A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Defending the two first Sections concerning Elders.
Serm. Sect. 1. pag. 8. And first I am to shew, that there were no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church, but Ministers. A sufficient proofe whereof may be this, &c: to obtrude vponupon vsus, in the end of the 8. pag.
AS touching this first point, the refuter endeuoureth two things.Sect. 1. That the …pute con…ning Lay…ders is no… impertine… Pag. 49. fine. First, as hee saith, he wardeth and repelleth my blowes: and then, that we may see what a man he is of his hands, he sheweth, that he also can strike if need be. His former act is a reproofe of my treatise, the latter a proofe of his owne assertion. And first in grosse, he reiecteth the whole discourse of Elders as impertinent, and after descendeth to the particulars.A… pag. 10. For the first: Reason would, saith he, that M. D. had shewed vsus, how this first point pertaineth to the proofe of the matter in question. Whatsoeuer he conceiue of it, I discerne not, what affinitie it can hauehave with any member of his former assumption, &c.
Pag. 6. li. 18.I might answere, that common sense would, that what he seem done, he should conceiue and acknowledge to be done. And charitie would (which selfe louelove would not) that if he discerned not the affinitie of this point with his pretended assumption; he should rather hauehave suspected his owne Analysis to be forced, then hauehave blamed me for his owne want of iudgement. But that he may discerne this passage concerning Elders to be pertinent to the matter in question; I would but intreat him, to take notice what is in question betweene vsus. The question, discussed in the Sermon, is twofold. The first de facto, whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by Presbyteries of such Elders, as they spake of. The second, de iure, whether the Church may lawfully be gouerned by Bishops, as we hold; or must needs be gouerned by their Presbyteries, as they affirme. The first questiō is handled in the former part of the Sermon, the second in the latter.
The question debated in the former part of the Sermon, I say againe, is this; whether the primitiue Churches were gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, such as (for the substance of their calling) ours be; or by such Presbyteries, as the Presbyterians stand for. And those, either parishionall, consisting of the Parish-Bishop, and a company of lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders, as the new and shallow sort of disciplinarians doe boldly, though ignorantly affirme: or Presbyteries in the cities, consisting of the president and other Presbyters, whereof some are Ministers, but the greater some lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders, as the Elder and more learned sort of disciplinarians doe teach.
*foreign. Arist. M… taph. li. 10. c. 5.In this question, as the refuter will confesse, (vnlesse he will confesse himselfe to be ignorant in logicke) this disiunction is implyed; either the Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, as we say; or by such Presbyteries, as they speake of. And this disiunction, though it be not absolutely necessarie, yet is it necessarie ex hypothesi, and so presupposed on both sides. For, this being the question, whether the Church were gouerned by Bishops,foreign Ibid. or such Presbyteries; it is granted on both sides, and agreed vponupon betwixt vsus, that it was gouerned either by the one or by the other: and that one, and but one of these assertions is true. For if both parts of the question or disiunction were true, it were but a foolish question,Pag. 6. in med. as the Phylosopher saith. And that this is the question betweene vsus, the refuter hath truely witnessed in respect of the parts of the disiunction, though in the latter he falsifieth my assertion, where he saith, the question betweene vsus is, whether the Churches should be gouerned by Pastors and Elders, or by Diocesan Bishops. The question indeed de facto for the time past, is, whether the primitiue Church were gouerned by Diocesan BB. or such Presbyteries as they speake of. The question de iure respecting also the time present and to come, is, whether the Church may or should be gouerned by Bishops as we say, or must be gouerned by their Presbyteries, as they affirme. This therefore being the question, whether by our Bishops, or their Presbyteries, and this question implying a necessarie disiunction: who seeth not that the disproofe of their Presbyteries, is a direct proofe for our Bishops. The disiunctiue argumentation standeth thus.
Either the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops, or by such Presbyteries as they stand for: But not by such Presbyteries as they stand for: Therefore by Diocesan Bishops.
The proposition is implyed in the very question betweene vsus: and the disiunction is therein by both parties presupposed as necessarie.
The assumption is, that first point of the fiue, which now we hauehave in hand. The conclusion determineth the assertion which in the former part of the Sermon was propounded to be proued, viz. that the primitiue Church was gouerned by Diocesan Bishops.
This passage therefore concerning Lay-Elders, will I hope be acknowledged not to be impertinent.
Sect. 2. The summe of that which in the Sermon was said concerning Lay-Elders.Now that the Church was not gouerned by such Presbyteries as they speake of, I proued in this passage. Because howsoeuer with great vehemencie the Presbyterian discipline by lay or only gouerning Elders hath beene by them vrged and obtruded vponupon vsus; yet they are not able to proue that euer there were any Presbyters which were not Ministers.
