for whole dioceses) whom the fathers call BB. were diocesan BB. for so much might hauehave been added to the proposition out of my words.
The assumption I hauehave made good before by the confessions of Caluin and Beza. But he beginneth with the assumption, saying that he hath good cause to doubt of it, and that I doe but threapen kindnesse on them when I talke of their Confessions. For plentifull proofe whereof I referre you to that which before hath been alledged out of Caluin and Beza. Lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 16.But what will not this Refuter quarrell with? for if the Churches had been such as he conceipteth, that is to say parishes, hauing eueryevery one a Bishop and a Presbytery of gouerning Elders; would any man doubt, either that the Bishop was called the Angell of the Church, or that he was president of the Presbytery?
Now to the proposition (saith the Refuter) for answere whereto in one word,Ad pag. 71. I say it is false: let vsus examine the proofe of it, and then frameth a syllogisme, the conclusion whereof is this; therefore the Bishop who was set ouer a whole diocesse, and who was President of the Presbytery, allotted to a whole diocesse, was vndoubtedly a diocesan Bishop. Was this the proposition which he denied? or was he so vnreasonable to deny it? What can be more euident? But hee seeth by this time what a goodly analysis he hath here made.
To returne therefore to mine owne analysis. In this section I proue, that the antient Bishops were diocesan Bishops, euen before the diuision of parishes, by three arguments, which for breuity sake I ioined together.
The first. If the Churches whereof they were BB. were dioceses, and not parishes, then were they diocesan BB. But the Antecedent is true, as hath already been proued in the second point.
Therefore the consequent.
The second: If the parishes were not distinguished in the Apostles time, nor ministers appointed to peculiar titles or seuerall cures, then there could be no Parishionall Bishops in that time.
But the former hath already been proued; Therefore the latter is true.
The assumption is to be vnderstood, foreign, as I said before, that is, as true for the most part. For it admitmitteth some exceptions, as namely the Church of Alexandria, (and perhaps some others) wherein I acknowledge… the parishes to hauehave been distinguished in the Apostles times; but so, as seuerall Presbyters being assigned to them, there remained one Bishop ouer all.
The third. If the Presbyteries were allotted to whole dioceses, and not to seuerall parishes, then the Bishops who were Presidents of those Presbyteries, were not parishionall, but diocesan.
But the first is true, as hath been already prooued: Therefore the second.
To all three, he answereth by denying the assumption: the truth whereof dependeth vponupon the proofes of the second point, which hauehave been so many, and so manifest, as I hope to heare no more of the new-found parish discipline.
§. 3.(Serm. sect. 2. pag. 22. Howbeit in the end of the Apostles times, parishes began to be distinguished in Cities, and afterwards in the Country, &c. to page 24. line 3.)
The analysis of this section and that which followeth.Here I prooue, that after the diuision of parishes, the Bishops were diocesan: albeit in this section is contained but part of my argument, which standeth thus:
Those Bishops who were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country, were diocesan, and not parishionall Bishops.
The antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres, were ouer all the parishes both in the citie and country, viz. after they were distinguished:
Therefore the antient Bishops in the first two hundred yeeres were diocesan, and not parishionall Bishops.
The proposition is most euident. The assumption standeth on two parts: first, that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the citie, after they were diuided. The second, that the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the country, after their diuision. The former I proue in this section by induction of particulars: the latter in the next.
The Analysis being here mistaken by him,Ad pag. 72. & 73. I wil not meddle with that, which hee hath thereby taken occasion to speake besides the purpose: because heere I finde him more modest, then hitherto he hath shewed himselfe: neither will I shame him with his owne friends, when for an euasion he supposeth, that in the primitiue Church, some Ministers might hauehave more Churches vnderunder them, like our double beneficed men and pluralists, euen those that hauehave tot quot, and yet be no Bishops. OnelyOnly I will touch those things, which contradict that which I hauehave deliuered. And first, he obserueth a contradiction in my speech. I said, that parishes (in cities) were not (for the most part) distinguished in the Apostles times. Here I …ay, that in the end of the Apostles times, viz. about the yeere one hundred, they began to be distinguished at Rome, by Euaristus the Bishop there. A shrewd contradiction J promise you, especially if you consider, that all the Apostles, but S. Iohn, were dead before this time, and that this was in the very end of S. Iohns time. Yea but after I say,Tit. 1.12. that Titus was Bishop of the Cretians, (I cry you mercy, I should hauehave said Cretans, and yet by his leaue, the Geneua translation and others, read Cretians) and Timothy of them in Asia, therefore parishes were distinguished in the Apostles times. Neither is this a contradiction: for although Timothy was Bishop of Asia, and Titus of the Churches in Creet; yet it followeth not, that the parishes in the Churches of Asia or Creet, were distinguished. They were both by Pauls direction, as well by letter as example, to ordaine Presbyters in the seuerall cities; but that they placed any in the country, or assigned the Presbyters to seuerall cures in the Cities, wee reade not.
That the Bishops had the charge of all the parishes in the city after they were diuided or set out.To returne therefore to my proofes: The induction standeth thus:
In Rome, and Alexandria, and so in other cities, the parishes being once diuided, were assigned to seuerall Presbyters, the Bishop remaining superintendent ouer them all:
Therefore the Bishops were ouer all the parishes in the cities, after they were once diuided.
As touching Rome, I shew that the parishes were first distinguished by Euaristus, about the 100. yeare; and not a Presbytery, but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them, as hath beene prooued heeretofore. At Alexandria I proue, that the Bishop had the charge of many Churches, within the first 200. yeares.
But what I say concerning Alexandria,Ad page 74. might well hauehave beene spared (for that is his vsuall censure of such proofes as he knowes not how to answere) because that Church is excepted againstaBy T. C. pa. nusquam., as the beginner, and breeder of diocesan gouernment. Excepted against? why? what was done in Alexandria, which all the Churches in the world did not practise, so soone as the parishes were diuided? But what if this order began in S. Iohns time? what if by S. Marke, who died fiue or sixe yeares before Peter and Paul? let Eusebius, alledging the reports of them that went before him, be witnesse; viz, Euse. l. 2. c. 15that Marke being sent into Aegypt did preach the Gospell there, and was the first which did constitute cforeign.the Churches in Alexandria it selfe. Then euer since S. Marks time, there hauehave bene Churches in Alexandria, which all from the beginning were subiect to the B. Of these Churches dEuse. l. 5. c. 9, as J alledged in the sermon, was Iulianus Bishop in the first yeare of Commodus, viz. 180. In the 10 of Commodus, Demetrius was eLib. 5. c. 2….Bishop foreign, of the Churches in Alexandria. And againe more fully, that in the 10. yeare of Seuerus, Lae…us was president of Alexandria, and the rest of Aegypt fLib. 6. c. 1.: foreign, but of the Churches there, Demetrius had lately receiued the Bishopricke after Iulianus. In the third yeare of Philippus, after Heraclas had beene sixteene yeares Bishop, Dionysius receiued gLib. 6. c. 35.foreign, the Bishopricke of ruling the Churches in or about Alexandria. So it is said of Peter hSocra. l. 2. c. 6the famous B. of the Curches of Alexandria. iEuseb. l 9. c. 6of Alexander, that he was Bishop of the Churches belonging to that City. Constantius requested of Athanasius the Bishop kRuf. l. 1. c. 19, one of the Churches, which were many, at Alexandria, for the Arians. Valens by his letters signified, that Athanasius might safely retaine the gouernment lSocr. l. 4 c. 13.of the Churches. What these Churches were, Epiphanius before in part declared, mEpiphan. haeres. 69.signifying that they were of ancient assigned to seuerall Presbyters; all of them which were Catholique, or orthodoxall, beeing vnderunder the Bishop.
Neither should this seeme strange, that the Churches in Alexandria were subiect to the Bishop, seeing the rest in Aegypt were vnderunder his iurisdiction. Neither was this a thing peculiar to the Bishop of Alexandria, but commō to others, especially who were Bishops of mother Cities. Ignatius was Bishop not onelyonly of Antioch, nEpist. ad R…but of Syria, as you heard testified by himselfe. Irenaeus the Bishop of Lyons, was Bishop of the oEus. l. 5. c. 23Churches in France. And to omitte others, as Diodorus the Bishop of Tarsus, to whose charge was committed the pTheo. l. 5. c. 4.nation of the Cilicians, Amphilochius, who gouerned the whole qLi 4. c. 11.nation of the Lycaonians, Photinus Bishop of the rSocr. l. 2 c 18Churches in Illyricum, Agapetus Bishop of the sSoc. l. 7. c. 3.Churches which were vnderunder Synada &c: Eusebius testifieth of tEuseb. l. 3. c 4Titus, and in the next age after of Philippe uLib. 4. c. 21., that hee was B. of the Churches in Creet. Theodoret saith the like, *Theodor. in 1. Tim. 3.and of Timothe that hee was Bishop of the Asians, whose metropolis was Ephesus. It is manifest, saith Chrysostom xin 1. Tim. 5.19.that to Timothy was committed the rest of the Church, or yforeign. Ad pag. 75. The refuters answere to these testimonies.that whole nation of Asia.
To these testimonies of Eusebius and Theodoret, (I name so many as were cited in the sermon) the refuter answers: First, that Eusebius liued 230. yeares, after Timothy and Titus; and Theodoret 330. What then? the question is not whether the witnesses liued in the first 200. yeares, but whether within that time, there were diocesan Bishops? It is a very vncharitable and vnlearned part, that I say no worse, to imagine that Eusebius and Theodoret would, of their owne heads, testifie these things, and not by the relation of those which liued in former ages: especially, seeing Eusebius saith foreign, it is recorded in histories. But suppose the testimonies of these 2. were not sufficiēt; what will he say to that cloud of the ancient & most authētick witnesses, which with one cō sēt do testifie, that Timothy was B. of Ephesus, & those parts of Asia; and that Titus was B. of Creet? But of this more heereafter. In the meane time, let it bee acknowledged, as a point of intollerable impudency, that in a matter of fact, so agreeable with the scriptures (I meane especially the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, written to them, as to Bishops) any of vsus should deny credit to the constant, generall and perpetuall consent of the ancient writers, whereof some liued 13 or 1400 yeares before vsus.
2. Yea but if these testimonies be true, Titus and Timothy were Archbishops. So is Titus called in the subscriptiō of that Epistle. And that they were Metropolitanes, appeareth by all their successors, who were Bishops of Gortynae and Ephesiu… : the one, Metropolis of Creet, the other of Asia. How D. Bilson denieth this, let the reader see page. 409. of his book, (the other which the refuter citeth beeing misalledged) where he citeth Chrysostome aH…mil. 1. in. Tit.and Ierome bDe script. ec…les. in Tit….testifying that to Titus was committed a whole Iland, and the iudgement of so many Bishops;cPraefat. in 1. ad Tim. Theodoret, that to Timothe Paul committed the charge of Asia. Now if there were Metropolitan Bishops in the Apostles times, who besides their own peculiar diocesse, had the ouersight also of other Dioceses & Bishops; it should not seeme strange, that there were Diocesan Bishops, who besides their cathedrall churches, had manie parishes and Presbyters subordinate to them. To which purpose Epiphanius dEpist. ad Io…n. Hieros. apud Hierony…. …. 2.also was alledged, who saith that each Bishop had diuers churches vnderunder them: to whom many other might be added; as that of Optat…, eLib. 2. cou…r. Par…en.that in the city of Rome (where was but one onelyonly Bishop) were aboue forty Churches: the Epistle of Constantine fEuseb. in vita Const. Theod. l. 1. c. 19to Eusebius, mentioning those diuers Churches which were vnderunder him, and signifying as the multitude of Christians did encrease, so the number of Churches was to be multiplied: the testimony of Theodoret gIn epist. ad Leon. M.the Bishop of Cyrus, who affirmeth, that it was his lotte to be pastor of 800. Churches: for so many parishes, saith hee, hath Cyrus. Yea but Epiphanius was 390. yeares after Christ. Will any wise man therefore inferre that in the first two hundred yeares it was so? Good sir, sauing your wisedome, you shall seldome reade in ancient records of enlarging of dioceses: but of the contracting of them, by erecting new Bishopricks, very oft. It was testified before, hEx Cont. Ephesin. Et Asrit. &c.that the circuits of dioceses were from the beginning of the Churches: and therefore what circuit was of any Bishopricke in Epiphanius his time, the same ordinarily, if not greater, was in the first 200. yeares.
Serm. sect. 3. page 24. As touching countrey townes,§. 6. That the B. had the charge of the parishes in the country. they were indeed conuerted after the cities &c. to page 25. ad lin. 8.
In this section I proue the latter part of the former assumption, concerning country parishes. viz. that the Bishop of the citie was ouer them also: which I proue by this Enthymeme: The B. and the Presbytery of the City in all places acknowledged t…em to belong to their charge: Therefore the Bishop was ouer them, as being part of his Diocesse.