For, the question, which now we hauehave in hand, being, whether there were any such Presbyters in the primitiue Church, as were not Ministers: forasmuch as the Presbyterians are the opponents and plaintiffes, not onelyonly holding the affirmatiue, that there were such, but vehemently vrging that still there ought to be such; we contrariwise the respondents and defendants, holding the negatiue, to wit, that neither there were such, nor now need to be: the Reader therefore is to vnderstand, that, this burden of prouing, lieth vponupon them which hold and vrge the affirmatiue, that there were and still ought to be Lay-Elders: and that in vsus it is a sufficient proofe of the negatiue, if we can maintaine, that they are not able to proue the affirmatiue. And whereas all their proofes may be reduced to two heads, for either they be such testimonies where the worde foreign, or Presbyter is named, or where at the least the function it selfe is (as they suppose) meant; to these two heads therefore I oppose two contrarie assertions. The one, that the word foreign or Presbyter, doth alwayes signifie a Minister: the other, that there is no one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning the lay or onelyonly gouerning Elder. The former of them, being affirmatiue, I doe briefly confirme by three reasons; the latter, being such a negatiue as cannot otherwise be proued (for the induction of the particulars were infinite) I doe therefore maintaine it against the principall instances of the aduersaries. And this is the summe of this passage. Now I come to his cauils, with the particulars.
§ Sect. 3.The two assertions (which I did euen now mention) opposed to the two heads of their proofes, the refuter casteth into one Syllogisme, and hauing so done, wrangleth both with the substance of each proposition, and also with the manner of setting them downe. The Syllogisme is this.
If in the writings of the Apostles, the ancient fathers and councils the word foreign or Presbyter (noting an Ecclesiasticall person) doth euermore signifie a Minister or Priest, and there cannot any one pregnant testimonie be alledged out of the scriptures, councils or fathers, mentioning or meaning any Lay-annuall-onelyonly-gouerning-Presbyters, then were there no other Presbyters in the primitiue Church, but Ministers: but the antecedent is true, therefore the consequent.
In the antecedent of the proposition he noteth two parts:Ad pag. 11. His cauill against the former part of the antecedent and the consequence deduced therefrom. the former whereof he reiecteth as superfluous, because the latter is as firme and full without it. And yet hauing reiected the former, he saith the consequence is infirme and weake. But if the former be therefore superfluous, because the latter is firme and full without it, by this reason it shall not be lawfull for a man to bring two arguments for one thing, the one concluding the question without the other. Yea but these two are ioyned in one proposition, and therefore either must afford necessarie helpe to the other, or the one is superfluous. Blame him then that ioyned them, and disdaine th…t sophisticall shifts of the refuter, deuised to make himselfe worke. Yea but if they be not ioyned, the former wilbe weake and of no strength, for it will not suffice that I say the word Presbyter doth euermore signifie a Minister, vnlesse I added onelyonly. For though it alway signifie a Minister, yet it may also signifie him that is no Minister. But in mine vnderstanding, if it alwaies signifie a Minister, it neuer signifieth him that is not a Minister. Neither will it serue their turne that they make Presbyter the genus of teaching and gouerning-Elders, vnlesse they can shew, that as alwaies it signifieth a Minister, so in some place, an onelyonly-gouerning Elder also, and they must remember that in this cause of Elders, they are the opponents, and therefore they must proue that the places which they alledge for their Lay-presbyters, not onelyonly may, but of necessitie must be vnderstood of them, or else in vaine doe they vrge and obtrude them vponupon vsus.
And surely we must needs esteeme it a very partiall genus, and such as yet was neuer heard of, that is alwaies predicated of the one species, and neuer of the other. If animal, did alwaies signifie a man, and were neuer predicated of any other thing but man, we should hardly thinke it were the genus, but the selfe same species, and conuertible with it; as indeed Presbyter is with Minister, and therefore not the genus of it▪ and that I proued,foreign. Arist. Poster 17. when I said, it alwaies signifieth a Minister, because in english it is priest, and in the scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, and noteth such a person as must be foreign, able to preach.
But let him adde onelyonly if that would please him, though so much be signified without it. No, it will not serue the turne, for though Presbyter doe alwaies and onelyonly signifie a Minister, and neuer signifie an onelyonly gouerning Elder, yet there might bee gouerning Elders, who were signified by other names. Why but then there were no Presbyters but Ministers, which was the point to be proued. And what then becommeth (which is the chiefe scope of this place) of all those testimonies, wherein the word Presbyter is mentioned, which T. C. and others doe alledge; supposing the most of the places in the scriptures, councils and fathers, where foreign or, Presbyter is mentioned, to be so many proofes of your gouerning Elders? call you this a weake proofe, which doth not onelyonly at once bereaue you of all those testimonies where Presbyter is mentioned, and wherein your chiefe strength did lie;§ Sect. 4. His answere to the latter part, and to the consequence inferred thereon. but also proue, that there were no Presbyters but Ministers. This consequence therefore was not to be denied.
And much lesse the other. For if there cannot be produced so much as any one pregnant testimonie out of the scriptures, councils, or fathers, mentioning or meaning, any lay, annuall, onelyonly-gouerning Elders, with what proofs will they vrge them, or with what conscience can they obtrude them, as the ordinance of Christ? An argument taken from the scriptures alone negatiuè, was wont to be a sufficient disproofe of any pretended ordinance of Christ; and shall not an argument holde negatiuely from Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, and all?