The antecedent I proue by their care ouer them, both before they were conuerted, and after. Before, because they labored their conuersion; after, because the Bishop out of his Presbytery assigned to each of thē a Presbyter, not a Presbytery, or a B. 2. Where the diocesse was large, he substituted a Chorepiscopus, or country B. Of these points, the last, our refuter wery conscionably concealeth: all the former, very learnedly he denieth. He denieth, I say: 1. That the Bishop and Presbytery of the city acknowledged the country to belong long to their charge. Which, as it is a most ignorant conceit, as hath beene proued before: so would it hauehave beene most precious to the church of God, if the BB. and Presbyof those times, had so conceiued. Now that both they and the country churches so conceiued, as J said, the vniuersall & perpetuall practise of the church of Christ, subiecting in al places the country parishes to the Bishop of the city, doth ineuitably proue. 2. That they did not labour their conuersion by vertue of their office, but were to attend those who were conuerted. As if the Bishop, and presbytery had beene ordained onelyonly for those fewe, that were at the first conuerted; and were not rather, as leauen put into the meale, to season the whole lump. I would gladly know therefore, who after the death of the Apostles and apostolicall men (which laboured in the cities) were appointed or prouided for the conuersion of the country towns? If it were not the office of the Bishop and Presbytery of the city, to which they were subiect; much lesse was it the office of others, who being neither Apostles, nor Euangelists, were tied to their own charges, & might not by the most ancient canons of the church, exercise any mysteriall function out of their owne bounds. Besides the bounds of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction followed the ciuill ordinarily; so that those countries were subiect to the Bishop of the City in respect of ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, which were subiect to the city it self. And therfore as they were actually vnderunder the Bishops charge, after their conuersion; so were they intentionally, before. This is a point clearly confessed by Caluin, as you shall heare. So is the third, though this learned man deny it; viz, that Presbyters were by the Bishops of the city assigned to country parishes out of the clergy of the city. For the clergy of the city was the seminary of the ministery for the whole diocesse. Neither was there any other ordinary meanes to supply the Churches which wanted. Schollers of their own, fitte …o be ministers, country parishes had not: vniuersities there were none: learned men from other dioceses were not to be expected, vnlesse the Bishop of the city were not able out of his clergy to furnish them. But hereof I hauehave spoken before:
As touching the last, that where the diocesse was large, the Bishop in certaine places appointed Chorepiscopos, as his substitutes, who together with their charge remained subiect to the Bishop of the city (which is a thing most notorious, and confessed by Caluin and Beza, being also a most euident proofe, that the churches were dioceses, and the Bishops diocesan, as J hauehave shewed before) our refuter passeth it ouer in silence; with what conscience, let the refuter Iudge.
Passing therefore by this, which in no wise he was able to answer,§. 7. That the B. of the city assigned seuerall Presbyters to the countrie parishes. Ad pag. 77. he oppugneth the 3. point, bringing an instāce of his owne, and taking exception against my proofe. We hauehave, saith hee, a plaine instance to the contrary in the churches of Cenchrea and Corinth. A plain instance? to what purpose? that Cenchrea had a Bishoppe and a presbytery, and not a seuerall presbyter assigned to it? that when it wanted a presbyter, it was not furnished from the clergy of Corinth? It is euident that Cenchrea was a village belonging to Corinth and subiect vntounto it, as were al other townes and villages in those parts: and as the rest, so it (euen by his aPage 57.own confession) receiued the gospell from Corinth. That it euer had a Bishop it is incredible: for by the lawes of the church, those churches which at the first had Bishops, were to hauehave them stil. Let him shew, that euer it had a Bishop or a presbytery, or that it was not subiect to the Bishop of Corinth, as well as other towns and villages of Achaia; that ordinarily it receiued not their presbyter from Corinth, from whence, by his owne confession, it receiued the Gospel; and I wil yeeld to him. If none of these things can be necessarily proued; nay if none of them be probable or likely, how could he say that this was a plaine instance to the contrary . And yet this is the fourth time that the church of Cenchreae hath been obiected to no purpose, vnlesse it be to confute himselfe.
Against my allegation of the councell of Sardica, hee taketh great exception, obiecting two contrary things vntounto me: whereof, if either were true, the one would take away the other. The former, is subtilty and craft, as though I went about to delude my auditors at Lambith, and readers eueryevery where. For, saith he, when was this Councell held? was it not about the yeere 347. almost 150. yeeres after the time in question? If I had alleaged that canon, only to testifie the practise of the Church at that time, not permitting Bishops in country townes and villages, there had been some small colour for this obiection: and yet but a colour, seeing they doe not (as you shall heare) prohibit the ordaining of Bishops in any Church where they had formerly been. And therefore the practise of the Church for multitude of Bishops now, was as it had been before; sauing that by this canon order was taken for erecting Bishoprickes, where none had been, but not for dissoluing of Bishopricks, where any were. But it was the iudgement and determination of that Councell, which chiefely I alledged; which was, that one Presbyter is sufficient for a village or towne. And therefore nothing was in this respect to bee innouated, but as they had hitherto no Bishops or Presbyteries, but Presbyters seuerally assigned to them, so they should continue. The iudgement of these men (I hope) was not much inferiour to theirs, who liued in the first two hundred yeeres. This being a councel of three hundred orthodoxall Bishops who confirmed the decrees of the councell of Nice, among whom was Osius the famous confessour,Theod. l. 2. c. 15 foreign. and Athanasius (then whom there hath not bene a more famous Bishop for piety, wisdome, learning and soundnesse in religion since the Apostles times) whose iudgement also in this particular was approued, as hath bene shewed, by the decrees of other councils, by the iudgment of other fathers, by the practise of all churches, and neuer gaine said or misliked by any in the former ages, nor yet by the reformers of the church in our age according to the pretended discipline, T. C. and perhaps some one or 2. others excepted. Now I would gladly know, what either reasons our refuter hath to confute their iudgement, or testimonies to ouerweigh their authority. There was therefore no subtill purpose in mee to delude any in this allegation, but an euill conscience in him that sought with so friuolous an euasion to elude so plaine and pregnant euidence.
The other thing which hee obiecteth is simple follie, in alledging a Canon, which, as he saith, maketh so much against mee. For, saith hee, what greater proofe can there bee, that villages or little cities or townes vsually had BB. ouer them euen till that time, viz. the yeare 347, then that the councill of Sardica was faine to make such a decree against it? For the vntruth of which obiection, his ignorance must bee his best excuse. It is plaine, that in that canon direction is giuen chiefely for erecting of new Bishopricks; authorizing the Metropolitane and the other Bishoppes of the prouince, if the people of cities and populous places desired a Bishop, to erect a new Bishopricke: but forbidding this to be done in villages or petite cities or townes, for which they iudged the ministery of one Presbyter to be sufficient. Besides, the councill of Nice had decreed, that the priuiledges of all churches should bee preserued; and the councils of Africke more then once determined, that what Church soeuer had in former times had a Bishop, should still hauehave a B. and the ancient custome of the church was euer held as a law among them, in this behalfe. So that I hold it for a certaine truth, that what Church in the end of the first 400 yeares had not a Bishop, the same had none in the beginning: and what Church soeuer had in the first 200. yeares a B. was at the end of 400. yeares acknowledged to hauehave right to a B.
Indeed I doe confesse that the people of countrey townes sometimes being vaineglorious,Balsans. hauehave desired a Bishop of their owne, and the ministers beeing ambitious, and as it is said in the councill of Carthage,c. 54. graec. lifting vp their necks against their Bishoppes, hauehave inflamed their desires: but these attempts were esteemed vnlawfull, and therefore as in councels they were prohibited, so in well ordered Churches they were not allowed. But hereof also I hauehave spokē before.
Yea but, §. 8. The refuters instances of parish Bishops answered.saith hee, this canon was not vniuersally obserued, as may appeare by the oft renewing of it, in other councils, and the practise of the Churches to the contrary afterward. Here J aske him, first, when this was done? for will he prooue, that the irregular and vnlawfull practises of vaineglorious people, and ambitious ministers in the fourth or fifth century after Christ, were the lawfull and ordinary practises of the purest churches in the first two hundred yeeres? Secondly, whether it were lawfully done, or not? if yea, then doth hee contradict the iudgement of approued councils, the authority of orthodoxall Fathers, the general consent of the ancient churches of Christ, hauing nothing to oppose therto but vain surmises, & vnlikely likelihoods. If not, why are they alledged? shal irregular & vnlawful practises be commended as paterns for imitatiō?
But let vsus heare his instances, which T. C. with great labor and long study gathered. The 1. Was not Zoticus Bishop of a small village, called Coman? If I say no, how will hee proue it? Eusebius is alledged hEus. l. 5 c. 16.lib. 5. c. 16. where Apollinarius speaking of certain approued men, & BB. who came to try the spirit of Maximilla (one of Montanus his truls) mentioneth foreign, Zoticus of (or from) the village Comana, whose mouth Themiso stopped: noting the place, not wherof he was Bishop, but whence he came or where he was borne, for he was Episcopus Otrenus in Armenia, saith Caesar iAn. 205.27.Baronius, ex vic… Comana in Armenia ori…ndus, Bishop of Otrea in Armenia, borne at the village Comana in Armenia. Jn the eighteenth chapter of the same book of Eusebius kEuseb. l. 5. c. 18.Apollonius reporteth the same story; which Nicephorus lLib. 4. c. 25.also reciting, vseth these words: Apollonius reporteth that Zoticus Ostrenus whē Maximilla begā to prophecy at Pepuza (a place which Montanus called Ierusalem) indeuored to cōuince her euil spirit, but was hindred of those which were her fauourits, meaning Themiso. Indeed Apollinarius calleth him foreign; whereupō Nicephorus supposed him to be but a Presbyter: but thogh Apollinarius being B. of Hierapolis calleth him in one place foreign, as m1. Pet. 5.1.Peter cals himself, being more then a Presbyter, & as BB. vsually cal one another Consacerdotes: yet afterwards he expresselie calleth him a Bishoppe. And thus the village, the little village Coman hath lost her Bishoppe. For little the Refuter added of his owne, to make his instance the greater. The second: Was not Mares (he should hauehave said, Maris) Bishoppe of Solica? Of Solica? Truelie I cannot but smile that so great a clerke hath learned his letters no better; for though the first letter be not vnlike an S. yet is it the D. vsed in that print, as hee might hauehave learned of a nT.C. l. 2. pag. 519.Deacon in the same page. But this sheweth that our refuter taketh his allegations at the second hand, not consulting with the author. Theodoret oL. 5. c. 4.saith, that Eusebius Vercellensis ordained Maris Bishop in Dolicha, which hee saith was but a small towne, vsing the word foreign, which I will speake of, when I come to Nazianzum, which also is termed so. For, saith Theodoret, Eusebius beeing desirous to install Maris, a man worthy commendation and shining with many sorts of vertues foreign, in the Episcopall throne, he came to Dolicha, by which phrase it appeareth, he did not ordaine him the Presbyter of a parish, but such a Bishop as others were, at least of that time, being the fourth century after Christ, So farre hath our refuter also ouershotte his marke. For though Dolicha were but a small city or towne, as some of our Bishops Sees in England and Wales be: yet that hindreth not, but that it might hauehave a diocesse belonging thereto, as wel as ours hauehave, though perhaps not so great.
The third,Apud Hier. tom. 1. Fortè Baiēsit. Asclepius of a small towne in Africke . For this, T. C. quoteth Ierome tom. 1. catalog. Gennadij vir. illustr. Gennadius indeed saith, that he was vici non grandis episcopus. But Ioannes de Trittenhem in his booke de scriptorib. ecclesiast. saith that he was Vagensis teritorij episcopus; so that although his seat was no great town, yet his diocesse was that whole territory. But when was this? about the yeare 440. so farre doth my aduersary, who complaineth of my ouershooting my marke when J alledged the councill of Sardica, ouershoot me: for when he wil scarse suffer me to shoot tenscore: he, as if he▪ were shooting for the flight, shoots 22, euen tweluescore beyond the marke. I say vntounto him, it was not so frō the beginning. But by councels of Africk held towards the end of the fourth century permitted,Conc. Carth. graec. c. 54. et 57. et. 101. Afric. c. 20. et 23. et 65. namely, that in part of the diocesse belonging to the B. of a city, new Bishoprickes might be erected, if the people of those partes being populous desiring so much, and the Bishoppe of the city consenting thereto, it were agreed vponupon by the prouinciall Synode. But the Bishops of the fifth century so much exceeded in their indulgence that way, in granting popular requests, against the canons of other receiued councels, and ancient practise of the Church: that Leo the great Bishop of Rome,Leo epist. 87. ad Episcopos Afric. c. 2. was faine to write vntounto the Bishops of Africke to stay that excesse.