Notwithstanding, the consequence must needs be infirme and weake, for although there be no proofe of any Lay-annuall-onelyonly gouerning elders, yet may there be, & indeed is for all that, proofe sufficient, for such only gouerning Presbyters as are ecclesi…sticall, & and to be perpetuall. Wherefore which way soeuer the proposition lye, the consequence therof I flatly deny, saith our ryming refuter.
But heere I intreat the Reader to trie the spirit of this Sophister. For if himselfe acknowledge, that my meaning is, simply to denie the onelyonly-gouerning Elders; then can hee not be excused from this imputation of setting himselfe to wrangle against conscience. But so much hee acknowledgeth, when hee commeth to the assumption, for otherwise he could not hauehave wrangled therewith.Pag. 12. M. D. meaing (saith he) is simply to denie all kinde onelyonly-gouerning Elders, therefore I denie the assumption. His meaning was not to denie all, but annuall and Lay-Elders, therefore I flatly denie the consequence.
Thus you see, how he is carried with a spirit of contradiction, not caring to gaine say himselfe, so hee may seeme to contradict mee. But so farre was the consequence from being to be denyed,Though by the refuter they were lewdly vnited as afterwards will appeare. because I mention Lay, and annuall, that rather it was to be graunted; These words being added, ad maiorem cautelam, and distinctly propounded, to make the consequence so much the stronger, and to signifie that I spake of all Elders whatsoeuer, that are not Ministers, call them as you will, whether Lay, or annuall; or onelyonly gouerning Elders.
And here againe, let the Reader obserue, that the new sect of Disciplinarians will not hauehave such Elders as lately were in Scotland, and still are at Geneua, and the Low Countreys▪ No, they scorne such, those be Lay & annuall, as you hauehave heard, but these may not be so.
Therfore let the elder sort of Disciplinarians be accounted wise, who, though they were faine to yeeld that the greater part of their presbyteries should be of the Laitie, yet they did foresee that the Ministers would beare the sway (as indeed they ought) because they were perpetuall, the others annuall, or but for a short time; whereas these men, making the Lay-Elders perpetuall, and referring matters to be ruled by pluralitie of voyces, absurdly subiect the Ministers to bee ruled and ouer-ruled by them, who, in the most Countrey-parishes, are more fitte to holde the plough then to sit at the sterne of the Church.
And so, desperate or franticke whether are they nowe growne, that although they make their parish-Bishop the supreme officer in the visible Church; and doe holde that eueryevery parish hath a sufficient and independent authoritie, immediately deriued from Christ,Supplicat. anno. 1609. for the gouernment of it selfe in all causes Ecclesiasticall: Notwithstanding, offer to submitte their Bishop and his Consistorie: yea, their whole visible Church, with their whole managing of causes Ecclesiasticall, to the ouersight and superintendencie of each Iustice of peace.
§ Sect. 5. H…s answere to the assumption and first to the former part, that Presbyter alwayes signifieth a Minister.Hauing thus wrangled with the proposition, hee setteth himselfe also against the assumption, containing the two aforesaide Assertions: The former whereof, viz: that the word Presbyter, (noting an Ecclesiasticall person, in the Church of Christ) euermore in the Scriptures, Councells, and Fathers, signifieth a Minister, hee denyeth. For, if the word onelyonly bee added▪ it is vtterly false. For I shall make it euident (saith hee) that the worde Presbyter doth sometimes signifie one that is not a Minister.A… pag. 12. And if it bee left out, it will be false neuerthelesse. For it shall appeare, that sometimes the word is vsed for an Ecclesiasticall person, that is no Minister.
So that, by his owne confession, all is one, whether the word onelyonly bee inserted or omitted, the contradictorie being one, and the same, that sometimes it signifieth one that is not a Minister.
But though hee delay the Reader for his owne proofes, (which I dare assure him will not satisfie his iudicious expectation) yet seeing he setteth himselfe to catch and snatch at eueryevery word, he should not hauehave passed by those argumēts …hereby I proued my Assertion, and I am perswaded, would not, if silence had not bene his best answere. For a man of his Acumen, might easily out of those fewe words hauehave raised three syllogismes, which he could not so easily answere. But the labour which hee thought best to spare, I will vndertake for him. For,
1. If the word Priest, (freed as it is in our Church, from the popish abuse, and conceiued without all relation to reall sacrifices) be the proper English of presbyter, as it noteth an Ecclesiasticall person, then presbyter signifieth a Minister onelyonly, and as well might question bee made whether there were any Lay-priests, as Lay-presbyters; but the former is true, therefore the latter.
2. That word, which in the Scriptures is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop, doth signifie a Minister onelyonly. But Presbyter by their owne confession,Cal. in Tit. is confounded with Episcopus, or Bishop. Therefore presbyter, doth signifie a Minister onelyonly.
3. That word, which being in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note such a person as by the Apostles rule must be foreign, able to preach, doth signifie a Minister of the word onelyonly; for in none but Ministers is that propertie required. But Presbyter is such a word, as beeing in the Scriptures confounded with Bishop, doth also note a person, who must by the Apostles rule be foreign, or able to preach. Therefore the word Presbyter, doth signifie a Minister onelyonly.