The fourth: What was Nazianzum, but a small towne where that famous Gregory the Diuine was B? For which T.C quoteth Socrat. l. 4. c. 20. But what if Nazianzum were a City? what if Gregory the Diuine were not B. of Nazianzum? Nazianzum,Socrat. l. 4. c. 26. though Socrates make mention of it as foreign, a meane city, yet he calleth it a citie: and though somwhere it is called foreign, that is, a little city or towne, yet was it such a city, that the Emperor Leo the Philosopher, reckoneth it among the seats of the Metropolitane BB. not that I thinke it had any other cities or Bishopricks subiect vntounto it.Iur. graecorom. in foreign. pag 88. I will not stand to argue that question, whether Gregory the Diuine were Bishop of Nazianzum. For although diuers good Authors affirme it;Greg. epist. 42. et 65 Caes. Baron. an. 366. num. 10. yet I beleeue Gregory himselfe, who saith, he was not B. but onelyonly coadiutor to his Father there. He was by his dear friend Basil the great, made Bishop of Sa…, partly against his wil, and af…er was made Bishop of Constantinople; but leauing both the former, being seized vponupon by Anthimu… the Bishop of Tyana, who placed another there; the latter, resigning it into the hands of the councill of Constantinople, which preferred Nectarius to bee his successor; hee returned vntounto Nazianzum, where finding the See void, obtained of Helladius, who was the Bishoppe of Caesarea after Basil, that Eulalius might bee ordained Bishoppe there. But I will not dispute this question; seeing it is confessed, that Nazianzens father was B. of that diocesse.
These bee all the instances which T.C. bringeth in this cause, excepting one more out of the canon law, which our refuter thought not worth the obiecting. But his inference hereupon is worth the obseruing. Al this M.D. could not choose but know, if he had read but somuch as M. Cartw. 2. reply with as good a mind, as hee did D. Bilson. Whereto I answere: that I read with resolution to yeeld to the trueth whersoeuer I find it. But God hath giuen me so much iudgment, as not to be perswaded by meere colours, such as I signified in my preface T. C. arguments in this cause to bee, and such as in this treatise I hauehave prooued many of them to bee, and so will the rest, if the Refuter shall vrge them, or take vponupon him to maintaine them.
Hauing so substantially answered the substance of my argument,§ 9. Why the heathen are called Pagani. hee taketh occasion to shewe his learning, in giuing a more learned reason why the heathen are of Christians called Pagani, then I did. I said, and, I am sure, hauehave read it in some learned author,Master Hooker is of the same iudgement, l. 5. Pagani quasi ex eodem fonte bib…ntes. that they are so called, because the people who liued in the country villages (which are properly called pagani, a pag…, and that of foreign, as Pomp. Festus saith, quia eadem aqua vterentur) remained for the most part heathenish, after the cities, for the most part, were conuerted to Christianity. Hee thinketh the heathen were called pagani, because they are not Christs Souldiers; induced so to thinke, because Tertullian saith, Apud hunc, tam miles est paganus fidelis, quam paganus est miles infidelis.De Corona militis. Which hee englisheth thus, as well a faithfull Souldier as an vnbeleeuing souldier is a pagan. Which if it were Tertullians meaning, as well Christians, as infidels should be called Paganes. But Tertullian is foreign darke, and writeth (as it seemeth) aboue some mens capacity. With Christ, saith Tertullian, as well a belieuing pagan is a souldier, as an vnbeleeuing souldier, is a pagan; meaning by Pagan, according to the vse of the Romanes, him that is not a Souldier. Whereas therefore among the Romanes, and all warlike nations, those who were Souldiers, were greately honoured (as the vse of the word miles and armiger with vsus doth shew) and contrariwise those who were not Souldiers; were of base esteeme, called Pagani, perhaps in some such sense as Villani with vsus, that is to say, villaines, clownes, boores: Tertullian disswading Christians from going to warre vnderunder infidels, perswadeth thē not to be moued with this respect, of being honoured, if they be souldiers; and dishonoured, if they be not: for, saith he, with Christ, a faithfull man, though despised in the world as a pagan, is highly esteemed and honoured; and also an vnfaithfull man, though honoured as a souldier, or cheuallier in the world, is of base account with Christ. But how heathē people should from hence be called Pagani, I know not, vnlesse christians were also called milites or cheualliers: for Pagani here, as a base terme signifying villains or clownes or boores, is opposed to milites, as a name of honour.
§. 10. Ad. Pag. 78. BB. both before, & after the diuision of Parishes were diocesans.(Serm. sect. 4. pag. 25. Thus then parishes were distinguished both in the cities & countries, and seueral presbyters particularly assigned &c. to, promiscuously, pag. 26.)
In this section, I proue that the BB. both before & after the diuision of parishes, were diocesan: and first I answere an obiection: for wheras some might imagine, that Bishops before the diuision of parishes were parishional, after, diocesan, as being set ouer many churches: I shew (which before hath bene proued) that the circuit of the Bishops charge, or diocesse, was the same before the diuision of parishes, which it was after, &c. And to this purpose I declare, that the circuit of the B. charge from the beginning, contained foreign, meaning thereby the City whence he hath his denomination, and foreign, that is the country subiect vntounto it. And wheras some vnderstand foreign to signifie a parish, according to the vulgar vse of the English word, I shewed that in the best authors, euen after the diuision of parishes, it signifieth the whole city with the suburbs. My reason standeth thus:
To whose iurisdiction both foreign (that is, the city & suburbs, though containing manie parishes) and foreign (that is, the whole country belonging to the same citie) is subiect, he is ouer the Churches both in citie and country, and consequently a diocesan.
But to the iurisdiction of the antient Bishoppes, both foreign, the citie and suburbs, and foreign, the country thereto belonging, were subiect.
Therefore the antient BB. were ouer the Churches both in the citie and country, and consequently were diocesans.
The proposition is of vndeniable truth, the word foreign, being so vnderstood, as I prooued before.
The assumption J proue by two most pregnant testimonies;Can. Apost. 34. Conc. Antioch. c. 9. C. 35. the one, being one of the ancient canōs called the Apostles; the other a canon of the councell of Antioch, whereof I hauehave also spoken before. But to them we may adde the next canon called the Apostles,C. Antioch. c. 22. which is also recited in the councell of Antioch: That a Bishoppe may not presume out of his owne limits, to exercise ordinations, to Cities and Countries not subiect to him. And if he shall be conuinced to hauehave done this without the consent of them, who hold those Cities or Countries, let him be deposed, and those also whom he hath ordained.