The latter part of his assumption (saith he) in case he vrge the words Lay, His answere to the latter part of the assumption.and annuall, may perhaps be true, and his cause neuer the better, nor ours the worse by it, it being enough for vsus, if there be Ecclesiasticall gouernours, which are no Ministers. You see then the cause of the new reformers, is not the cause of other reformed Churches, as I said.
But seeing M. D. saith hee, is simplie to denie all kinde of onelyonly gouerning Elders, I as plainely denie the assumption. So that both his propositions in this Syllogisme doe want their armour of proofe, and waite vponupon M. D. as two poore seruants vponupon their master for their cloth, before they can doe him any seruice.
Marke well the spirit of this man. For hauing denyed without reason the consequence of the proposition, being (euen as himselfe propoundeth it) vndeniable, were it not that he cauilled with the words Lay & annuall, which in his a…swere to the …ssumption, he confesseth were not to be cauilled with: and hauing barely denied both the former part of the assumption, which I fortified by 3. reasons, which hee could not answere, and also the latter, without any shew of reason, though the proofe of the contradictory in both lye vponupon him, (which course any man might take to answere the best argument that euer was propounded,) notwithstanding hee scornefully craketh, as if hee had done some great act, which might giuegive occasion to leaue fighting, and fall a crowing. For my part, I greatly wonder a… him, how he could either content himselfe, or hope to satisfie his reader with such answeres. For if it be a sufficient answere to say. I fl…tly deny the proposition, & I do as plainely deny … assumption; who cannot answere sufficiently any Syllogisme whatsoeuer? But if a man hauing thus answered, shall take occasion thereby to insult ouer his aduersary, verily as hee deludeth egregiously his Reader that is simple, so he maketh himselfe ridiculous, if not odious, to him that is iudicious.
§ Sect. 6. …:Hauing seene how substantially he hath dealt with the substance of each proposition, let vsus now see how mānerly … hee dealeth with the manner of laying them downe. For in regard thereof, he chargeth me with three no small faultes. First, inclination to popery: 2. falshood: 3. contempt and scorne. The which imputations, if he cannot make good by sound euidence, he will shew himselfe vnmanerly in obiecting them.
How then proueth hee the first? He saith, and saith it againe, that I delight to call the Ministers of the Gospell by the n…me of Priests, which all but those that are Popish, or desirous to please the Papists would rather forbeare.
First, I denie that those which call Ministers by the name of priests, are popish. For those worthie instruments vnderunder God, of that happie reformation, which is among vsus, & separation from Poperie, in the booke of Cōmon prayer, in the booke of Orders, and in other their writings, doe ordinarily vse that name. And when they distinguish the Clergie into three degrees, they vsually reckon these three orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, therein imitating the most ancient and purest writers, both of the Greek & Latin Church, who seldome vsing the word Minister, distinguish the same degrees by words of the same signification: viz. foreign: Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, that is, Bishops, Priests, Deacons.
Yea, but the Popish shauelings hauehave appropriated the words to themselues. , and protestant writers find fault with them for calling the Ministers of the Gospell by the name of Priests, to which purpose he alleadgeth D. Whitaker, & D. Raynolds Whereto I answere: of the word Priest, there are two vses, whereof the one is an abuse, the other is the right & proper vse of the word, according to the natiue signification therof. The abuse is, when it is ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospell, as it is the English of Sacerdos, which signifieth a Sacificing Priest, and implieth a relation to sacrifices. Thus the Papists abuse the name when they applie it to the Ministers of their Gospell, with relation to their sacrifice of the Masse.
And thus D. Whitaker denieth both Sacerdos and Priest (as it is the English of Sacerdos) to agree to the Ministers of the new Testament.Ad Duraeū. The right vse of the word is, when it is vsed as the English of Presbyter, and without any relation to sacrifice. For Presbyter is the name which the Apostles and all antiquitie gaue to the Ministers of the Gospell,Conf. with Ha…t. 4…3.464 and the English of Presbyter is Priest, as D. Raynolds doth confesse, where also he sheweth, that the Papists play the sophisters in vsing the word Priest, after a double sort, the one, as it is deriued from Presbyter, the other, as it signifieth the same that Sacerdos. For Priest, as i… signifieth a man appointed to Sacrifice is (c)foreignSacerdos, and not Presbyter. The name which the Apostles giuegive a Minister, (d)foreignis Presbyter and not Sacerdos.
And againe, though th' Apostles call the Ministers foreign, whence our English name of Priests is deriued; yet they did not call them priests, as the name of priest hath relation to Sacrifice. For the worde Priest hath two meanings: the one of foreign, the other of foreign, whereof the one is giuen by the Apostles, but doth not implie authoritie to sacrifice; the other, doth implie authoritie to Sacrifice, but is not giuen by the Apostles. It is plaine therefore, that the worde Priest is rightly vsed in the signification of presbyter, but abused, as I said, in the Sermon, to signifie Sacrificing priests.