This syllogisme being too strong to be refuted, his best course was not to see it. Notwithstanding he cauilleth with some points therein. For whereas his chiefe proofe before, was, that the Church of Antioch, of Ephesus, of Ierusalem, of Alexandria &c. were each of them but one particular congregation &c. because Eusebius calleth each of them foreign, thereby abusing the Reader, as if Eusebius had by that name ment that which we cal a parish; here he disauoweth the authority of Eusebius alledged according to his true meaning, vnlesse he had said it was of that signification in the end of the Apostles time, and the age following. Which is a silly shift: seeing Eusebius speaking of the Churches of whole Cities in the first two hundred yeeres, euen of such as he had expressly mentioned as containing many Churches, he calleth them by that name. As at Alexandria he acknowledged the Churches to hauehave beene instituted by Saint Marke, and yet he comprehendeth them all afterwards, yea after the number of them was increased, vnderunder the name of the paroecia in Alexandria, as I hauehave shewed before. And where besides Eusebius, I quote Epiphanius, and the Councell of Antioch, he saith, It is to no purpose to cloy the Reader with multitude of allegations, concerning the decrees or practises of latter ages. Which also is a very friuolous exception, seeing it is easie to shew, that the dioceses or circuits of Churches were vsually lessened: but that they were any wheres inlarged, he will hardly shew. Therefore, looke what the circuits of the Churches or Bishops charges were in Eusebius or Epiphanius his time, the same, at the least, they were in the first two hundred yeeres.
§. 11. Of the Canons called the Apostles.And whereas I alleage one of the antient canons called the Apostles, nor that I thinke they were of the Apostles owne penning, but that for their antientnesse and authority they are so called, and by all sorts of writers so alleaged, he chargeth me with seeking to bleare mens eyes with the name of the Apostles Canons. In that I said they were so called, it doth sufficienttly both here and where after I cite them, shew my meaning. But let vsus heare what he can say against them, for my mind giueth me, he will leaue them in better credit then hee found them. If wee were so simple saith he, as to take them for their doing, yet should not a man of his profession so abuse our simplicity: He knoweth there was a time, when Rome her selfe saw too much in them, to acknowledge them for the Apostles: See Gratians decree dist. 15. c. sancta Romana, & dist. 16. cap. canones. In both places it is said, that they are apohryphall (as we call the bookes of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome) not because they are either false or counterfet, but because they are not acknowledged to be of the Apostles owne writing: for if they were, they ought to be esteemed of canonicall authority, like the other scriptures. Notwithstanding they are ecclesiasticall canons, which for their great antiquity and authentike authority, are commonly called Apostolicall, receiued of antient Fathers, and approoued by Councels. And although some of them may be suspected, *As the last of all which leaueth out the Apocalypse, and reckoneth Clements Epistles and Constitutions as canonicall. For the Coū cell in Trullo which receiueth the 85 Canons, notwithstanding reiecteth Clements constitutions.as foisted in, or depraued by heretikes, yet those which are specially cited by Fathers and Councels as authentike, are without exception; being of as great credit as any other ecclesiasticall writings whatsoeuer. Such is the canon wee speake of, the words whereof which I cited being verbatim, recited in the Councell of Antioch. I will not discusse this controuersie, wherein much may be said on both sides. Only this J will say, that as Damascen ade orthod. fid. l. 4. c. 18. in fine. foreign.exceeded the truth, in reckoning them with the canonicall scriptures: so some learned and iudicious men hauehave been much ouerseene in too much censuring of them: as first, that they are condemned in the canon law, when indeed the very scope bvid gloss.of the 16. distinction is to authorize them, and to acknowledge them, though not as canonicall scriptures, yet as authenticall canons.
Secondly, that Isidor condemneth them: Whereas indeed the words of Isidor cPraefat. in cō. cil. vid. dist. 16. c. 4., in the true copy are these. That by reason of their authority, we prefixe before the other councels, the canons called the Apostles (although of some they are called apocryphal) because the greater part receiue them; and the holy fathers hauehave by synodall authority ratified them, and placed them among canonicall constitutions.
Thirdly, that they are condemned by the Councell in Trullo dConc. Const. in Trullo. c. 2.: when as indeed that Councell reiecting foreign, the constitutions of Clement, (which also were called Apostolicall) because they were depraued by heretikes, authorized the canons, decreeing that the 85. canons shall remaine firme and sure, which of their eTilius his Edition being here defectiue, is out of ye manuscript copies thus to be supplied, foreign.holy and blessed fore-fathers were receiued, and confirmed, and deliuered vntounto them in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles. And whereas some thinke, that Epiphanius is the first that mentioneth them; I finde it to bee otherwise. For diuers of them are cited before his time, being sometimes called absolutely the canons, sometimes the ecclesiasticall canons, sometimes the antient receiued canons of our Fathers, sometimes Apostolicall canons, as I hauehave partly noted beforefEx Conc. Nic. c. 15 & 16. C. Antioch. c. 9 & ex ep. Const.. Neither is the authority of the generall Councell held at Ephesus, though after Epiphanius his time, to be neglected, which calleth them gConc. Ephes. post aduent. Episcoporum Cypr.the canons of the holy Apostles. So much of those canons, and also of this section, which though it doe most directly and necessarily conclude,Ad page 79. that Bishops were set ouer dioceses, yet he calleth it a needlesse discourse, which, because he knew not how to answere, he taketh leaue to passe by it.
§. 12.(Serm. sect. 5. pag. 26. These three points whereof hitherto I hauehave intreated, are of such euident, &c. to page 28. line 6.)
Caluins testimony consenting with vsus in the three first points handled in the Sermon.In this section I conclude the three first points with the testimony of Caluin, whom I produce, not as this sophister cauilleth, as a captiue by way of triumph , but as one that taketh part with vsus, against our new sect of Disciplinarians, especially in the second and third point, (which their dissenting from Caluin, Beza, and other learned Authors of discipline, he alwaies cunningly dissembleth.) And that his authority may be of more weight, as I confesse him to hauehave bin a worthy seruant of Christ, whose memory with me is blessed; so I professe him to hauehave bin the first or chiefe founder of the Presbyterian or Geneuian discipline: in setting vp whereof, the Bishopricke being dissolued, and the common weale reduced to a popular State, I acknowledge him to hauehave dealt very wisely, his proiect of discipline being the best, that that Citie did seeme at that time capable of, there being no hope, that either a Bishop or a Presbytery consisting wholly of Ministers, would be admitted. But he cannot indure to heare, that Caluin should bee esteemed the first founder of this discipline. For cōfutation whereof, he telleth vsus (what we hauehave heard an hundred times, but neuer shall see proued) that this discipline was both practised in the Apostles times, and primitiue Church, and hath testimony from many learned men, Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, &c. Wickliffe, the Waldenses, Luther and diuers others hereafter to be named, that liued before Caluin writ: hee should hauehave said, that writ before Caluin liued, and then not one word of all this goodly speech had been true; which as I hauehave manifested already in respect of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Luther, so farre as they hauehave been alleaged: so shall I in respect of Wickliffe and the Waldenses, whoneuer once dreamed of their lay presbyteries, and much lesse of their new-found parish discipline.