I confesse, that the first Translators of the Bible into English, in these latter times, being, (as D. Fulke saith) not Lords of mens speech,Mo… trium literarum tyrannus. but ouer-ruled by the popish vse of the word, as it were by a tyrant, did giuegive the name priest to Sacrificing priests, as the papists doe, and hauing so done, when they were to translate foreign, Presbyteri, which doe not signifie Sacrificing priests, but Ministers of the Gospell, they auoided the name, least they might seeme with the papists, to make the Ministers of the Gospell Sacrificing priests. And so I doe confesse that their purpose was godly, who translated presbyters not priests, but Elders: though I dare not say that the cause was sufficient. For if they had called Sacerdotes Sacrificers, as the French doe in their Translations,Sacrificateurs. they might safely hauehave giuen the Name Priest to the Ministers, and left the name of Sacrificers to the popish priests.
The name Priest saith D. Fulke, wee doe not finde fault with, as it commeth of presbyter, Co…r. Rhem. in Matth. 23. S. …. In Act. 14. S. 4.but as it is commonly vsed for a Sacrificing priest.
Againe, as for the name priest, as it is deriued of the Greeke, wee doe not refuse it, but rather wish that the Sacrificers of the Law had neuer bene called by it.
And againe more fullie, wee doe not contend for the terms, nor refuse the name priest,In Lam. 5 l. 4. when it signifieth the same whome the Apostle calleth presbyter: but when by abuse and vaine cauillation of papists, it is taken to signifie a Sacrificer.
To conclude therefore, according to the true Etymologie, wee confesse the name to be good, and doe vse it in our seruice booke and otherwise, knowing that it implieth no sacrificing, as you most fondly and ridiculously would enforce out of it. But in Translation, because by common speech a priest was taken for a Sacrificer, and the Translators had no other name, whereby to call the Sacrificers of the Lawe, but priests, to make and obserue that difference which the holie Ghost alwayes obserueth in the Newe Testament, they call the one Priests, the other Elders. But if they had called the one Sacrificers, and the other priests, that priests might hauehave bene knowne to differ from Sacrificers, it had bene a small matter, and perhaps hindered you of this vaine quarrell. It is not a popish abuse therefore to call Ministers priests, but to giuegive the name priest, to Sacrificers.
And likewise, it is an abuse of Innouators, to giuegive the Name presbyter, or foreign, (as it is a name of an office, and not of age,) which is proper to Ministers, to them who are no priests. Who, though they may be called Saecerdotes, that is, Sacrificers, as all Christians may, yet presbyters they cannot truely be called.
But how doth hee proue that I delight to hauehave the Ministers of the Gospell called priests? Forsooth because there was no necessitie laid vponupon me to call them so, but might hauehave contended my selfe with the name of Ministers.
Whereto I answere, that I mention the Name Priest, (the proper English of presbyter;) as a necessarie argument, to proue that foreign or presbyter, doth signifie a Minister, as I shewed before, affirming that they might as well make question, whether there were any Lay-priests as Lay-presbyters. For this was the first argument of the three; to none whereof the refuter could see any necessitie laide vponupon him to answere. It is necessarie with him (belike,) to wrangle with words, but not to answere arguments.
Now to conclude my answere to his first accusation, I appeale to the refuter himselfe, and to all which either know mee, or hauehave read my other Bookes; whether this imputation was laid to my charge, out of an vpright conscience, or not rather out of an vncharitable desire to bring mee, though vniustlie, into the dislike of the people, to whom the Name priest is odious, as D. Fulke truely noteth; because they knowe not the Etymologie of it.nMatt. 23. For if they knew that the English word Priest, as also the like wordes in French and Italian, were deriued from Presbyter, and that foreign, or Presbyter, is the name which the holie Ghost and all antiquitie ordinarilie giueth to the Ministers of the Newe-Testament; They would rather condemne them that abuse, either the name Priest, to Sacrificers, as the Papists do; or the name Presbyter, wherof Priest is the true English, to signifie Lay-Elders, as our Disciplinarians doe: then hee would mislike our Church, which vseth the word aright? Namely, as the proper and true English of Presbyter, from whence it is deriued, without anie relation to Sacrifices at all.
Wherevnto this is to be added, that howsoeuer our first Translators in King Henrie his time, auoyding the worde priest, translated Presbyteri, by Elders; Yet by Elders they vnderstood no other but Ministers. As appeareth by this speech of M. Tindall.
Presbyteri Pag. 251.All that were called Elders (or Priests, if they so will,) were called BB. also.
§Sect. 7. His second accusation, chargeth mee vvith vntruth.Secondly, hee chargeth mee with vntruth, for saying, that question might as well bee made, whether there were annuall Ministers, or Lay-Priests, as annuall or Lay-Presbyters.
But this I prooued, when I demonstrated by three arguments, that foreign or presbyter, doth signifie none but a Minister.Ad Pag. 13. For if foreign, or presbyter, as it is the name of an Ecclesiasticall office, doth signifie nothing but a minister or priest, as I prooued; then that question might as well bee made of Ministers or Priests, as of presbyters.