Neither can he abide that Caluin should be said to agree with vsus in these three points; but he must abide it, for truth will preuaile. But that were exceeding strange, saith hee, that he should ouerthrow that discipline which he was so carefull to establish. Let him not abuse the Reader; his agreeing with vsus in the second and third point, ouerthroweth the new-found parish discipline, but agreeth with the doctrine of the learned Reformers, and with the practise of Geneua, vnderstanding by B. (as they doe) the President of their Presbytery: their Church being a diocesse consisting of many parishes, ouer which one Presbytery only is appointed. Of which Presbytery, if the President were perpetuall, …as he was in Caluins time, and (as alwaies he was in the primitiue Church, there being not one instance to be giuen to the contrary; which order Beza misliketh not, but sometimes wisheth it were restored) then should they come neerer the practise of the Apostolicall Churches, then now they doe. In the meane time, as their Church is a diocesse, and their Presbytery seruing for the whole diocesse; so the President for the time being, is diocesan. But whether that be so or not; once, Caluins iudgement agreeth with mine in these three points: Ad pag. 80.It may be, saith he, for the latter end of the first two hundred yeeres. But the conscience must ground it selfe vponupon the commandement and example of the Apostles in the word of God. As though we were destitute thereof, and they contrariwise, for their discipline, had the precept and practise of the Apostles. Which well may they take for granted, but neuer will bee able to prooue: and as though the vniuersall and perpetuall practise of all the Churches in Christendome, and consent of all the Fathers in the first three hundred yeeres, were not a sufficient demonstration to perswade a man that hath a sound iudgement, ioined with a good conscience, what was the doctrine and practise of the Apostles. For if any man shall say, that all the Apostolicall Churches, and all the godly Fathers, and glorious Martyrs, did euer from the Apostles times obserue a discipline and gouernement of the Church, repugnant to that which the Apostles had prescribed; I doubt not to say of such a man, that as hee is void of modesty, so hath he no great store either of iudgement or honesty.
§. 13. Calu. in tit. l. 4. c. 4. sect. 1. Let these words, before the papacy, be obserued of them who say we hauehave receiued our gouernment from the Papists.But how farre forth Caluin agreeth with vsus, will appeare by that chapter which I alleaged, the title whereof is this; Concerning the state of the ancient Church and the maner of gouerning which was in vse before the papacy. The which, as he saith in the beginning, will represent vntounto our eies a certaine image of the diuine institution. For although the Bishops of those times made many canons, whereby they might seeme to expresse more then was expressed in the holy scriptures, notwithstanding with so good caution they framed their whole administration according to that only rule of Gods word, that you may easily perceiue, that they had almost nothing in this behalfe, diss…nant frō the word of God. This is a good testimony, you will say, giuen to the discipline of the primitiue Church: but doth hee testifie, that the three points you speake of are agreeable thereunto? that shall you now heare. And first, concerning the Presbyteries hee saith, as before I alleaged, euerie Citie had their Colledge of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers, &c. The Refuter repeateth the words, which I cited out of Caluin thus: that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers. Thereof giuing this censure: Craf…ily, or carelesly is this spoken. The former, if wittingly hee left out, onelyonly; the latter, if he did not heed it. Who denieth that the Presbyteries consisted of ministers? Wil it follow thence that therefore there were no other gouerning-Elders? No man can be so ignorant, or so shamelesse, as to say, that Caluin was of opinion, that the Presbyteries consisted of Ministers onelyonly, either in the Apostles times, or in the age following. What shall become of m… now, no man being so ignorant and shamelesse? I hope to salue both presentlie. I confesse, good sir, that Caluin collecteth two sorts of Elders out of 1. Tim. 5.17. I confesse also, that speaking in generall of the practise of the Church, he saith coldly and in few words, the rest of the Presbyters were set ouer the censure of maners and corrections. But when he commeth more particularly to relate the practise of the antient Church, he giueth full testimony to the truth. For can any man vnderstand Caluin, as saying, they had any other Presbyery, besides the colledge of Presbyters in eueryevery Church? Doth not Caluin plainly say, eueryevery citie had their colledge of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers? Yes that he doth: but the word only was either craftily, or carelesly omitted. Heare then the words of Caluin: Habebant ergo singulae ciuitates Presbyterorum collegium, qui pastores erant ac Doctores. Nam & apud populū munus docendi, exhortandi & corrigendi, quod Paulus episcopis iniungit, omnes obibant: & quo semen post se relinquerent, iunioribus, qui sacra militae nomen dederant, crudiendis, nanabant operam: EueryEvery citie therefore had a colledge of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers. For both they exercised all of them the function of teaching, exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enioyneth to Bishoppes, and also that they might leaue a seed behind them, they imploied their labour in teaching the younger sort, who had giuen their names, to serue in the sacred warfare, that is, the younger sort of the Clergy. Thus therefore J reason:
The Colledge of Presbyters, according to Caluins iudgement, consisted onelie of Ministers;
The Presbytery of each Citie was the colledge of the Presbyters:
Therefore the Presbyterie of each City, according to Caluins iudgement, consisted onelyonly of Ministers.
The assumption is euident: The proposition himselfe proueth, when hee saith omnes, all of them exercised the offic… of teaching, &c. which Paul prescribeth to BB. &c. What can be more plaine? For where there are none but Ministers, there are Ministers only: where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching to the people, which Paul inioyned Bishops; and instructing the younger sort of the clergy, there are none but Ministers. Therefore where all exercise the function of teaching and preaching, &c. there are Ministers only.