But how I pray you doth hee conuince mee of falshood? with an if begging the question, if Presbyter doth not signifie onelyonly a Minister, then question may be made of Lay-Presbyters, though not of annuall Ministers or Lay-Priests. As if hee should hauehave said, if you will graunt mee the question, and denie that which you hauehave already prooued, and I could not answere, then I shalbe able to charge you with vntruth. Yea, but the vntruth of my speech was before manifest in the former part of the answere to the proposition . His words there, be these: that the consequence is weake, because there might be other Presbyters in the primitiue Church, though the word Presbyter did euermore signifie a Minister.
So that this was but a poore shift for want of proofe to referre the Reader as oft he doth to another place, where he should find little to the purpose. In both places, as you see, all that he can say is, that seeing it might be there were Presbyters that were not Ministers, and if there were such, which I hauehave disproued, then that would appeare to be false, which I hauehave proued to be most true.
I come to his third accusation:§ Sect. 8. The third i…putation of scorne and contempt. It would be noted saith he, with what contempt and scorne he calleth the Elders in question, Lay-annuall-onelyonly-gouerning Elders. And it would be noted say I, with how bad a conscience he wilfully depraueth the manner of vttering my words, to giuegive some small colour both to his vnconscionable denyall of the proposition which himselfe contradicted in answere to the assumption; and also to this forged calumniation. For whereas I propounded the words distinctly with a Comma or note of distinction, lay, annuall, onelyonly-gouerning Presbyters, vsing these diuers titles more fully and certainely to expresse whom I meant; he hath ioyned them with notes of vnion Lay-annuall-onelyonly-gouerning Elders , as if I had in contempt & scorne of them, framed a nickname for them, compounded of all these words.
And whereas he saith, that I call them lay in disgrace of the Elders, and reproach of those who stand for them, as though they committed the gouernement of the Church to such as are base and priuate persons: the truth is, that he disgraceth the laitie intollerably, as if there were no lay persons but base and priuate men. Indeed if I had said, that such men as be not of the Clergie, are to be called idiotae, (as some of your side would hauehave them called, rather then lay men) you might hauehave had some colourable pretence for this accusation. But when with Caluin we diuide the whole Church into the clergie and laitie:Instit. li. 4. c. 12. li. 1. vnderunder the laitie, we comprehend the noble as well as the base, and publike persons as well as priuate, and men of excellent gifts as well as Idiots.
And it is but a seely exception, which you doe vsually make, that you would not hauehave them called lay, but Ecclesiasticall. For first, that word doth not distinguish them from the Ministers. And secondly, because Ecclesia the Church, being diuided into the Clergie, and laitie, those which be lay men (as not being of the Clergie,) may hauehave Ecclesiasticall offices, and in regard thereof may be called Ecclesiasticall officers, as Church wardens among vsus, officials, Chancellers, and commissioners in causes Ecclesiasticall, as well as your Elders, whom though you make Ecclesiasticall officers, yet you cannot denie them to be Lay-Elders.
Let our great Clergie men saith he, know and be all men by these presents giuen to vnderstand &c.Now to auoide this imagined disgrace, he would hauehave all men to take notice, what manner of persons they would hauehave by prayer and imposition of hands ordained and set a part to this Ecclesiasticall office: not such as each parish is like to afford, but according to the vtopicall Idea conceiued in their owne braine. And though there must be many of them in eueryevery parish, men religious, of great grauitie and pietie (you may be sure) and of good yeares, adioyned to the Ministers: and though matters are to be carried by pluralitie of voices, eueryevery one hauing the like right of suffrage; yet we must not in any case thinke, that they will ouer-rule the Minister, but be altogether ruled and directed by him.De grad. Ministr. cap. 11. Beza saith, that in the sacred senate, which is called the Presbyterie, there is no superioritie of degree or power, but a distinction of order; and that all matters are managed by common and equall right in giuing their voices: the whole consistorie being for that cause called a Presbyterie, because, howsoeuer otherwise there may be distinction of degrees among them, yet in this common function the Ministers are made equall with the Elders, and the Elders with the Ministers. So that they wrong them shrewdly, who shall say, where all hauehave equall right, and where all things are swaied by the greater number of voices, the one or two voices at the most of the Ministers, are like to be ouer-ruled by the multitude of Elders.
Serm. Sect. 2. pag. 8.§ Sect. 9. The dese… of the 2. se… on, seruing proue that there are … sound testimonies fo… Lay-Elders and that the… are but two that I thou… worth the a…swering. For although many places are vsually alledged out of the scriptures and fathers: yet I doe vnfainedly professe, that to my knowledge there are onelyonly two allegations, which I esteeme worth the answering. The one, out of 1. Tim. 5. the other out of Ambrose on the same chapter.
Where the words of the abortiue booke seemed bitter and spitefull enough,Ad pag. 1. there our refuter followeth that copy: otherwise to that potion of worme-wood, he addeth an infusion of gall, as in this place. It is strange saith the abortiue booke, that a man of such skill in logicke as I acknowledge D. D. to be &c: and more strange that one of his temper &c: is it fit for D. D. modestie, &c. Not so, saith the libeller, you must not attribute any skill in logicke, or modestie to him now: wee must make our followers belieue, that since he hath written in defence of the Antichristian calling of the prelates, those petite popes, he hath lost all modestie, and skill in logicke too. For if we cannot answere his argumēts, nor take away his answeres, let vsus disgrace his person: so will our followers be sure to preiudge any thing he saith, and which is our desire, the people whom he thought to satisfie, shalbe kept in the same tearmes they were wont. But my purpose is not by reciting his words to spread this part of his spitefull libell, and much lesse by vouchsafing an answere to multiply words in this kind with so odious a wrangler. To passe by therefore his barking eloquence, or dogge-rhetoricke, the reader is to vnderstand that in this section and those which follow, I endeuour to defend the two former assertions, viz. that they can neither proue that the word Presbyter doth signifie any but a Minister, nor yet produce any one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning their lay or onelyonly-gouerning-Elders.
Now I would know of my aduersarie for my learning, how such a negatiue as this should be maintained. Whether, by induction of particulars, or by speciall insisting vponupon the instances which the aduersaries giuegive: not the former, for that were to examine eueryevery sentence in the scriptures, councels and fathers, which were infinite. If the latter, should I in one of the least parts intended in the Sermon, where I had promised breuitie, stand vponupon eueryevery particular allegation which could hardly hauehave beene discussed in a whole Sermon? or should I make choise of some of the principall, which are of more weight then all the rest? the latter course I was necessarily to make choise of. And therefore supposing our opposites to insist on those two testimonies, which are of more weight then all the rest, yea then all, that all of them can say besides in this cause, I endeuoured to defend my assertions against them. And although I did not intend to dispute Syllogistically as the opponent, but to defend the truth as the respondent; yet this my defensiue answere is brought to the anuill, and forged into a Syllogisme after this manner.
If neither Paul in 1. Tim. 5.17. nor Ambrose vponupon 1. Tim. 5.1. (he should hauehave added, which two allegations onelyonly I esteeme worth the answering, or which two are of more worth then all the rest) doe not mention or meane any lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders, then no pregnant testimonie can be alledged to that purpose. But neither doth Paul, nor Ambrose, in those places mention or meane any lay or onelyonly gouerning Elders: Therefore no pregnant testimonie can be produced to that purpose.The refuters three wonders.
In answering the proposition, he wonders, and wonders againe at three things. § Sect. 10.First at my want of modestie, in that I gloriously despise, and insolently reiect the iudgements of those diuines, who besides those two, alledge many other testimonies, when I say, I esteeme these two onelyonly worth the answering. Whereunto I answere, that I esteemed no other, in that shortnesse of time, worthy to be stood vponupon but those two.
And if that answere will not suffice him, I plainely professe, and yet without despising the iudgement of any learned man, that these two testimonies are the two maine pillars, whereon their whole building leaneth: and that, as their other testimonies depend vponupon the presupposall of these as giuing witnesse to their Lay-Elders: so these being taken from them, the rest hauehave scarcely any probabilitie in them, but may as easily be reiected, as obiected. And this I will say, because I am so indignely prouoked, that if my aduersarie, or any of his copartners, can produce but any one testimonie, either out of scriptures, or fathers, that either may be compared with either of these, or that in it selfe, without an eye to these, hath so much as any shew of a necessary or demonstratiue proofe, I will then be content, that they should wonder, & wōder again, at my want of modestie.
Secondly, he wonders at my want of logicke in making so feeble a consequence. The consequence, though it be not absolutely necessarie, yet vponupon supposall, that these are the two chiefe proofes, without which, all they can say besides for their Elders, is scarce worth the answering, it is necessarie. For, if any testimonies proue their Elders, then certainely the chiefe, and which be, as it were, all in all.
Thirdly, he wondreth at the weake proppe, whereby this consequence is vnderset; which is my vnfained profession, that to my knowledge, there were onelyonly these two allegations, which I esteemed (in that shortnesse of time) worth the answering; which was reason sufficient for my insisting on those two alone. If this proppe be so weake, let his knowledge, and the skill of all his adherents, shew but one other testimonie comparable to these two. But that he may leaue both wondring and wandring, I doe againe plainely and confidently affirme, that the whole cause of the Lay-Elders relieth on these two places; and therefore as in the former negatiue assertion I did imply; so now I expresse, a challenge to him and all his partakers, to produce any one such testimonie if they can. This challenge I say was implyed, when I professed that they cannot alledge out of the scriptures, Councels, or Fathers, any one pregnant testimonie mentioning or meaning, any lay, or onelyonly gouerning Elders.
§ Sect. 11. Ad pag. 15.To this challenge, what doth our insulting refuter, reply? Sundry others besides these two I both could and would alledge, and approue also (I doubt not) to all iudicious and indifferent men,His answere to the challenge. but that others before now hauehave said enough to that purpose. And at this time, (professing my selfe an answerer onelyonly, not an opponent) it is not my (a)The abort…e booke hath the…e worde, no man can reasonably looke that we should dispute the question.part to dispute the questions, but d…fend the truth, so farre onelyonly as M. D. opposeth to it in his Sermon.