§ 14. Caluins testimony that the Churches were dioceses.As touching the second, Caluin most plainly giueth testimony to it in the next words following: Vnicui que ciuita…i erat attributa certa regio, qua Presbyteros iude sumeret, & velut corpori ecclesiae illius accenseretur: To eueryevery Citie was attributed a certaine region or country, which from thence should receiue their Presbyters, and be reckoned as being of the body of that Church. What can be more plaine, that each Church contained the citie and country adioyning, that both citie and country made but one Church, as it were one body, whereof the head was the citie, the other members the parishes in the country: that the Presbyteries were only in cities, and that the country parishes receiued each of them their Presbyter, when they wanted, from thence? Who therefore (to vse his owne words) could be either so ignorant as not to see, or so shamelesse as not to acknowledge, that the Churches in Caluins iudgement were dioceses? How doth he auoid this? Forsooth Caluin doth not name dioceses. But doth he not meane dioceses, when he speaketh of Churches containing each of them a citie and country adioyning? Yea but he doth not tie the power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church. No doth? he acknowledgeth no Presbytery but in the cities, of which the Bishops were Presidents. As for country parishes, they had not Presbyteries, but seuerall Presbyters: and those they had, as Caluin saith, from the Presbytery of the citie. Besides, when he maketh the citie and country to be but one body, it cannot be doubted, but that he meant the Church in the citie was the head of this body, and the rest of the parts subiect vntounto it. Whereto you may adde that which after he saith of chorepiscopi placed in the diocesse, where it was large, as the Bishops deputy, in the country subiect to him. But what Caluins iudgement was in this behalfe. let the Church of Geneua, framed thereby, test…fie. Which is as much a diocesse now, as when it was vnderunder a Bishop, there being but one Presbytery, vntounto which all the parishes are subiect. But let vsus heare what this Refuter doth confesse Caluin to hauehave acknowledged in this behalfe: He neither nameth dioceses, nortieth power of ecclesiasticall gouernment to the Bishops Church, but onelyonly acknowledgeth that for orders sake some one Minister was chosen, to be, not a diocesan, but a titular Bishop. Thus it fareth with men that wrangle against the light of their Conscience, being conuicted with euidence of truth; but desirous to make a shew of opposition, when they know not what to say against it. Doth not Caluin plainly say, that to each citt… was attributed a certaine region, and that both were one Church as it were one body? To what purpose doth he then say, that he only acknowledgeth that for orders sake, &c. Is not his answere in effect this, Caluin doth confesse that the Churches indeed were dioceses, and that the Bishops had vnderunder their charge both the citie and country adioyning, (for that also he confesseth in the next point) but they were not Bishops hauing such authority as you speake of? that is, I confesse he … with you in the second and third point, as you say; but yet in the fourth (which also you confesse) he dissenteth from you. Howbeit hee expresseth his mind absurdly, when he saith, not a diocesan, but a titular Bishop. For was not the Bishop a diocesan, if his Church was a diocesse? if he had vnderunder his charge both the city and country adioyning? Yea but he was not a diocesan, but a titular Bishop. Though Caluin acknowledgeth the Bishop to hauehave been only President of the Presbytery, like to the Consull in the senate of Rome (which you call a titular B.) wherein (being the fourth point) he dissenteth from vsus; yet doth he acknowledge, that vnderunder his Bishopricke, was contained both the citie and country, and consequently that he was a diocesan Bishop, vnlesse he that is Bishop of a diocesse, be not a diocesan Bishop.
His testimony therefore to the third is cleere,§ 15. especially if you adde that which followeth, concerning the Ch…repiscopi, or country Bishops.Calums testimony that the Bishops were diocesan BB. For Caluin saith, If the country which was vnderunder his Bishopricke, were larger then he could sufficiently discharge all the offices of a Bishop in eueryevery place, rurall Bishops were substituted here and there to supply his place. Which is a most pregnant testimony, both against the parish discipline and also for the diocesan. For if eueryevery parish had sufficient authority within themselues, what needed rurall Bishops to ouerlooke them? If the Bishop of the City had been Bishop but of one parish, why doth Caluin say the Countrey was vnderunder his Bishopricke? Why doth he say, that the Bishopricke was sometimes so large, that there was need of Countrey Bishops as his deputies, to represent the Bishop in the prouince or countrey? But what saith the Refuter to this? he confesseth (not ingenuously, but as it were … Minerua, as if it stuck in his teeth) that Caluin saith somewhat to that purpose. But that somewhat is as good as nothing: for hee doth not say they were diocesan Bishops: (O impudency!) neither doth he speake of the Apostles …, of which all the question is, for the feeling of a Christian conscience in the … of gouernment. All the question concerning the Apostles times? doe not your selues extend your assertion to 200. yeares? And if nothing will settle the cōscience but what is alledged from the Apostles times, what hauehave you to settle your conscience for your opinion, who can alledge no sound proofe neither from the Apostles times, nor afterwards? But to what purpose should I spend more words in this matter, seeing I hauehave heretofore proued, that the circuit of eueryevery Bishops charge, was from the beginning as great, if not greater, then afterwards? And if nothing may be in the Church, but as it was in the Apostles times, then ought not the whole people of any country be conuerted to the profession of Christianity, because none was then: and as well might they alleage, that no whole country ought to bee conuerted to the profession of the faith, because none was in the Apostles times, as to deny the people of a whole country to be a Church, because it was not so in the Apostles times.
Thus hauehave I manifestly proued, that Calu… giueth testimony to the first point; and in the two latter, that he wholly agreeth with vsus. So doth …eza, as I hauehave shewed before, testifying the Churches were diocese…, Bez. de grad. min. c. 24.and that in the chiefe towne of eueryevery diocesse, the first Presbyter, who afterwards began to be called a Bishop, (hee speaketh therefore of the Apostles times) was set ouer his fellow Presbyters, both of the Citie and countrey, that is the whole diocesse. And because sometimes the countrey was of larger extent then that all vponupon eueryevery occasion could conueniently meete in the Citie; and forasmuch as all other small Cities and townes did need common inspection, or ouer sight, they had also their Chorepiscopi, that is, countrey or vice-Bishops.
Yea but (saith he, Ad Pag 81.being guilty to himselfe of vntruth in denying Caluins consent with vsus) it had been nothing to the purpose if Caluin had agreed with him in all, seeing he affi…meth withall, that they were but humane ordinances, and aberrations from the word of God. That which Caluin speaketh of the superiority of Bishops in degree (which is the fourth point, wherein I confesse he dissenteth from vsus, and from the truth, supposing it to be of custome, and humane constitution) that the …futer extendeth to all his reports concerning the ancient Church gouernment; when as he plainely testifies, that with so great … they had composed the gouernment, that there … it almost diss… nant from the word of God. Do… … where say or insinuate, that it is an aberration from the word of God, either that their colledge of Presbyters did consist wholy of Pastors and Teachers?See Calu. in Act. 20.17.28. & in Act. 14.23. Or that to each Citie was attributed a certaine region, being portion of the same Church? Or that the Bishop had the superintendency ouer the Citie and countrey? It will neuer be shewed .
And now are we come to his conclusion, containing a most vaine bra…ge, proceeding either from pitifull ignorance, or extreme vnconscionablenes: That hauing answeared my arguments (in such sort as you hauehave heard) and wanting indeed proofs, worth the producing, he shal not need (the vntruth of this third point is so euident) to bring any proofe for the maintenance of the contrary assertion. And so I leaue him, conceiuing hope of victory, like the King of A…, betweene these old forces, which I hauehave made to retire vponupon him, and the new supplies marching towards him.
FINIS.