In which words, though he dares not, as you see, accept the challenge, yet he setteth a good face vponupon it. For whereas I said, and say againe, that besides these two testimonies, they can produce no more of any moment in comparison; he saith, that hee both could and would produce many more. He would, I doe not doubt, if he could: but because he doth not, you may be assured, he cannot. What he, and all of them can doe, he performeth afterwards, when he will let you see that they can strike also; and yet that all, is as nothing to these two.
The reasons of his refusall are two; the one, because others before now, hauehave said enough to that purpose ; but that I denied vponupon certaine knowledge. And what they hauehave said to any purpose, hath beene confuted also before now; and that, though often repeated, and oft refuted, as threedbare as it is, himselfe doth afterwards produce, hauing nothing to say, that hath so much as a good shew of a necessarie proofe, as hereafter shall appeare. The other, because he being the answerer onelyonly, and not the opponent, it is not his part, neither can it reasonably be expected at his hands, that he should dispute the questions, but onelyonly defend the truth.
The which is a sophisticall, and if I may freely speake what I truely thinke, a lewde shift, to elude my answeres and the reasons thereof, and to delude the vnlearned Reader.
For who I pray you, be the opponents and plaintiffes in this controuersie, wee or they? Those which be in possession doe not vse to be plaintiffes.
Neither would there hauehave beene any controuersie betwixt vsus, if they did not oppose: forasmuch therefore as they are the opponents, vrging the pretended discipline; we the defendants maintaining the established discipline among vsus; it is a sufficient defence of our cause, especially where wee hold the negatiue, if wee shewe that their proofes are not sufficient; and their proofes are not sufficient, which doe not necessarily and ineuitably proue, that which they vrge.
Neither let them euer hope to bring in their Lay-Elders, till they hauehave necessarily proued that they ought to be admitted.
But the lewdnes of this shift is then most manifest, when as I ex professo vndertaking to answere their obiections, he will needs make me the opponent: and where it is required of them, necessarily to proue what they say, and is sufficient for me, to shew that their proofe is not necessarie; absurdly, against all order of disputation, he maketh himselfe the respondent, and me the opponent. So that my answeres must be put into Syllogismes, and his proofes be thought sufficient, if he can but say, that they make not against his cause, though they doe not proue it. Examples of this shamefull dealing wee shall not want long. For in the discussing of their allegation out of 1. Tim. 5.17. which is their chiefe obiection, it is most manifest, that they are the opponents, and I the answerer. But my aduersarie maketh me the opponent, and my answeres must be oppositions, and so put into Syllogismes: and in the end as you shall see, whereas that is the onelyonly place in scripture which they can with any shew of necessarie proofe alledge for their Elders; hee would make the Reader belieue, that he hath acquited himselfe well, if their Elders be not necessarily disproued out of that place. When indeed, if they be not necessarily and ineuitably proued out of it, they hauehave no ground nor warrant for them in the scriptures.
Againe in my preface (where the refuter vnderstandeth me to hauehave made a challenge,§ Sect. 12. & as it were to hauehave cast down the gantlet) as I desired they would distinctly answere my arguments, so also that they would produce their proofes, (for it is an easier thing to pull downe, at least to seeme so, then to set vp:) in his answere to my preface, he accepteth of the offer, acknowledging that I desire nothing but reason; and doth not onelyonly promise to satisfie my desire, but also beareth the Reader in hand, that hee hath brought sound demonstrations, pregnant proofes, arguments strongly grounded vponupon the scriptures, &c: but now, when he should come to the performance, when I againe renew the challenge; auerring, that they hauehave no such proofes, and exspecting that he should produce them, if he hauehave any: his answere is, that alas he is the respondent, and it cannot with any reason be exspected, that he should bring proofes or dispute the questions.
And that you may yet more fully note the absurditie of this disputer, (of whose great acts in this booke, I heare no small vants) though he say, it is not his part to produce proofes, neither can it with reason be exspected of him, which afore he confessed to be reason: yet this is to be vnderstood of needfull proofes, whereby hee might proue something, which is by vsus denied. But if there be any thing, which seemeth to make for his cause, and which we freely confesse, as for example, the consent of diuerse protestant writers with them in some things, there he will be sure, to be plentifull in prouing of that, which no man doth denie.
And this is the chiefe thing, which he and his consorts in compiling this booke, hauehave laboured. As if they should hauehave said: doe you indeed grant, that diuerse protestant writers expound such and such places as we doe? and doe you not denie, but that diuerse of them agree with vsus in some things? Mary that will we proue at large, and although reason grounded on scripture, testimonie of antiquitie, and no small consent of newe writers be against vsus: yet we will make a faire muster of those newe writers which be for vsus: and though the greatest part of them be parties in the cause as well as our selues, yet we will alledge them as witnesses without exception, and will neuer hauehave done with alledging their testimonies. For though the learned will easily discerne the desperatenesse of our cause, yet the vnlearned sort, who are carried away with shewes, seeing such a multitude of learned men on our side, will still cleaue vntounto vsus, &c.
And this shall suffice (saith hee) for his proposition. To his assumption I answere, by denying it, and affirming that both these places doe speake of onelyonly gouerning Elders, and that I will cleare (as the opponent, no doubt) by the places themselues, which now come to be handled.